Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/2020/May

A link in a preformatted text
Inside a preformatted text, Mediawiki notation for a link is treated as content. My attempt is visible in the sandbox. When installed in the book, link text "IRQ" should anchor to Oberon/S3/irqs. Ideas? Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (discuss • contribs) 22:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * this can be done, but only in a very roundabout way:
 * Add  to your sandbox.
 * Remove the pre tags, but add one extra space to each line that was formally in the pre tags.
 * If you need to, edit Template:TemplateStyles/Oberon/styles.css to change any values to the pre tag (ask me if you are unsure).
 * Explanation: unfortunately the standard pre tags strip any markup from inside them. However if you add a space before a line, it automatically adds (invisible) pre tags but without stripping out markup. So this is a useful workaround if you need the pre tags, but you want to include markup/HTML inside them.
 * If you have problems, I could edit your sandbox to show you if you wanted me to. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Automatically labeling chapter references as chapter references
I would like to know how to have the print version render all the chapters' references in such a way that the heading labels for them reflect the context in which they are displayed depending on whether that is the print version or the normal chapter view.

Or, what is the way to automatically specify a relevant heading that labels each block of references as belonging to a specific chapter in the print version? That would move them to the end of the book then. I ask because when using the Print Version of the wikibook on OpenSSH the book becomes peppered with headings labelled "References". That is fine in the context of individual chapters but confusing in the context of a whole book presented all at once, especially since the are given the same semantic markup as the real headings and that makes generating an automatic table of contents impossible as they require manual intervention to fix. If I re-label each set of references in-place to give them a more descriptive title relevant for the context of the Print Version then it looks quite silly in the context of individual chapters.

Maybe there is already some feature, function, or best-practice work-around?

I ask because some years ago, I did print the book to paper but it required massive layout editing in regards to the table of contents before becoming actually ready for printing. Larsnooden (discuss • contribs) 04:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you breaking this down but I still can't visualize it. Can you please be very explicit? Like, "I want each chapter to have a section that says 'Chapter 1 References' at the end before Chapter 2 starts" or somesuch? If you have a graphic, that would help. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you look at the automatic table of contents at the the Print Version of the wikibook on OpenSSH you see the subheading "References" repeated throughout the book, such as 1.3, 2.5, 3.3, 7.5, and so on.  That's kind of awkward placement.  If you look at the corresponding chapters online, then they look ok individually.  Would there be a way to have them all moved to the very end of the Print Version like in many traditional printed books?  Or, if they stay in place, is there some conditional formatting that can show one type semantic markup when rendering individual, online chapters versus when the book is rendered as an all-in-one Print Version? The could show up as bold text in the print version but as heading level 2 or something in the online version.  Larsnooden (discuss • contribs) 07:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Okay, so the goal is to have all references in one place at the end of the book: which is a sensible request. The solution here would be something like (thinking out loud)... using CSS to have it only display on the Web and have nodisplay in print and then include a second references table at the very end that has the opposite CSS. Seems like this should be something built into Printable but that would take some serious doing in CSS (at least for me). I definitely welcome others who have more elegant solutions but I think something like that can work. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I propose to just add around each "References" paragraph to do the trick. Then, only one "References" paragraph can be added at the end of OpenSSH/Print version. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 09:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I tried with the markup with one chapter and then preview of the print version. Neither it nor the unadjusted references from all the other chapters show at the end of the preview of the print version.  Even if I include a  there at the end of the print version, no references show up at the end. Larsnooden (discuss • contribs) 09:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * and what about now? JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 10:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice! That does the book-level end notes for the Print Version while leaving the normal chapters as they are.  I'll take a close look over the next day or two, but that seems to be the solution.  Larsnooden (discuss • contribs) 11:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

New Project Science
Dear All, I would like to start a Wikibook entitled:


 * Dictionary of Laboratory Terms

My idea is to have a guide to the terminology of an analytical laboratory. This Wikibook will have terms of laboratory technology and related areas and illustrations assisting understanding. The dictionary will contain terms from the following fields: fundamental of laboratory, application and use of laboratory instruments, international standards, legal requirements for laboratory instruments, accuracy. This will be organized in the form of an index, facilitating thus rapid location of the terms.

Any interest in this?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Sgiani (discuss • contribs) 17:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * This could be a valuable resource; keep in mind, we should carefully tailor the concept to maximize its difference from a "general-purpose dictionary", which is the subject of an item in "What Wikibooks is not". --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 20:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Pi zero for your comments: here you can have a look at the "A" entries. This shows the concept Sgiani (discuss • contribs) 20:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I know I like this topic, a useful addition, if created. Peyton09 (discuss • contribs) 13:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC) About this topic, I actually am concerned about people with little Science experience, without a good Science background, opening Chemistry textbooks seeking dangerous information, or instruction on how-to-build-a-bombs, or make a-illegal-home-drug-lab. Consider this a general warning because people have seen problems while watching "The Sons Of Anarchy" on cable TELEVISION. I think a better approach is to teach people general Science, offer Science lessons they can practice from home, while using common laboratory techniques. Can guides teach Chemistry by teaching people about common cleaning supplies that help clean our houses, using chemicals that are commonly purchased at grocery stores? I learned about [legal, after I turned 21] recreational "drug creation" by purchasing a "beer kit" that included yeast, some lab equipment, and a Chemistry booklet. Offer people useful, common yet informative lessons, or "educational kits" that allow people to safely use lab equipment while they learn new techniques. Good idea? Peyton09 (discuss • contribs) 13:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

New Category:Original_Creations_Of_Literature...
Hey, I acted bold, and started a new category. I hope that people do not take this bold act as a sign of a aggressive EGO, or as indications of a new ego-trip, because I don't believe I started a new category for egotistical (or self-centered) reasons. I know this category will make the process of creating a book easier for some people, this may be better, or actually worse, because if a complex process was too simple, how would people learn to pay attention to each step-of-the-process? Who may benefit most from "Original Creations of Literature?" I think people in departments like the Humanities, Art, and Literature departments, will definitely benefit, as well as people interested in Simulations, computer avatars, or Philosophy. There maybe certain branches of Religion and religious studies that can use this category. People interested in monsters, angels, demons, simulations [like The SIMs] and characters in Philosophic allegories [such as Everyman].

This may help people interested in learning, especially if other editors and writers leave better guides.

I hope this creation of a new category is open for discussion. Peyton09 (discuss • contribs) 13:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Some CSS for Vector has been simplified
!

I'd like to make a double-check about a change that was announced in Tech/News/2020/21.

Over-qualified CSS selectors have been changed. ,,  ,  ,  ,   or   are now all removed of the   qualifier, as in for example it is. This is so the skins can use HTML5 elements. If your gadgets or user styles used them you will have to update them. This only impacts the Vector skin.

On this wiki, this impacted or still impacts the following pages:
 * User:Kogitor/vector.css
 * User:Mike.lifeguard/vector.css
 * User:Ohwang/common.css

How to proceed now? Just visit all these pages and remove  before these CSS selectors if it hasn't been removed so far.

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (discuss • contribs) 13:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

How to create a side bar or other bordered box?
What is the markup for putting a section inside a box with a border and a shaded background? If you look at the Table of Contents at the top of this page, that is the kind of layout I am looking for but for custom content and lower down in the page where ever I decide to place it in the chapter. Bonus if there is a way to make it float on the right or left of the page and let the rest of the text flow around it. Larsnooden (discuss • contribs) 07:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi the easiest way is to use a template: see Templates/General for various box templates. I have posted an example, take a look at this message source. . -- Jules  (Mrjulesd) 11:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That is perfect! I am looking at the other templates now, too. Larsnooden (discuss • contribs) 12:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

1,2,3 Wikijunior Featured Book!
My first impression on 1,2,3 was good. I liked the photographs, and the indications of the subtly different ways numbers are used everyday. At first glance, I enjoyed this project. I do wonder, can this project be simplified? Yes. The value of each number can be clarified using OUR FINGERS. I propose people who enjoy teaching math to children, start a Wikibook: Finger Math. Many videos about finger Math have been made online. The next step would be to make photographs of fingers, also available to the 1, 2, 3 Wikijunior books project. Does a person holding up 1 finger associated with 1, next two fingers associated with 2, next three fingers associated with 3 clarify these numerical ideas? Yes! I believe this will help both projects.

Should we develop a section called Math without a Calculator ? Elementary school children do not have calculators, or own their own computers. This seems like a fun learning experience parents should teach their children, who will later learn formal ways of calculating, to find the right answers. Suggestions? Peyton09 (discuss • contribs) 21:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

New book : Making a Programming Language From Scratch
Hello everyone! I previously co-wrote the book 'QBasic' and I am going to be writing a new book(title given above) which basically covers the process of language creation. It is going to cover basic decisions, advantages and disadvantages of each technique of language creation, equivalent low level statements of some common high level statements and the process of parsing and lexing. It is be written based on the C-model compiler. Any help or suggestions will be welcome.Thanks! Debanshu.Das (discuss • contribs) 16:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Videocasting?. Only an idea.BoldLuis (discuss • contribs) 09:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

End-user Computer Security book, and whether it is appropriately hosted on Wikibooks
Hello all,

I've written a book on End-user Computer Security for individuals, sole traders, and small businesses. The book is more based in ongoing, never-ending, democratic collaborative research, than a treatise on an established subject. Can people please advise as to whether it is fine for it to be hosted on Wikibooks.

Thanks.

MarkJFernandes (discuss • contribs) 13:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * yes looking good I think. Looks suitable for a move to mainspace. I think you probably know how to do this, but I would recommend Special:MovePage/User:MarkJFernandes/End-user Computer Security. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 08:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * thanks for your opinion. Was just reading about the NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) Wikibooks doctrine, and was wondering whether I should tag parts of the content with the non-NPOV tag as much of the content at the moment, is on subjective issues espousing just my point of view. Perhaps at some point (and hopefully), such content can be converted to NPOV content after further discussion with others (it's why I referred to the material as ongoing research). What do you think?

MarkJFernandes (discuss • contribs) 11:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * (ping didn't work some reason) : The main thing is if you state something controversial you should try to balance with alternate ways of looking at things. I think as long as you do that it shouldn't really be too problematic. For example if you say "Ghosts might exist" you should also list reasons for believing otherwise. But if you get feedback that someone disagrees with you then tagging might help while you discuss; but it is meant to be a temporary measure while discussions are ongoing, not a long term approach. If you think your content doesn't meet NPOV you should just fix it or remove it really, only tag if you're meaning to fix it quite soon. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * thanks for your further guidance. I'm thinking that this book should be transferred to another Wiki. You see, the work is littered with subjective POVs, and trying to add other POVs would seem only to confuse the material. For example, I advocate Qubes OS 4.0.3 as being one of the most secure Linux distributions : this is "...a particular viewpoint on a subjective issue..." not balanced by any other POVs in the writing. It's unclear as to how I would add other points of view for such statements without introducing an element of confusion into the material.


 * What do you think about possibly transferring the book to the Wikiversity research portal? It seems like it might be an appropriate place for such a work.

Thanks,    MarkJFernandes (discuss • contribs) 09:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I think you're probably being too hard on yourself. Even Wikiversity has an NPOV guideline: Wikiversity:Wikiversity:Disclosures. Offering advice isn't POV, it's more when that advice is suspect, yet no attempt has been made to balance it with alternative viewpoints. If I was you I'd hold firm, and try to get feedback, and adjust it accordingly. What I've read of it doesn't seem problematic. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 10:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Footnotes 

The Practical Chemist Cookbook?
Hello, I maybe suggesting this book: The Practical Chemist Home Cookbook, or (after a market trend), The Violent Peaceful Anarquista Cookbook, a unusual book with recipies for bath bombs, violent cocktail drinks, and other common household products. I am suggesting this type of book because I want to find and use free recipies that follow the latest trends, such as bath bombs. Although the books online are not expensive, and many are already free to read with special communication devices, I think Wikipedia should start this type of home-Chemistry Wikibook, for people interesting in books, chemistry, and applied Chemistry. I think this type of recipe book may become popular on Wikibooks. The Wikibook recipies, are currently popular. Why not a home-chemist book with recipies / instructions for mixing interesting household products? This idea is similar to the Wikipedia ABC book [a developing collection about mixing drinks using alcohol], and Wikibook recipies, a current and useful section of Wikibooks that people seem to enjoy. Without people actively using their learning to develop new products, there would be few recipies instructing people, so they may learn how to make bath bombs, or other novelties. Chemistry can be a fizzling, bubbling, and sometimes violent (in a peaceful way) exploration of the known world as introduced by people who like Science, and want to share what they found. If this idea goes in the wrong direction, people may experience a shortage of common supplies like cider vinegar, or baking soda. Peyton09 (discuss • contribs) 13:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello [Basic Introduction]
Greeting Wikibookians, I am new, and have so far survived the DELETE speedy-creation-Page stage. I have a lot of questions, and would appreciate help from other people! I have started a book/page: Create Vampires. I hope this book, suggested as a guide and factual resource, will help people in general. Any title suggestions? Ideas on how to avoid copyright violations? Anyone want to volunteer as contributors? I have created a basic outline [Table of content] that is just a suggestion.

I really want this project to be a good guide for people, written by several people, not just by ME. Thanks.
 * Thanks for joining up with us. I'm a little confused about the scope of your proposed book. What would the book be about exactly? It's about best practices for writing fictional characters that are vampires or writing in a sub-genre of horror fiction, is that correct? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @Justin I may be the only contributor so far, yet the ideas and good advice of other people are always good. I mean, if you want to contribute new ideas... Ideally, the book is, and will be a guide for writers that will focus on what makes a vampire a original fictional monster, what aspects make a vampire a unique character. Tips to help writers begin their own fictional creation, or monsters, will guide introducing moral points of view. The ideas and good advice of other people are also good, because ideas should be shared. Peyton09 (discuss • contribs) 13:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just a heads up, with each new comment you add directly referencing one before it, add a new colon <:> and if you want to notify users that you are mentioning them, use (e.g.  ) to get my attention. I think that guides on writing fiction are a great idea. It seems like you have a very narrow topic that doesn't really fit an entire books scope but certainly a subsection of a book. —Justin ( koa'vf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * trying this new stuff...:)… Thanks Justin. I am not worried, although I do hear your subtle criticism, I do think that I am blending several book types: textbook+guides, and this may create a split, meaning that people may choose a textbook, over a writing guide. I think my idea works...yet, I also wondered, would it be better to 1. stay general, meaning suggest a Wikibook like "Create Monsters," or 2. move towards a more neutral zone, with a less horrific creation, such as "Create Ghost," A NEUTRAL ZONE that allows for positive creations, as well as negative creations.
 * I was going to next suggest Create Ghost, yet I have problems naming titles, and I feel that this project is 1. big enough, and 2. a clear zone that others can move away from. I hope this makes some sense. I think other people could use these guides when they are better understood. Thanks. Peyton09 (discuss • contribs) 03:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Trying to make the perfect book is hard, choosing to make a good book is less difficult. I'm going to aim towards making a good book. Peyton09 (discuss • contribs) 03:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Justin, I hope you don't mind me asking, are you available? I wonder, should I focus on teaching some people's ideas, or should I work out a way to teach ideas? I could use help. I have this in mind: Textbooks [collected info], Tutorial [guide by Tutor], Self-Study course [self guide. read recommendations]. This seems to be the key to what I had in mind. Today, I discovered a new approach. Create Vampires was intended to focus on vampires, and introduce zombies, demons, ghost, and hungry-ghosts. I could suggest a logical fallacy is created when we choose to "create" monsters, rather than reflecting actual people, their dramatic or horrifying stories. This suggests readers have a choice in the type of fiction they can study. This seems better as a formula. I wonder how I can get help from writers? Any suggestions? There are flaws... Thanks. Peyton09 (discuss • contribs) 04:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to help but I'm not quite as experienced on this project as I am on other ones. I think you should focus on what you feel like is highest value. I think that tutorials on writing genre fiction are a perfectly appropriate venture. If you stick with it, I'd love to see what that looks like in several months or years. If you want feedback from other writers, that's tricky. Maybe you could have a little project on Wikiversity and see if anyone wants to collaborate on best practices for writers there? In reality, it seems like a lot of writers are out of work now due to all the pandemic lockdown but I have no idea how to reach out to them or convince them to give free labor to Wikibooks. :/ —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * } Thanks. Good advice. Sorry to hear about other people's modern problems...I hope things get better.

Greeting wikibookians, my internet connection is down, meaning that for the past few days I am having a difficult time connecting to Wikibooks. I have done nothing with Create Ghost. Sorry.Peyton09 (discuss • contribs) 10:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I want people who dream of writing their own books, text-books, or tutorials to slow down. I myself am less willing to pay expensive postage to mail new ideas, and although computer connections do communicate at higher speeds than traditional mail carriers, computer connections do not often connect, link, and computers may "freeze" for unknown reasons. Although several writers may be out of work, this time could be a blessing in disguise. I hope we can share good advice with people, and information of use. ThanksPeyton09 (discuss • contribs) 18:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Tips on how to create a first book
Any tips on how to create a first book please?Thank you
 * Thanks for asking. Have you looked at Help:Contents yet? If you haven't, there's a lot to poke thru there. I suppose things that may not be explicit in the help documentation are:


 * 1) Make sure you have some idea of the structure of a book before you start. This will save you a lot of administrative headaches later.
 * 2) Books here generally tend to be solo projects. There's no reason why this has to be true and of course, as a wiki, we are here to help one another but there are just very few editors at Wikibooks, so many, many books end up being either essentially the work of one person or a failed experiment that is abandoned for years. :/
 * Here's hoping you stick around. Let me know how I can help. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You'll want to read this book: Using Wikibooks. --17:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)