Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/2013/February

About Potential New Books
Спасибо, Дональд Артур Kronos. You don't mistaken.Я хочу знать о Ваших планах и действиях.--Astrofilosof (discuss • contribs) 23:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I would like to rename a main page in the Guitar book
Any chance that I could get this:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Guitar/Setting_up_the_Guitar

renamed to Tuning the Guitar

Setting up (or set-up) usually refers to setting the action and intonation. Also the Getting Started section should have Tuning the Guitar in its heading list since that is the earliest obstacle to overcome. If it is renamed then I'll remove the text about amps which shouldn't in this section and hopefully the page will be kept solely to describe tuning methods, etc.

--Sluffs (discuss • contribs) 15:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can move the whole book to a new name. I'll do it as it is easier for an admin to sort out any problem redirects, etc. QU TalkQu 16:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for changing the name. --Sluffs (discuss • contribs) 16:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Help with footnote citations
Hi folks.. can someone check my method of using hypertext footnotes for citations on this page: OER Literature Review. Any assistance in getting this done greatly appreciated. leighblackall (discuss • contribs) 04:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Re-formatting mathematics
Could someone please use some mark-up to improve

Mathematics of the Jewish Calendar/Gauss' Formula for the Date of Pesach.

It contains several fractions that I have just had to write as x/y. Thanks.--Abramsky (discuss • contribs) 12:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I made a start on it. The page that describes how to do it is Help:Formulas (although I would have called it Help:Formulae :-).  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 18:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That's most helpful, thanks.--Abramsky (discuss • contribs) 12:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Google Summer of Code
Hi All,

Over the last few months I have been putting the finishing touches to a wikibook for computing students in England. I've struggled with exporting the wikibook to pdf and other formats. I was wondering if anyone here would support me in raising a google summer of code request to improve the pdf/latex export from wikibooks? Pluke (discuss • contribs) 16:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What does "support" imply? If you are struggling to export, then I can help with that as I know how to work the existing (unfriendly) system. QU TalkQu 17:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I can only provide moral support for PDF exporting (which I would like to see improved). If "other formats" includes EPUB, wikisource has an exporting tool called WSExport that works quite well.  I don't know how well it will work for your purposes, or if you even want it, but the developer is a French Wikisourcer called Tpt.  He might be able to help. - AdamBMorgan (discuss • contribs) 22:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This tool looks very interesting and I'd love to try it out on wikibooks, is there a sysadmin out there who could help me test it? Pluke (discuss • contribs) 11:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * UPDATE Tpt has offered to implement WSExport for wikibooks if there is enough need for it. I think getting an epub exporter would be a fantastic edition, especially with all those ebook readers out there.  Can you please let you support at: http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource_talk:WSexport#Implmenting_in_Wikibooks Pluke (discuss • contribs) 19:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, just another quick request for some support on this. I think this tool would be a great addition to WB. Pluke (discuss • contribs) 14:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Rejuvenating a stagnant Wikibooks
Darn it, can't believe I can't spell 'stagnant'. Thanks spellcheck.

Anyway, after returning from a particularly long wikibreak, it was great to see that the most of the old regulars are still here, but not so great to see that there weren't a lot of new regulars. I've been brainstorming these ideas in my head over the last few days, and I hope to discuss with the community on these. Kayau (talk · contribs) 00:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Promotion
We really need more people to know about WB. The small community, slow discussions and lack of new featured books displays a lack of new regular users. Here are some suggestions: Feel free to add your suggestions to the list. Kayau (talk · contribs) 00:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * WN can be found on Google News. Is there any chance of getting WB featured books on Google Books?
 * How about providing mobi versions of featured books in the Kindle Book Store (free of course)?
 * Even if we don't do that on Amazon, can we introduce a feature to turn the HTML print versions of FBs into mobi and ePub books? Look at Project Gutenberg - they have a dozen formats for each book.
 * How about collaborating with Calibre?
 * I've heard of WP ads before. Maybe WB ads which encourage people to come and edit? (This one must be done with care, of course.)
 * WB is really lacking collaboration at the moment. Most books have one or at most two active authors who do everything for the book. How about interwiki collaboration by 'recruiting' from the corresponding WikiProjects in WP?

Editor retention
In my opinion, the lack of new regulars in the RRs shows that new editors either focus on their own work and are thus not actively participating in the community, or that they simply lose interest and leave. While I'm not saying it's bad to focus on content creation, this can often lead to the authors leaving once they've finished their books. Fee free to add your suggestions to the list. Kayau (talk · contribs) 00:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's face it, we all need to boost our egos a bit sometimes. How about we introduce a service award system, as well as some more barnstars?
 * An editor who automatically receives reviewer status has probably learnt the ropes already. How about introducing RC patrolling to them so that they get more involved in the community?
 * WB competitions can certainly keep morale high. This is much more difficult on WB than on WN and WP because it's hard to measure the work. However, with community consensus we can (hopefully!) come up with criteria that will allow editors to compete in a more effective way.

Other
Feel free to add your suggestions to the list. Kayau (talk · contribs) 00:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To be honest, the Main Page is one of the most boring among the WMF projects. I suggest:
 * An area for newly started books. This is for bringing editors into those books
 * A mini-community portal
 * Featured pictures (like WV and WP). It's not hard to do that, seeing that, with the Commons, we can 'steal' FPs from WP ...
 * Featured 'modules' - pages of incomplete books that have been done really well. This is also to promote those books.
 * At least one of these sections should be 'daily' in order to stimulate discussion.


 * All the wikimedian sisters, including Wikipedia, are declining. It's standard to say 'we need to reach out to potential contributors', and I don't deny that's a good thing to do, but it seems to me we're talking about a fundamental trend, and something more fundamental than outreach is needed to turn it around.


 * I suggest &mdash;this may sound silly, but bear with me&mdash; what we need is a set of general software tools for building interactive wizards. Okay, I've said it; now I'll back up and explain my reasoning, and that'll be long-winded so no-one will want to read it, but at least I've got the tl;dr version out of the way already.
 * The wiki software doesn't provide good ways for experienced contributors to pass on their accumulated expertise to later contributors; and also doesn't provide assistance for performing such tasks, either for experienced or inexperienced contributors.
 * The non-Wikipedian sisters are more specialized in their goals than is Wikipedia. This can be of great benefit to them, because in most cases it's more inherently clear what their purpose is.  Wikipedia suffers from a lack of common goals for its community, exactly because it's not really objectively clear just what an "encyclopedia" is:  e.g., I've heard of people putting in great efforts to improve sports articles on Wikipedia while others seek to delete sports articles on the grounds they degrade the dignity of the project.  But even on Wikipedia, as the more central articles have already been written and seek to improve their quality, more and more of the routine tasks require expertise.
 * Wikibooks is a particularly challenging venue for this sort of expertise, because each book is in some ways a micro-sister in itself, possibly involving some infrastructural expertise (above and beyond content expertise) that is shared by few, if any, other books. A particularly clear example, imho, is False Friends of the Slavist, with its elaborate system of templates for interlocking tables.
 * I'm working on a set of interactive wizarding tools (over at Wikinews, which has a long history of willingness to act as an experimental testbed). Supposing I complete them, any page could have various dialog boxes, which could then be fed via some button to another page in much the same way one would pass parameters to a template.  The receiving page could use those "parameters" to display, to initialize further dialog boxes, to initialize the content of a new page, or &mdash;perhaps, with some sort of careful limits&mdash; to edit the content of an existing page.


 * The tools I'm building right now would rely on a peculiarity (afaik) of Wikinews common.js, but if they work, I think it could be safely exported to other sisters (admittedly, I'd want to consult with bawolff on that point).


 * I'm hoping, once one has general tools of this sort, one can then use them to gradually build interactive wizards that act as a sort of expert assistants. Experienced users can systematically pour their accumulated expertise into these wizards, and thereafter the wizards make it easier for new and/or casual contributors to perform expert tasks, and of course easier for the experts to perform those tasks too.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 02:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it's an excellent idea for WN, and I hope you will complete it. (Out of curiosity, is that why you've been learning JS?) I think it's a tad difficult for WB, though. As you mentioned above, every book is a little different. However, that gives me an idea: how about a 'Book wizard' like WP's 'Article wizard'? Kayau (talk · contribs) 08:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's why I've been learning JS. :-)
 * If I can get this to work, I expect even Wikipedia's article wizard will want to adopt it. I looked at Wikipedia's "wizard" before I started, and its inability to do anything but branch on multiple-choice decisions severely limits its usefulness.  In fact, before I resorted to studying JS (got bawolff to recommend a good reference book, and have been reading that systematically, skipping nothing, for the past year), I attempted to write the same sort of wizard for Wikinews.  But the resulting "wizard", while it's chock full of good information, is not remotely engaging.  The task really *wants* to be interactive, with the user entering data incrementally as you go along.  (n:WN:Article wizard).
 * I hope the tools will actually be immensely generalizable, and yes even Wikipedia will want to use them for technical tasks, as well as stuff like an article wizard, once their efficacy becomes apparent &mdash; though Wikipedia may insist on getting someone to write a wiki extension to replace the javascript, and if they can actually get that to match or exceed the usefulness of the javascript, that's great.
 * --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You've both raised some very good points. It's quiet here but then again I think it's been quiet since 2006.  The statistics seem to show this also.  But then again a lack of editors doesn't mean a lack of readers.  Also we don't really need millions of editors fighting over books as (maybe) books need more structure than ordinary Wikipedia articles.  Things that may prevent (or discourage) new editors (or editors from staying around) are:

On a positive note I notice that a lot more contributions these days come from school groups. Also the place is less bitchy - several years ago even slight disagreements would turn into arbitrations (Panic bore the brunt of one of the best!). It's a friendlier community these days.--ЗAНИA talk 19:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The Wiki software - it really is difficult to make attractive books without pissing about with templates.  The media wiki software is a bitch.  I have been saying this for 7 years and nothing has ever been improved with this software and I feel it scares away almost all non-technical people.  The search function sucks too.
 * 2) The range of competing wiki projects.  Even 6 years after Wikiversity split from Wikibooks I'm still not completely sure what the differences are nor why such differences couldn't be accommodated in one project.
 * 3) The policies (although far fewer nonsensical and long-winded) proposals see the light of day these days.
 * 4) The range of books.  Maybe it's improved a bit recently but there is still a large minority of books related to Computer Science which may put off some contributers.


 * Yeah. The relatively well-focused missions of the non-Wikipedian sisters &mdash;with one exception, I believe&mdash; should... maybe?... allow them to evolve more harmonious communities over time, and should also make them more technically challenging and therefore tend to discourage newcomers (which is what I'm hoping to tackle with my so-far-vaporware tools).


 * The one exception, in my mind, is Wikiversity. They have a strange community over there, and regardless of why they originally split off from Wikibooks, as they are now I don't think they really have a clearly focused mission.  I think of them as being, to wikimedian sisters, what philosophy is to academic subjects, or what artificial intelligence is to branches of computer science:  a sort of asylum for all the things nobody really knows how to do.  Mind, an asylum like that can spin off some great ideas from time to time &mdash; not that it gets credit, because as soon as something useful comes of it, that thing ceases to belong to it (as the natural sciences, which are no longer part of philosophy, or expert systems which are no longer fully part of artificial intelligence).  At any rate, even without such developments, the asylum serves an important function by keeping its sister projects clear of the intractable cases.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 22:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

@Xania: The search function has already improved since 2006, so I think it's better now. I think wiki markup is something to which we may just have to stick, though. While a WYSIWYG editor for MW might be a good idea, it may be hard to do especially seeing Wikia's epic fail. (In fact, I just logged on to Wikia again and they seem to have got rid of it.) One way, though, might be to have a GUI for WYSIWYG text processing first, then convert the document from the GUI program to wiki markup (unlike Wikia's 'mix').

@Pi zero: A cookbook wizard on WB would certainly work very well, I think. However, for normal and WJ books, we may need to make a wizard for every book, and for some more complicate books like WJ:Life, it may not be possible at all. Do you think it's better to make a 'wizard wizard' for WB? An possibly viable - and much easier - alternative, I think, is to generate a set of code along the lines of this (for WJ:Ancient Civilizations):

This type of template is already common and widely used on WP (though, regrettably, only for internal processes like AfD), and may be useful for other projects as well.

(BTW, I plan to study JS myself before learning at school. That way, I won't have to study too much then. As both JS and AS are derived from ECMAScript, it probably won't be difficult. Regardless of when I learn JS, I'll be glad to help out if necessary. :)) Kayau (talk · contribs) 10:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The "wizarding tools" I (fuzzily) envision would be tools suitable for building wizards, including allowing those wizards to semi-automate technical tasks that otherwise would be far more challenging for users due to messy internal markup. Which could also address Xania's observation about the difficulty of using wiki markup to format a book.  Part of my objective, at base level, is to make building such interactive pages a matter of calling some straightforward templates (my most recent naive stumblings are visible at n:User:Pi zero/sandbox2; progress tends to go in fits and starts, with weeks or months between, and off-line deep design meditations hidden in the pauses).  But if the wizarding tools can help to provide an easier interface to something like Template:Conlang/Navlist, they might also be able to provide an easier interface to the wizarding tools themselves.  I hope my protracted time designing the tools will be followed by a protracted time learning ways to use them; the best general tools are like that, with potential to be used in ways that could not have been specifically foreseen when the tools were first crafted.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 13:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Although I agree that it is important to use wizards and such to shorten the learning curve for new 'Bookians, I still think that it's rather important to get content creators to become involved in the community. I also think it's necessary for us to offer ePub/mobi. The advance of ebooks is going well, and it's likely we'll see students bringing their kindles and nooks to school in a decade or so. I'll try to cook up a new Main Page design. The ePub/mobi deal may need more (which isn't easy to get, what with Adrignola and Darklama being less active nowadays), but I'm sure we can manage it. Kayau (talk · contribs) 14:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * See Reading room/Projects for a place contributors can seek wider collaboration with other people.
 * What do you mean by community involvement, or for that matter by "the community"? Wikibooks is in many ways limited by the mediawiki software. I think the mediawiki software needs to keep up with technological innovations and become an innovator again, keep up with and exceed people's expectations again, and overall allow for a richer experience if Wikibooks and the other projects are to retain people motivated to create content and get involved in the community. I'm not sure what Wikibooks can do to support ebooks, that seems like a limitation to be addressed by the mediawiki software.
 * I think the main page could be made richer through the use of a slide show effect or such that allows readers to see all the featured books, featured children's books, and featured recipes. Maybe also by including some kind of interactive step by step tutorial on the wiki markup and how to create/edit books. I think featured images are not necessary because every featured work includes an image already. I think having a top active contributors and books system on the main page would be more useful than any service award system:
 * 4 Green Arrow Up.svg Using Wikibooks
 * 1 Red Arrow Down.svg Wikimedia
 * 0 &emsp; JavaScript


 * I think having maybe the last 10 recently edited books displayed on the main page and updated every few minutes would be good too. --dark lama  16:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I like those ideas. Most recently active editors would be sort of motivating and in addition highlighting the most recently active administrator so that those seeking help can get speedy answers (could be listed on the Help page for example).  I read the discussion about numerous wizards above but that's not really the problem.  The problem is the mediawiki software itself.  It is not easy to use, limited in some ways and doesn't produce very attractive looking books.  Who do we nag for this to be completely overhauled?  As for the main page - do we know what percentage of people who come to Wikibooks arrive on the front page?  I imagine that regulars head straight to their userpage or recent changes and many first time visitors come directly to a particular book after a Google search.--ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Estonia.svg|15px]]talk 17:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Just like with books themselves, I think if you want something overhauled you generally have to be willing to volunteer to make the overhaul yourself. A toolserver and/or labs account can be requested.
 * I think modern websites often use their home page to help confused, bewildered, and disoriented people find their bearings, exactly because the most common way people discover a website is indirectly through search engines or other websites. I think Wikibooks' main page does a good job of helping people to find their bearings, but could do more to show that Wikibooks is an active project rather than a static one, hence my suggestions above. Stats show Wikibooks' main page is still the top most visited page, I think accumulatively though, the main page is probably a small percentage of overall views. --dark lama  19:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I had in mind, darklama. I think your ideas are great, but I don't really have the technical ability to do much of it, so feel free to edit the main page draft in my userspace. I think I'll start a formal main page proposal in the proposals RR.
 * About the ebooks thing, I think that isn't limited by MW at all. If we have an HTML->PDF converter, so can we have an HTML->ePub converter and an HTML->mobi converter. Ideally we'd have as many formats as Project Gutenberg...
 * What I mean by community involvement is that we need content contributors to get involved in community discussions, be familiar with WB policies, guidelines and common practice, and do some of the RC patrolling work (I've noticed that a lot of edits go unreviewed, which isn't a problem except on WJ, but it doesn't reflect very well on the community's activeness). That way, our RfDs will stop taking months, editors will stay even after their books are completed, and we can really promote ourselves as a vibrant wiki community. Kayau (talk · contribs) 03:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure how important many people think it is to review all changes although it's something I always try to do. Current backlog of unreviewed changes to pages which have been reviewed once is about 1000 pages (down from 1300 a week ago).  I've tried to tackle this backlog from both ends.  I feel it's important because I have found many cases of vandalism which is about 200 days old.  --ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Estonia.svg|15px]]talk 07:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about that last night and I do think you're right; reviewing all pages is more important than I thought. Kayau (talk · contribs) 23:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like we've got nothing done so far. I'm gonna actually do the main page proposal in a bit. Kayau (talk · contribs) 07:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Collaboration
Don't forget organizing projects with other book projects. Saylor Foundation has been working on its own variation of Ancient Civilization and other texts, though they seem to be working alone for now. User:Thomas_Simpson probably has some idea of where their other editors work; if we can get more of them to edit on Wikibooks (and file feature requests to make the editing interface here as good as or better than whatever else they're using) that would generate a nice steady stream of contributors. Sj (discuss • contribs) 23:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding to a 1st Level-Subject
Can anyone tell me, why the following book Windows Batch Scripting isn't included in the Subject:Computing although I added the appropriate subject at the end of the page? Thanks!! --Albin77 (discuss • contribs) 21:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It shows up in the subject when I look at it QU TalkQu 22:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Strange... I still dont see it. In which section is it (Completed books / Books nearing completion / etc.)? Can you repost the link, so we dont look in different places? Thanks! --Albin77 (discuss • contribs) 11:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It's listed there now; I did a null edit (edit and save without changing anything), which purged the page. The thing is, that book doesn't belong in Subject:Computing.  Putting a book directly in the subject is ordinarily done only if the book doesn't belong to some sub-subject.  As I recall, it's recommended a typical book only go into one or maybe two subjects; in this case, the book belongs to six subjects, one of which doesn't exist, and the only two of those it presumably belongs in are Subject:Scripting languages and Subject:Microsoft Windows.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, now I see it as well (even without purging). I was using other books as example, quite a few use multiple subjects. Before I decide on the subjects, I'd like to know, is there a way to see a list of all books included in Subject:Computing as well as any sub-subjekts (all level)? And is it possible to see a tree of the nested subjects? --Albin77 (discuss • contribs) 20:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The first question I solved myself, its under the Title "In subsections", in the subject list. There is still the second Question, can I see a tree of a/all Subjects including their sub-subjects? Also I cant do a "null edit" of the Subjectpage (Subject:Computing), I only get the option of viewing the sourcecode, do I missunderstand anything? --Albin77 (discuss • contribs) 20:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * For a tree of subjects, you could try Special:CategoryTree/Computing/all books. (The allbooks categories are populated automatically.)


 * Re minimizing the subjects of a book, see Using Wikibooks/Subjects, Categories, and Classifications#Subject category. (Using Wikibooks is itself a Featured Book).


 * It hadn't registered on me that, for most people, the null-edit technique won't work on subject pages &mdash; because most people aren't admins. :-) Perhaps we could wire the subject pages with a "purge" button.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 00:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've added a "purge this page's server cache" link at the upper right of each subject page. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 01:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, in the German Wikibooks, this would propable have take ages... :D But the english Versions of the Wikipojects seem more up to date anyway. OK I tried the purge, but the book doesnt show up under "In subsections:" in Subject:Computing. What did I do wrong? Also I would like to put it in the Section Subject:Scripting_languages but it doesent recognize the Subject. (And thanks for the info on the subject tree, thats exactly what I was looking for!)--Albin77 (discuss • contribs) 18:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have a theory about what is happening. If I'm right, this is a limitation of the wiki software.
 * A subject page is made up of DPLs &mdash; Dynamic Page Lists. And on the Subject:Computing page, this particular book would appear on the list of pages that are Partly completed and belong to a subsection of Computing but not to Computing itself.  But there is a limit on how many pages can be listed on a DPL; if the list is really, really long, not all of the list is shown.  There are probably just too many Partly completed books in subsections of Computing; and this book would be near the end of the list because its title begins with "W".
 * Right off hand, I don't see any easy workaround for this software limitation. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 04:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Pity, but thanks for the help anyway! --Albin77 (discuss • contribs) 07:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It's only a recent development that the subject pages even have subsection lists. On further consideration, I can think of one approach that might work; when I get a chance I'll do some experiments, to see whether it's viable, and if so I should eventually be able to rig a patch for especially populous subject pages.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 16:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've experimented. The approach I had in mind is viable.  The tricky part will be the logistics of implementing it.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 15:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ It's listed now.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 21:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks so much for the help, so the List now shows all books, or will it still cut off any? --Albin77 (discuss • contribs) 05:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It should show all of them, for the foreseeable future; and the software fix can be extended to handle even bigger lists if that ever becomes needful. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 11:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Coates Guide-book
Hello. I have started a project entitled "A Guide-book to the Poetic Works of Florence Earle Coates". I have added Mrs. Coates' complete works to Wikisource, and would now like to create an online annotated guide-book which includes publication information as well as any historical and/or other related background information.

I would like to keep the project in book format. Being that Mrs. Coates has upwards of 300 poems (most of which are relatively short; i.e., they usually span no more than 2 or 3 pages), it will eventually be necessary that I split the project into Mainspace (is that what you call it here as well?) sections. I am listing her poems alphabetically, so it would make sense that I split Mainspace sections alphabetically as well. Any guidance or suggestions where organization, etc. is concerned would be appreciated. Londonjackbooks (discuss • contribs) 13:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Wiki markup & templates
Hello. I am new to Wikibooks, and have begun a sort of "sandbox" project. I spend most of my time over at Wikisource, where I am used to (depend upon) templates that aren't utilized here. I am not very well versed on wiki markup, and would like to know how to format the equivalent of a Block center (see here). Or, is it at all possible to replicate the WS template for use over here? The Wikibooks project I am working on would call for it to be used on a regular basis for the rendering of centered blocks of poetry. Thank you, Londonjackbooks (discuss • contribs) 12:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, there is no problem in copying a template from one site to another. Just remember to acknowledge your source to comply with copyright rules/--Abramsky (discuss • contribs) 13:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I would not know how to copy the template, or what portions of the template to copy. Is there an example of an instance where such a "transfer" was done from Wikisource to here in the past? or I could just play ignorant and ask someone to do it for me and relieve me of any and all responsibility ;)  Londonjackbooks (discuss • contribs) 13:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't give the desired effect I was looking for, but thank you...

I would also prefer to have no framing or shading; it is only the text that I would like to be affected/block-centered. For an example of the effect that I am looking for, please see here. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (discuss • contribs) 14:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

How about:

Full slow to part with her best gifts is Fate;

The choicest fruitage comes not with the spring,

But still for summer's mellowing touch must wait,—

For storms and tears, which season'd excellence bring;

--dark lama  15:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Umm... No. But that's closer.  The whole poem needs to shift to the center (block-centered, not individual lines) without changing the format of the poem itself.  If there is indentation in the original, that needs to continue to be rendered as such; if no indentation, likewise. Londonjackbooks (discuss • contribs) 17:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The following would be the mark-up necessary (from the s:Template:Block center template at Wikisource):


 * Whether that is the only option out there, I don't know. But it works.  Londonjackbooks (discuss • contribs) 17:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I have copied/pasted the Block center template from Wikisource to here, hoping that I have followed direction (Begin transwiki | WS Scriptorium) correctly. It seems to have worked. Please let me know if I have erred at any point in the process. Thank you, Londonjackbooks (discuss • contribs) 14:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Turning off Reader Feedback
Hey all :).

So, Wikibooks currently uses the "Reader Feedback" extension - although I see some discussion about its general brokenness and how it would be a good idea to upgrade to a newer version. Good news! ;p.

To try and cut down the sheer number of extensions we have deployed and the amount of code we have to maintain, we're essentially marking ReaderFeedback as 'too out of date' and withdrawing it from Wikimedia wikis. For those of you who use the tool, I apologise, but it's currently ~3 versions out of date and we can't maintain support for things indefinitely.

What I can offer, if Wikibooks is interested, is Version 5 of the software. This is a substantial departure from Version 2 in a couple of ways; first, it asks readers to submit comments, not just ratings - the idea is that they can produce tangible suggestions on how to improve books. Second, after readers have provided comments it presents them with a 'call to action' that invites them to edit (which may be helpful here - I noticed the question on how to improve editor retention and drive community numbers up above). If you want to try the tool out, we have a testing page up with the latest prototype here. Any and all feedback on if this tool is a good idea for Wikibooks or not is welcomed :). Okeyes (WMF) (discuss • contribs) 16:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * See also this archived thread from just last month. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 19:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Aha; missed that. Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (discuss • contribs) 20:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably useful, but I have my doubts. I don't think there are many collaborative books and I suspect (but don't know, of course) that when a book is the work of only one author they are unlikely to be interested in the reader feedback. I also think it is unlikely that encouraging people to edit will work simply because it is more daunting to start editing a book rather than a standalone article. But I might be wrong so it might be worth trying. QU TalkQu 23:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well I personally have been in favor of turning it off for a few years, but I would hate to sound like a broken record, so I will leave my comment at that. Thenub314 (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)