Wikibooks talk:Natural sciences bookshelf

This seems to be an exciting project. But if we're ever going to build up a useful resource in science, people should add references to their work. At least if this information should ever be used for academic purpose - which I have very strong doubts about. - Mendalus
 * If people are using external references - I'm sure they'll add it. Most of us are writing texts from our own knowledge (so we own the copyright to the material - see en:Wikipedia:Copyrights - we fall under the same licensing). Dysprosia 10:34, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * By academic standards - which this project need to follow if they're ever going to be used for academic purposes - you try to look up references (mainly published scientific articles) even though you write out of your own knowledge. :) If you've got a textbook in a subject, take a look at the references given there. You do not infringe any copyrights by using some of those references. Anyways, you're doing a great job! Keep on! - Mendalus 129.177.45.112 14:48, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well yes, but most textbooks put a bibliography at then end of the book, not as they go along. Remember these are textbooks not scientific papers Theresa knott 16:05, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Medical wiki
Don't want to spoil anybody's plans here but I have been maintaining a separate wiki for medicine the past few months now. You can see it here. Mednotes.net Weiming --82.35.40.201 23:02, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Note: This is not really "spoiling" anything.  Wikibooks is a good way to help collect information, and certainly Wikibooks could be a mirror/fork of a project that is done elsewhere... particularly if it is released with a copyright license that is compatable with the GFDL.  There are some high school science textbooks that are being done exactly this way.  An advantage to having the content here is that you don't have to maintain the server, and it is likely that this server will be around for a few years, as opposed to a private server.  Rob Horning 3 July 2005 11:12 (UTC)

Medicine as a separate bookshelf
I think Medicine is too vast a subject and too heavy to be listed in the Science bookshelf. It is more appropriate that this bookshelf is listed independently. This is not to say it does not belong to Science. It invariably does but it deserves a separate, independent category of its own!!

BDB 08:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

QUESTION
Are wikibooks ever finished?? like do they close to edits?

Rename entry for Ethology in bookshelf
I have been working on the Animal Behavior Book for some time. On the book shelf it is listed as the much more restrictive term ethology, which automatically redirects to - animal behavior. Would somebody in the know be so kind to rename the entry in the book shelf so it is directly listed as Animal Behavior instead of ethology? Robert Huber 18:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅. Darklama fixed it in the Biology bookshelf template, which is transcluded here -- I don't see any mention of "ethology" now. --DavidCary (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

New textbook: Chemical Principles
I am nearly halfway finished creating a textbook for first-year college students called Chemical Principles. It is based on a traditional textbook of the same title and is used with the explicit written permission of the authors (Dickerson, Gray and Haight). Can someone please tell me  How to get the text linked to the Natural Sciences and Chemistry pages, along with the other Chemistry textbooks How to get authorized to review/approve the pages (as my students are entering information)  Thanks. Chuck Wight 20:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)