Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/2011/January

Missing edits in edit count
For some reason, my edit count listed in Special:Preferences is only 5, while I have more than 50 contributions listed in Special:Contributions/MC10. Can someone explain why? Thanks. — mc10 ( t / c ) 01:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have the same issue. According to prefs, I have 56 edits, although a look at my contribs shows around a hundred. My guess is that the counter doesn't include transwiki edits. Tempodivalse 02:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Both of you made many edits to templates at Wikipedia and those have been pulled in via history imports of useful templates.  Your preferences edit count reflects the true value of the number of edits at Wikibooks.  In a way, your reputations precede you. – Adrignola talk 16:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Bicycles
Hello all! I was hoping to get some input on the Bicycles wikibook. I'd really like to make it more useful and more accessible to readers, and perhaps get it on its way to being a Featured Book. I would appreciate some opinions on the book, and suggestions on what might be done. I do recognize there is an NPOV issue throughout the book, and I will be fixing that in the coming month. Thanks in advance, Thereen (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC).


 * A very basic item would be to add navigation links to the pages. The modifications page is pretty light on content with only one subpage.  I don't know how involved you are with bicycle repair, but pictures for the maintenance pages would be helpful.  Fixing a flat is a good example. – Adrignola talk 15:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I can volunteer to help out a bit with the book. I noticed that the book explains safety, types or riding, maintenance, etc., quite well, but currently doesn't mention how to actually ride a bike (i.e. for an absolute beginner who's never ridden before). Maybe it should, to be totally comprehensive? A lot of people still cannot ride a bicycle, not like it's common knowledge. Tempodivalse 17:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Excellent suggestion! I had not considered a comprehensive approach to actually riding a bicycle. Any work done on the book would be extremely welcomed. Frankly I'm a bit baffled by the process of overhauling a text. Thereen (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay. I've decided to be WB:BOLD and split the book up into two major sections. I'm not sure this is ideal, but it's the best I could come up with at the moment. Please make suggestions or edit things as you see fit. Tempodivalse 16:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Scrabble
I've been wanting to create a Wikibook on the Scrabble board game. However, does this particular game meet the "noteworthiness" criteria for game subjects? (I note we have a Monopoly wikibook, which is similar in popularity.) It is somewhat popular; last year there was a World Scrabble Championship with a large prize pool. Thoughts? Tempodivalse 02:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware there was a noteworthiness criteria for game subjects, but maybe you've read some stipulation somewhere that I've forgotten. I know there's policy against video game strategy guides, but board games have a lot of precedence here.  Looking at what you've done to expand the existing Accordion book, I'd be interested to see how one on Scrabble would look. – Adrignola talk 03:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean that there is a definite noteworthiness criteria, just that what I gather there seems to be an "unwritten rule" of not writing about obscure things not deemed useful to many people. For instance, we have many card game books as well as Go and Monopoly, so I thought that a Scrabble book would be in the same vein. Tempodivalse 03:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I found w:User:Denelson83/Scrabble board which might be useful to adapt for your purposes. – Adrignola talk 04:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! That will be helpful. I think I'll start the book soon seeing as there is some precedence for board games. Tempodivalse 18:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

What the outside world says about Wikibooks
Is there a page which provides links to external comments about Wikibooks? Links to material like the research papers written by Curtis Bonk and his collegues (here), or any relevant discussions on Meta could be brought together for handy reference. Recent Runes (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There is Wikibooks in the media though Adrignola marked it a historical page. Nobody had added to it in 3 years probably because people rarely notice when Wikibooks makes the news. --dark lama  22:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's a recent brief mention (7th January) : "Using the principles that power Wikipedia, everyone can now create their own wiki with platforms like PBWorks or Wikia.com. Wikified educational content can be found at Curriki.org, Wikiversity.org and Wikibooks."--Wisden (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, but I think we are looking for something more substantial like the Bonk papers that might be interesting for people to read. As serious research or comment on Wikibooks is not published frequently, my question relates more to where we can record the most significant examples. The Wikibooks in the media page does not seem quite right, so maybe a section for external links could be added to our Welcome page. Recent Runes (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, such resources can be used to back up additions to our entry at Wikipedia, which has not seen much love in comparison to Wikipedia's entry on Wikipedia. – Adrignola talk 01:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Backgrounds in Monobook
Why are the backgrounds of all the non-mainspace pages changed to white? :( They're still shaded in WP and ZHWB... Kayau 06:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you using the "awesome background" gadget? I've not known the background on Monobook or Vector to be anything other than white. – Adrignola talk 13:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not that kind of background. The background of the things that are placed above that kind of background. Kayau 15:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The background has always looked the same to me for any namespace at any Wikimedia project with any skin, without the use of any gadgets and without changing my personal skin. Maybe the background change only works with some web browser? --dark lama  15:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In the past, and in WP and ZHWB right now, all pages in monobook but mainspace pages are slightly shaded, both in Chrome and IE. I don't use any gadgets or scripts that change this. Kayau 10:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Centering Equations
I am adding pages to an existing Wikibook. My equations (png-rendered) are all left-aligned, and I think they'd look much clearer if they were in the centre. Any idea how to achieve this? (I'd like to avoid changing CSS if possible, as I'm not the owner of the book.) Sample page at SPM/The_DCM_Equation._3._Networks_and_Matrices. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.160.116 (discuss) 10:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like ... does the trick, as in $$z(t + 1) = Az(t) \,$$ --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 17:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikibooks:Manual of Style suggests that equations should only be tabbed over with : however. – Adrignola discuss 19:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much to both of you, looking much better now.

book wikification help needed
Hi, I wrote Croatian Chess book and uploaded it at WikiMedia Croatian_chess_2nd_ed.pdf. I'd really appreciate if any of you reading this could volunteer to get the book wikified properly. TIA! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmlacak (discuss • contribs) 03:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Editor review
I'm wonder if the WB community could do a editor review for me. Just tell me what things I've done wrong, how I should improve etc. Thanks! Kayau 14:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * History of Hong Kong is coming along pretty well. So is Wikijunior:The Book of Estimation.  Hope you finish them both.  Wikijunior:Particles is very nice and is complete.  There was a while when I thought we lost you to Wikia.  I'd be hard-pressed to come up with criticisms when you've been working steadily on content creation for some time now.  – Adrignola discuss 15:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! (LOL I just stopped editing for a while because my book on the ancient history of Hong Kong was overdue. :P) Kayau 15:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Digital Radiography - Physics Text
I'm planning a wikibook entitled Basic Physics of Digital Radiography and would welcome any contributions.

The intent is an undergrad text which succinctly explains the physical basis of X-Rays and their contemporary application in diagnostic radiography. The wikibook is addressed primarily to students with foundations in anatomy and physiology and could also be of interest to physics and engineering students requiring a topic overview.

I'll provide an outline before I start the text proper. Any advice appreciated and acknowledged.

Kieran marz (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Just have to say that I look forward to it, given that the book you contributed heavily to previously, Basic Physics of Nuclear Medicine was declared a featured book. Some changes since you last did most of your work: free images are now uploaded to a shared media repository but are used just as they always have, and the upload link is in the same place; images of formulas will likely be deleted there as unnecessary&mdash;see m:Help:Displaying a formula for information on how to do it with the built-in code. – Adrignola talk 03:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Attribution in An Introduction to Molecular Biology
This book is being written by copying material from Wikipedia, so far without attribution. I have left the author a message on their talk page, but I think it would be useful for someone who knows the correct procedure to give the author some more practical guidance. Recent Runes (discuss • contribs) 19:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As an administrator, you know the procedure, however. It's to request an import of the history at Requests for import. – Adrignola discuss 22:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * So are we saying all the existing material from Wikipedia needs to be deleted (probably complete pages in some cases) and all significant source pages copied here using the RFI procedure? I get the impression that the guy is copying extracts from a number of different Wikipedia pages into one book page, so he might then need administrative help merging their histories together. Although I was aware such processes existed, as I had not performed them myself I was not completely clear about the practical details. Recent Runes (discuss • contribs) 22:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry to butt in, but wouldn't simply having a prominent boilerplate notice (like "This page includes content copied from the English Wikipedia") be enough for attribution purposes in lieu of a transwiki? Both projects operate under 3.0 licenses, so they should be compatible, right? Tempodivalse 23:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Either you people help me merging history or i should follow idea of Tempodivalse. Please let me know the procedure. Thankskaushlendratripathi


 * If the content is from various sources per page, then scratch the idea of importing histories. That'd be too much work and would yield a useless page history.  We do have WikipediaCredit for fulfilling Tempo's idea.  But that's almost too generic and I'm not sure if it's compliant with the attribution requirement for the licensing.  The best practice would have been to make a different edit adding content for each source used, copying and pasting the link from the browser address bar that you see when you click on "permanent link" in the toolbox for each Wikipedia page used as a source.   But I've thought of a solution that provides attribution, works without importing history, and works even if the content is already there; you can use inline references to provide permanent links to the Wikipedia pages in question. – Adrignola discuss 00:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As an example I tried it on the page An_Introduction_to_Molecular_Biology/Macromolecules_and_Cells - is that right? Recent Runes (discuss • contribs) 00:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * that i have already told to Runes that i will add reference (including inline refrences) later. I thinks this idea is good. Please let me know. Any other idea and suggestions are welcome. thanks kaushlendratripathi


 * HI guys i am going to write again. If any other suggestion please let me know. thanks. kaushlendratripathi


 * The inline referencing test by Recent Runes looks good. – Adrignola discuss 01:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I see that WikipediaCredit had only been used previously for 4 pages. Given its questionable status regarding compliance with licensing requirements, I think its use should be discouraged. (Except perhaps where detailed source references and links are also shown in the page history.) Recent Runes (discuss • contribs) 23:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Shameful. If only the creator of Network Plus Certification/Footer had known then what we know now. – Adrignola discuss 01:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am agree with Adrignola . Now i think i should promote this banner. I will add references later on any way this book, which i have started is going to be very useful for both college and University Graduate students. kaushlendratripathi


 * I was in agreement that the template shouldn't be promoted, though. Please use the references notation discussed above and demonstrated by Recent Runes. – Adrignola discuss 14:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ok i will remove the banner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaushlendratripathi (discuss • contribs)
 * Maybe Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia helps. Kayau 06:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)