Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/2014/July

Edit Summary Autocompletion
Quick question: How do I (and can I at all, for that matter) disable the autocompletion popup on the Edit Summary text field? This behavior simply annoys me no end. Thanks — SupremeUmanu (discuss • contribs) 01:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Could that be a feature of your web browser, rather than of the wiki software? (Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're asking about.)  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 01:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I’m certain that it is a feature of the wiki software. This behavior happens only when editing an Edit Summary, not while typing into any other text field in this or any other site.

laptop maintenance
Does there already exist a wikibook -- or a section of a wikibook -- that lists typical periodic laptop maintenance tasks?

How To Assemble A Desktop PC/Choosing the parts briefly mentions cleaning the screen.

Minimizing Hard Disk Drive Failure and Data Loss/Data Reduction mentions "routine cleanup".

Minimizing Hard Disk Drive Failure and Data Loss/Data Redundancy mentions backups, but I am surprised at its insistence that "having a backup of all their data can be entirely impractical", and its implication that backups must be done manually (rather than, say, scheduling automated backups every night at 1 am).

Where can I find a listing of all the typical periodic laptop maintenance tasks together on one page? If one does not exist, which wikibook would be the most appropriate for starting a rough draft of such a list? --DavidCary (discuss • contribs) 06:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is one... I will see what I can find. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 14:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I introduce myself
Lafcadio, my username, is from Lafcadio Hearn, who was a famous New Orleanian who edited a cookbook of creole cookery. Subsequently he went to Japan, where he is more famous than here.

I am from a creole family in the country, along river road. I have lived my entire adult life in New Orleans, however, and greatly admire its authentic cuisine, which is often confused with cajun cuisine. Creole cuisine is based on the haute cuisine of France, with the addition of ingredients from the new world and Africa.

I am putting my family recipes in the Wikipedia cookbook, in the hope of preserving them for posterity. Most of these are my mother's recipes, but some are recipes that I have obtained from friends or adapted from cook books, and used for years.

I hope the recipes are not subject to editing, since I am trying to preserve their authenticity. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lafcadio (discuss • contribs) 13:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Another introduction
Hi! I just edited the 8th grade science book, and I was hoping someone could take a look. I generally work on Wikipedia, but I thought to give Wikibooks a try. Nice to meet everyone! JonathanHopeThisIsUnique (discuss • contribs) 19:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me; and welcome! QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 13:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Copy/Paste Moves of Content Within Wikibooks
I have just started renovating Microsoft Office. I have added some code to the Windows Basics subpage, but I now want to move some of that content to different pages. I don’t simply want to move that page, as I will be splitting the named subpage into two different subpages (I’m planning on calling them “Windows Versions” and “Logging In and Out”, if you’re curious). It would seem that the best way to do this is to create a new page and copy/paste the relevant text into the new page.

However, Wikipedia has rules that restrict the use of copy/paste moves of content from one Wikipedia page to another. I was wondering what is the policy for such moves here. (By the way, if anyone has a better way to split a page in this fashion, please don’t hesitate to tell me.) Thanks!

SupremeUmanu (discuss • contribs) 19:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: As no one has responded, and having researched Wikipedia’s policy on copying within the project, I am going to proceed following their rules as if they apply here. If this isn’t true, please tell me. Specifically, I will place on the source page’s talk page, as required by w:Copying within Wikipedia.


 * You can move content freely inside the same work (if no opposition arises from the changes made, note that if the book is active or well developed you should probably post about the intended changes first). You can even copy (duplicate) content with some considerations across distinct projects or better yet if the content benefits from keeping synchronized and updated you can also try trasnclusion of the significant part or you can simply merge projects (if the source project is "dead" and not great loss of content will result from it). --Panic (discuss • contribs) 06:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * … But in any case, my personal advice would be to always include a link to the source page in the “summary” for the edit. (As in: Copying contents of Example Book/Its section. )  Otherwise, the text added may seem an original contribution (as per its “history” record), and thus violate the “BY” clause of the CC BY-SA license used here.  — Ivan Shmakov (d ▞ c) 06:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree, adding the comment should be a no-brainer (what else would one put in t as a comment) but the licensing/copyright part is not correct, the general view is that the Wikibooks project ^(as the aggregate of all projects) is a itself a aggregation of works and so site wide umbrella license exists and inside the wiki environment of Wikimedia servers licensing issue do not occur, any licensing problem may only occur outside of Wikibooks (in the segregation of the individual works, like the required attributions etc and in importing content into the project).
 * As for the page history capability of shading ling on copyright issue I have been for years very vocal that people that have/need/want interests in asserting copyright should not rely too much on them. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 08:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Personally, I’d consider the “BY” clause to be violated if the link to the author becomes unreachable from either the history (whether directly or indirectly, – via a link to the source page) or the talk page. Besides, without this, determining authorship becomes quite an issue, which may be required irrespective of the specific license used here.  So, this is more or less the way of doing content moves that I try my best to enforce at Russian Wikibooks.  — Ivan Shmakov (d ▞ c) 07:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Notice also that the CC is more lenient/less detailed in this respect than the GFDL but we are in agreement authorship/rights ownership should be protected and preserved where merited. This is something that sadly does not concern (or is fully understood, even in its simple implications) by a large part of the community and something that seems to not concern Wikimedia beyond protecting their own interests. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 17:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)