Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/2018/June

"Out of date" template
There are some books like Advanced Interactive Media which are generally well-done, but the book (or parts thereof) are out-of-date and hence unsuitable (or caution required) for today. Is there a general template that I can use to inform readers about this? Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 10:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Outdated. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 14:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Update on page issues on mobile web
Update on page issues on mobile web

Hi everyone. The Readers web team has recently begun working on exposing issue templates on the mobile website. Currently, details about issues with page content are generally hidden on the mobile website. This leaves readers unaware of the reliability of the pages they are reading. The goal of this project is to improve awareness of particular issues within an article on the mobile web. We will do this by changing the visual styling of page issues.

So far, we have drafted a proposal on the design and implementation of the project. We were also able to run user testing on the proposed designs. The tests so far have positive results. Here is a quick summary of what we learned: Our next step would be to start implementing these changes. We wanted to reach out to you for any concerns, thoughts, and suggestions you might have before beginning development. Please visit the project page where we have more information and mockups of how this may look. Please leave feedback on the talk page. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The new treatment increases awareness of page issues among participants. This is true particularly when they are in a more evaluative/critical mode.
 * Page issues make sense to readers and they understand how they work
 * Readers care about page issues and consider them important
 * Readers had overwhelmingly positive sentiments towards Wikipedia associated with learning about page issues

Books By Subject, What's the Criteria? Homesteading/Home economics Is Missing.
I don't know if there is a whole lot of contention, or just some, about what makes it into the subject list. But I came here to find something along the lines of "Back to Basics", a hardcover book with loads of homesteading/do-it-yourself/home-economics topics. I wonder why there isn't one on the main Subjects page? But I read through over there and am now able to better understand what all goes on with the list of subjects. So I am curious if it's just me, or does anybody else think that needs a subject of its own? Is it something without enough material? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The0ther (discuss • contribs) 17:40, 30 June 2018
 * Yes, it depends on the current books. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 17:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Under Subject:Maintenance and repair I see books Housecleaning and The Housework Manual. Iirc the advice at Using Wikibooks says not to create a subject if there are fewer than two books to go in it; well, that's two.  Should we create it?  And if so, is there anything else it should be a subsection of besides Maintenance and repair?  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 19:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Books source and Wikipedia
What common sources Wikibooks users can use for writing their books? Is Wikipedia a good source when writing books in Wikibooks? --Doostdar (discuss • contribs) 18:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not considered as a source because anyone can write anything in it. This is specified here: w:Wikipedia:Verifiability.
 * Personally, I never publish any blog or forum as a source (except for Stack Overflow for computer tricks). JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 07:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

A question about rating when I review an edit: Do I rate the edit or the page?
I just visited Wikibooks and was puzzled by your request that I rate the quality. Rate the quality of what? The edit or the page itself? I liked the edit because it was a great improvement over what was written before. But I am not convinced the article's overall quality has changed much. See https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=General_Astronomy&diff=cur&oldid=3389597 --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 03:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The review is page specific, you review the content of the page as is with the last edit(s). You don't review only the unrevised edit(s), you can send a PM to the editor(s) if you think it merits it. Panic (discuss • contribs) 03:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Notability
A long time ago I asked a question about notability of books in Reading room but the answer to me was "We have no need for notability." Now a user in Persian Wikibooks has created a book criticizing Islam. Is Wikibooks a good host for such books or not? can WB:What is Wikibooks? specify inclusion criteria for this project adequately or not? --Doostdar (discuss • contribs) 15:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course, Persian Wikibooks is its own project; our policies don't apply to them. But, for purposes of inclusion on English Wikibooks, what I wonder about from your description of "a book criticizing Islam" is neutrality, or (equivalently in this case) original research. There might be no problem. A textbook about criticism of Islam might work perfectly well; a textbook criticizing Islam would not fly. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 17:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Help with a book
Hello I was thinking about creating a book in natural science and technology but I need someone who I can write it with or who is willing to give me advice on writing it and who will walk me through the process —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanezedope (discuss • contribs) 17:42, 23 June 2018‎
 * Hi As a place to start, take a look at the book Using Wikibooks.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 18:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok thanksSanezedope (discuss • contribs) 09:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)