Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/2021/July

Splitting Pages
Recently I've been splitting up old one page books into multiple sections, such as Oliver Twist/Story. I was just wanted to check that I've been doing this correctly? Thank you for your time! --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 18:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Partial Import from unusual source
Hello,

I was rating the completion of some older books, and noticed that Commit Often, Perfect Later, Publish Once: Git Best Practices was an import from a finished book. The book is credited and the licence of the current version is CC BY-SA 3.0 or GNUFD 1.3 so I think that's ok? However I was wondering if it would be possible to finish this, and if so what best practices should be followed for a proper import.

Thank you for your time! --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 05:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

What can I do here?
Im scared to edit. I dont know what to do. Help, anyone? Thank you 😊. Unazcorp0 (discuss • contribs) 20:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, Unazcorp0, and welcome to Wikibooks. You may want to start reading books and start small, e.&#8239;g. by correcting spelling or grammar mistakes. My very first edit here was also just that. Kai Burghardt (discuss • contribs) 10:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

WikiAsk
I ran across WikiAsk proposal recently. Some people oppose it with argument that the content fits in Wikibooks scope. So my question is, does Q&A fit in Wikibooks scope? Does any subset of Q&A, e.g. short HOWTOs, fit in Wikibooks scope? Is there any Q&A content already? I couldn't find any myself. HOWTOs occur only randomly as part of larger books. Policy seems to prohibit Q&A. HOWTOs could be argued to be instructional, but they are by no means textbooks. — Robert Važan (talk) 02:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * HOWTO materials aren't prohibited - after all, many of the more programming-oriented books and strategy guides are forms of "HOWTO". That being said, while we do have WB:RR, Wikibooks is not a replacement for StackOverflow, because the latter allows people to ask for questions to be answered, which is not the purpose of Wikibooks. MediaWiki in general is a poor choice for a Q/A style website - StackOverflow-style places are forum-first, not wiki-first, and something like Discourse would be a better choice. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 11:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Wiki is a good platform for Q&A if it is used correctly. Notice that many answers on StackOverflow are "community wiki" already, which is a workaround for flaws of the standard StackOverflow page structure. But usability of wiki for Q&A is beside the point here. I am asking about inclusion criteria and site structure. Can there be standalone (short) HOWTOs on Wikibooks or should they be always a part of some book? And if someone creates a page that asks a question, i.e. it contains only a notice requesting someone to fill in the content, will the page get deleted? — Robert Važan (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * While there is some precedent of what you describe, in general no, because a FAQ in itself cannot comprise a book. As part of a book perhaps. And "someone creates a page that asks a question" will generally be speedily-deleted after a week as abandoned or out-of-scope.
 * A book that contains FAQs as a side would be OK, a book that's only a FAQ isn't because that's not a book. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 16:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * PS: Do FAQs belong in Wikibooks? Because Q&A site is essentially a giant shared FAQ. — Robert Važan (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t think so. Wikibooks is, hence its name, a site for books, you know, like textbooks. As such they are at some point “finished”, so you can, in theory, read them stem to stern. This will hardly be the case for a mere Q‘n’A‑“book”. Most users will simply duckduckgo their question and after it’s been solved [ideally] never consult the source again. IMO this is pretty similar to a dictionary. (Nonetheless, FAQs may still appear as part of books, but they rather have a “preemptive” character.) Kai Burghardt (discuss • contribs) 14:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Clarification on WB:NFCC
I'm looking for some clarification on WB:NFCC. I'd like to use Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney/Episode 2: Turnabout Sisters/Day 2 - Trial as an example page. This page (and the whole book associated with it) makes extensive use of non-free images, and I feel this contradicts a number of the Criteria. I believe 1a) is also not met on a number of pages, but not specifically on this one. -- Prod (discuss • contribs) 19:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 1b) The images are used repeatedly for aesthetic purposes.
 * 4) StrategyWiki is not the original copyright holder for any of these images.


 * There's some pages with more images than that, but in the rationale for those images (still being kept to a minimum) it says that these images show what the characters and icons look like. 2005-Fan (discuss • contribs) 19:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * After the first interaction, the player should know who the character is without showing the same picture repeatedly. Having the image on the characters page should suffice. -- Prod (discuss • contribs) 19:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a good point. It prob does violate 1b, although I figured the rationale stated that the image wasn't uploaded solely for aesthetic purpose, but is to illustrate someone in the guide. 2005-Fan (discuss • contribs) 19:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * To me (and this is just my opinion looking at the page, others can disagree), I don't think it contradicts the criteria. While is right in that other Wikimedia projects are unlikely to tolerate the use of these non-free images, this is Wikibooks and to me at least, I can imagine the quality of the page being diminished if these images are removed (citing rule 8). I would agree with  here. We certainly don't want to be as hard as Wikipedia with their irritating DatBot. Consider it as my thoughts under personal capacity. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 18:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you guys feel that having the exact content from the game included on these pages falls under wikibooks fair use? -- Prod (discuss • contribs) 15:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Linking to an over two hour video of gameplay footage without greater context, time stamps (I understand that since the YouTube shortlink is blocked on Wikimedia projects, this is a bit difficult to share natively), etc. makes it less likely to get a response, especially from general wikibooks users who aren't involved video game strategy guides (Since we are in the general section of the reading room). I think I get the gist of what you are saying though. At 1:09:18 (?t=4158) the Bellboy makes his testimony in the game. In the import from strategywiki at Phoenix_Wright:_Ace_Attorney/Episode_2:_Turnabout_Sisters/Day_2_-_Trial, this testimony is transcribed verbatim. I didn't scrub the video for other testimony scenes, but I understand you are saying that every testimony in this guide is transcribed in such an exact way, correct? Granted the proceeding and following conversations are not transcribed (Otherwise this guide would be substantially longer), but that is roughly a paragraph or so of direct quotations per testimony. I'm not knowledgeable enough about policy to comment on what exactly should be done though. Still I hope that this explanation helps other Wikibooks users make a decision. (Assuming I understood Prod correctly.) --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 16:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought i copy-pasted the timestamp. I've updated the link above (t=2386), which corresponds to this section. But yes, as you mentioned, these segments of the game are transcribed verbatim from the game into the guide. -- Prod (discuss • contribs) 18:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Creating a new subject
I just noticed that there was no shelf for the Arabic language, but there was already a few books trying to use it, so I decided to add it. (There was also Levantine Arabic, which doesn't use it, but would fit) I made this subject, and just wanted to confirm that it worked OK, because when I tried to add Levantine Arabic to it, I got an error. Thanks! --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 21:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Forgot to add a Shelf for the subject page. I fixed it. If someone could just confirm I did it right, that would be cool. Thanks! --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 21:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct News – Issue 2
 Universal Code of Conduct News Issue 2, July 2021 Read the full newsletter

Welcome to the second issue of Universal Code of Conduct News! This newsletter will help Wikimedians stay involved with the development of the new code and will distribute relevant news, research, and upcoming events related to the UCoC.

If you haven’t already, please remember to subscribe here if you would like to be notified about future editions of the newsletter, and also leave your username here if you’d like to be contacted to help with translations in the future. 

 Thanks for reading - we welcome feedback about this newsletter. Xeno (WMF) (discuss • contribs) 02:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Enforcement Draft Guidelines Review - Initial meetings of the drafting committee have helped to connect and align key topics on enforcement, while highlighting prior research around existing processes and gaps within our movement. (continue reading)
 * Targets of Harassment Research - To support the drafting committee, the Wikimedia Foundation has conducted a research project focused on experiences of harassment on Wikimedia projects. (continue reading)
 * Functionaries’ Consultation - Since June, Functionaries from across the various wikis have been meeting to discuss what the future will look like in a global context with the UCoC. (continue reading)
 * Roundtable Discussions - The UCoC facilitation team once again, hosted another roundtable discussion, this time for Korean-speaking community members and participants of other ESEAP projects to discuss the enforcement of the UCoC. (continue reading)
 * Early Adoption of UCoC by Communities - Since its ratification by the Board in February 2021, situations whereby UCoC is being adopted and applied within the Wikimedia community have grown. (continue reading)
 * New Timeline for the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee - The CRC was originally expected to conclude by July 1. However, with the UCoC now expected to be in development until December, the timeline for the CRC has also changed. (continue reading)
 * Wikimania - The UCoC team is planning to hold a moderated discussion featuring representatives across the movement during Wikimania 2021. It also plans to have a presence at the conference’s Community Village. (continue reading)
 * Diff blogs - Check out the most recent publications about the UCoC on Wikimedia Diff blog. (continue reading)