CAPTCHA at login

Is there any way to remove the CAPTCHA at login for a specific user? For example if a user is blind, or is a bot (of the legit variety) which can't handle a CAPTCHA? I made one mistake on the password trying to log in to my bot's account, and now I have to wait a while (anyone how long?) until I can try again without the CAPTCHA :( – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 01:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone fixed this. pywikipediabot now loads the CAPTCHA so you can solve it :) – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 22:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikijunior in Trouble

Wikijunior is in trouble. Since the new book of the quarter was taken off the front page we have gotten very little traffic. For example, in the last 14 days there have only been 6 edits adding any amount of substantive content in all of Wikijunior by anyone not named xixtas. I'm really not sure what to do at this point, but I hate to see the project die the way it has. Does anyone have any idea how we can generate more traffic at wikijunior? --xixtas ^talk 03:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe improve the quality of the Wikijunior page and add the featured wikijunior books to it? --darklama 04:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Try recruiting contributors from WikiProjects on en.wp? I did that for First Aid and got one person to join the light side. For an entire project, you'd probably be able to do better. I don't know which WikiProjects might be good targets though. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 04:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

What's counter-intuitive here is that there still are wikijunior books featured on the main page, more then one at a time even. Maybe we need to tweak the main page to feature a more prominent link to wikijunior? Maybe even replace the main page entirely with a "Portal" that would give visitors the option of visiting the with "real" main page, or the wikijunior main page? Maybe we need to do some kind of advertising blitz, both on wikimedia (mailing lists, blogs, wikipedia projects, etc) and off (websites for teachers and students). A lull in a project doesnt necessarily mean it's "dead" or "dieing", but it could just be a temporary reprieve. Whatever needs to be done to reverse the trend should be done though, because Wikijunior is an important part of what we do here. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 12:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I added a more prominent link to Wikijunior on the main page, hopefully that will attract some attention. We already have a link to it in the side bar, where else can we advertise? Is the solution to put the collaboration of the quarter back onto the main page? If you can come up with a template that is sufficiently small, we would be able to put it right above the list of other featured books. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 13:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

As you've said there is more then one featured wikijunior book now, so it seems like having a quarter book again wouldn't make a difference. I think the more prominent link to Wikijunior was a good step, maybe add the wikijunior logo above it though? I suppose keeping people interested in writing books for children could be a problem. What about trying to attract teachers, parents, grandparents, etc? How about trying to find some old children's books and children's textbooks that are now public domain that could be added to wikijunior? Could it just be the time of year? How long has Wikijunior appeared to have been in trouble? --darklama 13:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the page at meta, the wikijunior logo is just a proposal, not fully accepted. Let's start a process to formalize that logo, in parallel with the new wikibooks logo that is being discussed. Having a good logo for Wikijunior that we can plaster all over the place will certainly help things. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 13:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who's "in charge" of the current edition, but Social and Cultural Foundations of American Education (in its several editions) is written by education students. Maybe they'd be willing to put us in touch with the ECE instructors? --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 18:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

@Darklama - I would say that contributions to Wikijunior dramatically declined in February or March of 2007. @WhiteKnight - As far as publishing Wikijunior goes, I would like to figure out how to launch a stable version of Wikijunior at Wikijunior.org (which is owned by the foundation.) This is apparently something that was already okayed by the foundation, at one time, but I don't think anyone had ever decided how to do it. Anyway, I would like to propose that that website be launched, running mediawiki with a special default skin. One that removes most of the extraneous links and has bigger "kid-friendly" fonts and design features. The versions on this site could be protected and only admins could update them. I'm happy with any process that will move the Wikijunior logo selection process forward. @SB Johnny - Finding a way to get more teachers involved would be nice. -- xixtas ^talk 02:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

As a newbie here I find it quite confusing there is all these wiki sections. I don't know how new the wikijuniour part is but understand it takes time for search engines to list the content. The link as added whiteknight added above will help. The problem will nearly always be that someone searching will be provided with wikipedia links before they are provided with wikibooks links, thus the traffic goes to wikipedia or other sites and not to wikibooks

We don't know how many are reading the Wikijunior books merely how many are editing them. This could be a good thing as it may mean most of the books are quite advanced in development so need little editing (but probably not). One thing that definitely discourages people from editing or creating new Wikibooks titles (including myself) is the differing policies that Wikijunior has to Wikibooks. All this voting for new titles is very off-putting - my advice to anyone wanting to create a Wikijunior book is JUST DO IT! Xania ^talk 18:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I wonder when the whole having to vote for new titles came about and if its something that could just be marked as rejected/obsolete? Was there every any discussion and consensus decision that new titles have to voted on? I have a hard time believing it was something agreed to. Maybe thats what needs to be done to make Wikijunior better and encourage more contributions. --darklama 19:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

reset

FYI, Rob Horning apparently declared it to be policy on 17 August 2005 because the previous policy was that no new books could be started. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 19:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any indication that Wikijunior:New Title Policy was ever declared an official policy nor ever discussed and agreed to, but rather Robert had started it on August 16 2005 as a proposed policy so new books could be started. I think it could be marked as rejected with a link to Wikibooks:What is Wikijunior --darklama 19:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I was just paraphrasing the first sentence of Wikijunior talk:New Title Policy. That sounds like as good a solution as any. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 20:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It's my understanding that you can create a new book at any time, but that they try to reduce the number of new books being worked on simultaneously to try and consolidate effort. I've already started at least one book without going though the voting process, and it's a successful book (if I will toot my own horn a little). Maybe the new title policy needs to be "tweaked" to reflect this. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I havn't injected my $0.02 into this discussion until now, but I'd like to clear this up a bit. When Wikijunior was first started, those "founders" of the original project (I wasn't really one of them) had a bunch of huge and grandiose ideas, including trying to start a monthly magazine and getting all sorts of grant money, including the original "seed money" that was donated explicitly to help get the project off the ground. BTW, I have seen absolutely no accounting of that original grant of money, which was fairly substantial, from the WMF. Even the original terms of what that money was supposed to be used for has never really been nailed down effectively, and as far as I can tell, it got dumped into the great black hole pit of the Wikimedia server farm. I could go on even more, but moving on.....

The number of books for Wikijunior was restricted in the beginning to just the original 3 titles, Wikijunior Solar System, Big Cats, and South America. During the first year or so, there were several attempts to start additional Wikijunior books from several individuals, but the "policy" was to keep just those books, and Wikibooks admins simply deleted those "alternative" Wikijunior books, usually with a more or less polite reply as to why additional Wikijunior books couldn't be written yet. By the time I got involved with Wikijunior (and a couple of months after I became an admin) I had to deal with one of these "alternative" Wikijunior books, and I didn't feel quite like deleting it outright. So I tried to come up with a system that could generate additional titles, but at the same time help out in reducing the huge number of new book titles that has been an ongoing problem with Wikibooks even from the very beginning. Since absolutely none of the original "founders" of Wikijunior were even active at the time (and to the best of my knowledge, still aren't), I tried to set up some new policies for Wikijunior and make a request for comments about the new policy on the Staff Lounge.

As there wasn't really any formal policy I could invoke in the Wikibooks Deletion Policy to remove non-approved Wikijunior books from the new Wikijunior policy, I didn't see any real reason why I should be zealous and delete the new Wikijunior books that were created outside of the new book process. A sort of mutual understanding came up, but never formalized, to not necessarily put the Wikijunior books on the "front page" of the main Wikijunior page (or on the main page of Wikibooks) that were created out of the new book process. They were still noted on the talk page, but otherwise not given the same distinction.

This was also a sort of experiment to see if restricting the number of titles on a sub-project like Wikijunior could help improve the overall writing quality of the existing books. In some ways, I would like to think it was successful, as there have been several Wikijunior books that have been created over the years which have a fairly high quality, and the number of Wikijunior books that achieved "Book of the Month" or "Featured Book" status is quite high compared to the rest of Wikibooks in general. But this is a point that certainly can be debated and argued over.

I would love to see some sort of restoration of a "Wikijunior" section on the main page of Wikibooks, but I have deliberately chosen not to engage in a sort of edit war, particularly on the main page. I hope that we can get another "generation" of Wikijunior contributors somehow, but it is going to take some real creative work to get that to happen. I certainly hope the effort to request assistance on foundation-l turns out to help even a little bit. --Rob Horning 20:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Rob, how are you? The history is interesting, I certainly hope some of it gets distilled into History of Wikibooks. The post to foundation-l was very depressing. Few people commented on it at all. I posted about it on my blog and got a few comments, but nothing helpful. That the original grant money has all but vanished is depressing as well, because I can think of a lot of things we could do with that money right now to help revitalize wikijunior. Of course, the foundation has been terrible at keeping people informed of finances, and this current "emergency" fundraiser is evidence of this. Pursuing grant money is something that I believe we should be doing aggressively, but I wouldn't allow the foundation to "oversee" that money should any be awarded. Not, at least, without some kind of accountability.

Also, what you said about the genesis of the Wikijunior new book policy is eye-opening as well. I can't believe that people were so restrictive about the creation of new books, and that as much as anything could be a reason for the low popularity of the wikijunior project. Maybe we need to rethink the new book policy from the ground up, to make it more accessible to new authors. I would like to get User:Xixtas' take on that. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 22:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the new title policy was a good idea at the time and probably kept Wikijunior from totally dying after the initial wave of contributors abandoned the project. I wouldn't have any objection to re-evaluating the policy from the ground up now, though. --xixtas ^talk 02:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

First time on the Wiki and am confused

I thought this was a book discussion page - is there a subject area? This is my first time on the Wiki so please excuse my ignorance and post some suggestions about finding a spot or locale on books online for elementary. Thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.55.136.205 (talk • contribs) 19:48, November 3, 2007.

There is a discussion page for every module of every book. This page is for asking general questions.

We're currently working on categorizing books by reading level, but it is only just beginning. For now, your best bet is to search for books by subject instead. You may be interested in WB:AS and WB:ABS as starting points for your search. Hope that helps. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 22:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikibooks:Special groups department

What do people think of this page? In all my time here as a wikibookian, I've never even heard of it, so I can't imagine that most other people have either. It's also the only non-user page that includes Template:Wikijunior. I was going to use that template for a different purpose when I found this page.

Maybe I should have brought this up on VfD, but we don't necessarily need to consider deletion. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 13:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

More Categorization templates

I've created a few simple templates that can help to make clear some aspects about a book to new readers. These are:

• {{Prerequisite}}
• {{Corequisite}}
• {{Reading level}}

Also, I've started a draft of a description of various reading levels at Wikibooks:Reading Levels. There is now a subject page to keep books organized by reading level at Subject:Reading Levels. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 14:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, thank you for making it; I would support the guideline at first glance but should take a closer look. Mattb112885 (talk to me) 19:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it shouldnt even be a guideline, maybe we need a different classification of page such as "information page" or something. Whenever I write a new page in the Wikibooks: namespace, I always feel like i have to tag it with {{proposed}}. If we can find a better place to describe it, we could delete that information page entirely.

As to the templates, information about target audience, prerequisites, and other information that should be available before reading really makes sense to be put into template form. I'm actually surprised that nobody (myself includeD) have done this previously. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 21:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think information pages should go in the help namespace. I think prerequisites, corequisite and reading level are already part of the infobox template or can be expanded to include that information. --darklama 21:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if i'm wrong, but i'm pretty sure the infobox templates have been abandoned wholesale. I know that I do not use them for the books that I write, and I find that it's very rare to see infoboxes in books that other people are writing too. If the point that you are making that that people have previously tried to include this information, then you are correct. However, if you are trying to say that we should all turn to using the cumbersome infoboxes, then I would have to disagree with you strongly.

Information pages could go into the help pages, although I don't feel that is an optimal solution for it. I would want to see a significant cleanup of the help space before we all decide to try and cram more unorganized garbage into it. I don't see a reason why information about our books could not be hosted in the Wikibooks: namespace. I don't think it needs to be reserved for policy or guideline pages, but instead should be free to contain information pages. Notice that a page that contains information about Wikibooks isn't necessarily "helpful" in the way that I think people going to the help pages are interested in. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 22:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the infobox templates have been abandoned. They were updated a bit ago when discussion regarding removing some information from the infobox templates was discussed. I was merely suggesting that the infobox template provides for the same info and that this might be duplicated effort. Well if you think they should go into the wikibooks namespace, maybe we need a new template to make it clear what informative pages in the wikibooks are not to be mistake for policy/guideline proposals. However I don't see why the help namespace has to be limited to generic or general help. --darklama 22:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The only limits that i'm trying to put put on the help namespace is that it should be organized, and it shouldnt be filled with all sorts of unrelated things. If we move this to the helpspace, it's just going to disappear like all the rest of the things in there. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this allowed?

. I didn't want to comment, since licensing isn't my specialty, but I think it warrants some attention. Requiring people who contribute to that particular book to PD-license their work seems at odds with the "all contributions to Wikibooks are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation Licence" notice on the edit page. As well, the notice would have to be placed on every page of the book to come anywhere close to binding, I think. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 17:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont know, i'm not an expert in it either. If it's here, I think it has to be GFDL compatible. However, people have tried to cross-license books in the past. So long as the notice is prominent, I'm inclined to say that it's acceptable. the Roman Catholicism book is attempting to be released in the same way (although it's not a separate book anymore). This is an issue that we had discussed previously with all the other copyright issues, and we never made any substantial progress on. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 18:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say its not appropriate because public domain means different things in different countries which may not be compatible with the GFDL, some countries may not even recognize/acknowledge public domain, duel-licensing under both GFDL and PD makes no sense - however its not even saying that, and because of all those issues I think its against Wikibooks' policy to allow it to remain here. Public domain does not guarantee the freedoms required by the GFDL in all countries that recognize its enforceability. --darklama 19:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont think the issue is whether or not it can remain here, PD materials are allowed to be uploaded to wikibooks. If the licensing is the problem, then we remove the licensing tag from the book and say that it is simply released under the GFDL now. If one person makes an edit to the page that is released under the GFDL, the entire derivative work becomes a GFDL work. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 20:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've had a couple interesting posts on my blog about this, and people there seem to generally agree with what we are saying here. PD really can't be allowed in this instance, because we can't require contributors to release works into the public domain. I'm going to remove those templates from the book,s and possibly delete the templates all together since they should never be used. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hi! I was told to introduce myself as a new user here, wow it's so nice to be a new user again ^^. Anyway, my name is Jóhann and I am editing here mainly for langauges. My first book, Manx, I am trying to complete. My main project is the Icelandic wikibooks where I have definitely shaped up the Language department and making it the most active department there, by making bookshelf pages for the languages with beginners, intermediate, and advance guides in the common languages to not so common (like Kazakh). Maybe I can contribute that here. I am more interested in a Tutorial guide rather than divided langauges like Nouns, Adjectives, Colours and such, which is not a good way to teach a language. So I also plan in the future to adjust the Icelandic book to a tutorial guide since that has not seen much activity in a while. Uhm, what else...I am a university student studying langauges (nice guess?), and I am also a beraucrat on the Chechen wikipedia and sysop on the Faroese Wikipedia. You want to contact me, leave me a message on my talk page obviously. Ciao! :) --Girdi 23:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Improving those books to be tutorials and not simply lists of words broken by category is a good thing. Good luck in your work, and let us know if you need any help. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I am glad to see people agree with my vision. ^^ It seems the author of the Galician book at the moment is doing the same. So I am not the only one ^^ --Girdi 23:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

relatively new to Wikibook

I recently started making significant additions to the Wikibook for Celestia which hadn't been worked on for a while. Some kinds of misuse of English tend to grate on my nerves, so I may be making small changes to some other titles occasionally, as well as grumping in some of the Reading Rooms. Whiteknight's welcome message inspired me to introduce myself here. Of course, help on the Celestia book by other astronomy enthusiasts would be welcomed! Selden 20:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Selden and welcome! We would be happy to see you clean things up if you so desire! Celestia looks like a very interesting book, I'll have to take a closer look at it some time. Regards, Mattb112885 (talk to me) 22:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Collapsible Tables and related

It would be possible to have collapsible tables like wikipedia, seems that the Mediawiki:Common.js it's not the same for wikibooks and thus, for example, renders the template Template:hidden useless:

It would be nice to have these tables :)

Bunder 11:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This template isn't useless to me, it appears to work perfectly as expected. What doesnt it do that you are expecting it to? Can you give an example of a wikipedia collapsible table for comparison? --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 14:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are examples of the correct behavior of the template --Bunder 07:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The template here just seems to need to be updated to include more optional parameters. Other than that there is no differences that I saw from a quick look. Just because MediaWiki:Common.js isn't identical to Wikipedia's doesn't mean that the code to allow collapse boxes isn't here. I don't have any problems with that box either. Its currently collapsed and when I click it, it expands. Is it not collapsed? Is it not expanding? Unless we know what isn't working for you, there isn't anything we can do. --darklama 14:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, i wasn't allowing javascript to wikibooks Bunder 21:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone help me understand why the hidden template isn't working for me here? --xixtas ^talk 01:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

For complex parameter values which break templates, always try using parametername=whatever or #=whatever. My sig breaks just about everything, so I'm used to it now ;) – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 01:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess it didn't like the plus signs. -- xixtas ^talk 12:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello from Fyedernoggersnodden

Hey; Thanx as well to Mike.lifeguard for the welcome, even if (As I presume) it was just an AWB thing. I'm a Computer Science and Math student myself, and am interested in doing what I can to improve the wikibooks that are within the realm of what I've learned so far. For now, though, I'm reading Cognitive_Psychology_and_Cognitive_Neuroscience between classes, out of sheer curiosity.--Fyedernoggersnodden 00:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No AWB involved; we don't use bots to welcome here. I'm glad you're interested in Cognitive. I'll be contributing to that once I have time. If you have suggestions for where to start as you're reading through it, drop me a note on my talk page. See you around! – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 02:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

World Stamp Catalogue/Soviet Union

I represent the Russian WikiProject Philately. My colleagues and I want to contribute to World Stamp Catalogue for Soviet Union and Russia. All interested persons are welcome to join us. --Michael Romanov 19:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I am too.--Mariluna 19:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am yet another colleague of Michael Romanov from among the contributors to the Russian Philately Project so nicely introduced above by him. Please feel free to contact me. --Leonid Dzhepko 20:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! Welcome to Wikibooks, let us know if you need any help. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 22:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Whiteknight! We intend to make Soviet Union section of the WSC bilingual (both English and Russian) for convenience of users. Unfortunately, some talk on discussion pages may be in Russian, since not all Russian WikiProject Philately participants are well versed in English. Hopefully it is OK with Wikibooks. --Leonid Dzhepko 08:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be a problem here. This is English Wikibooks, not Russian Wikibook, and this book isn't about learning Russian. Both the book pages and discussion pages need to be in English so English readers and writers understand whats going on. --darklama 14:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Darklama, as Leonid kindly explains above, the Wikibooks Stamp Catalogue for Soviet Union and Russia will be in both English and Russian that would be extremely useful for Russian-speaking users and readers who cannot speak English. Would it be better if we at first provide stamp information in English following its translation in Russian? The talk page currently contains discussion of technical aspects only, first of all templates, and we provide English names for section titles. We cannot secure all the discussion in English only because there are only two of us who can speak and write English. As you can see, we have two templates and five versions now and are trying to improve them and select the best one. With kindest regards, --Michael Romanov 17:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that its suppose to be a book cataloging stamps for English speaking stamp collectors, this page would be inconsistent with the rest of the book which I think consists only of English. Also there are plenty of English-speaking users here who cannot speak Russian who could not participate in any of the Russian conversations and could not improve the Russian translations. Perhaps a solution would be to create a Russian translation of this book on Russian Wikibooks and those of you from the Russian Philately Project that can speak English can at first help in the translation process? After that then those who can speak English and Russian can work on improving the book or that page at both websites? Creating a sort of interlanguage collaboration between the two Wikibooks projects to improve both books, while making it easier for those who can only speak one language to help improve there local language version. --darklama 14:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily see it as a problem for conversations to be held in a different language here. However, the burden is on you to ensure that english-speaking participants are included in the decision-making process, should any such users wish to participate. So long as you are willing to translate, it shouldnt matter what language you speak in. As for the content pages, if you want to do a russian version, you may be more interested in hosting a parallel version at the Russian Wikibooks as well, and include an interwiki link from here to there (and vice-versa). That's probably the best solution, so that russian speakers will be able to find and participate in the book. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 17:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! Dear Darklama and Whiteknight, this is what we intended to do and what we did. We develop the English version only here, and the Russian parallel version there, at the Russian Wikibooks. And both versions have already been linked with interwiki. You cannot imagine how excited and enthusiastic the project contributors are and we thank you so much for all your outstanding support and friendly advice. Have a great weekend! Sincerely, on behalf of the Russian WikiProject Philately, --Michael Romanov 10:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, world! That`s me. Nickpo 14:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello

hello! i am antome, i will be on wikibooks, mostly in the "Game Maker" areas. I have just made the An outline of game maker book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antome (discuss • contribs)

Hello Antome, welcome to Wikibooks! I'll take quick read-through of your book, let me know if you need any help with it. This is hardly an area of expertise for me, however. If you need any help, or if you have any questions about how things work around here, leave us a question and we will get back to you quickly. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 19:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

WritersUA conference

I dont know if everybody knows this, but I got invited to the WritersUA conference in March to talk about Wikibooks to an audience of software documentation writers. The information about my presentation is located at: http://www.writersua.com/ohc/track1.htm

Two notes:

1. If anybody has any suggestions on what I should talk about, I would love to hear them. My presentation is supposed to last about 75 minutes, including about 15 minutes for questions (at least). The people there are familiar with wikis, and they should all be familiar with wikipedia, so that's a good starting point. Most of them should also be familiar with Copy-Left licensing, so if I talk about that at all, it will be brief.
2. If anybody is going to be in the Portland area March 16-19, let me know and we might be able to meet up.

This could be a great opportunity for us to really advertise wikibooks and attract some new contributors/readers. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 03:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What's up with the over-protection

Coming from the most vandalized wiki (the English Wikipedia), I have to say there is an unsettling amount of page protection going on here. This runs counter to the defining quality of wikis, which makes them so great. I saw a couple of simple typos I wanted to correct, but couldn't because they were protected. I don't know if these pages are fully protected or just semi-protected (no anon edits), but it doesn't really matter. As editing Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and Commons, takes up all my time already, I have no plans to be a consistent or even semi-consistent editor for WikiBooks, and thus see no reason to create a user account at this time. With me, WikiBooks is only losing two trivial edits, but in general is probably losing much much more as far as potential editors go.

A few years ago, I merely read articles on Wikipedia and didn't think to edit them, however after seeing some obvious spelling and grammar errors, that "edit this page" button was just begging to be clicked on. Everytime I ran into an error when reading articles, I would fix it. I found myself going out of my way to correct articles (i.e. going to pages I had no interest in reading). When I got involved to the point where I was going to talk and other namespace pages, I decided to get a username to be part of the community - not to simply edit articles. If I didn't have this open experience, I wouldn't be a Wikipedia editor at all, let alone a very dedicated one. I got involved with Commons and Wiktionary in much the same way, usually because of trans-wiki linking. Likewise, I came here to find a appropriate link to use on Wikipedia, saw a couple of errors I wanted to correct on my way, which could have been my first step into being a full-time editor, but got derailed by all the protected pages. I'm sure others feel the same. This is very unfortunate, as WikiBooks has lots of potential, but desperately needs more editors.

Vandalism sucks, but it's small price to pay for freedom. Vandals are annoying, but editors are more important.

On Wikipedia, we have a behavioral guideline called "Assume good faith", I suggest WikiBooks adopt this too.

Sincerely,

one less editor aka 68.74.158.43 17:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you won't be editing. I'm not sure which pages you're referring to. So far as I know, Wikibooks actually has far less page protection than Wikipedia. Assuming good faith doesn't mean unprotecting everything; there is a balance to be had. If you like, feel free to tell us where the balance is off. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 18:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Nowcommons

Could someone familiar with template syntax get this to put images into Category:NowCommons unless a different name is specified, in which case put the image into Category:NowCommons (different filename). This is because images which have the same filename at Commons can simply be deleted, whereas those which have a different filename need extra attention before deletion. Thanks in advance. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 00:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm on it. give me a minute. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 02:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think that fixed it. Double check me, but the few images i looked at seemed correct. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 02:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the categories were switched; all the images listed there now have the same name on commons. I think our friendly job-cue-category bug is going to keep them from switching over though. I'll test by moving and tagging another image. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 03:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No, your version was right. I should've known better... – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 03:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I found the real problem. When you hit "add {{nowcommons}}" on CommonsHelper, it always puts {{NowCommons|1=filename.ext}} regardless of whether the filename changed or not. Is it possible to put images into the different filename category if parameter1 != FULLPAGENAME? – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 03:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well there's nothing like a template breaking to spur one to learn about parser functions. I finally figured out what the real problem was & fixed it. *feels proud* – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 04:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

{{query}}

I don't know if anyone has noticed an error that occurs sometimes with the {{query}} template. Here is a screenshot showing that some of the contents of the template are being shown on the page. Purging the page undoes this. Ideas? – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 21:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

A while back, darklama came up with a mechanism to automatically move a page into the speedy delete category after a certain number of days. It appears to me that it's this mechanism that is failing. I dont know enough about it (and don't have the time tonight to go picking through it) so you are going to need Darklama's input on it. Judging from the nature of the error, I would guess that {{Lastedit}} is the culprit here. I assume that under some conditions, this template returns the null string. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikibook on Critical Thinking?

Critical Thinking is something that I've often found amiss in the last few weeks. I wonder if a Wikibook teaching it would be at all useful. Here's what I could imagine in terms of contents:

1. Psychology: reading between the lines
2. Logic: recognizing good and bad arguments
3. Rhetorics: noticing when you're being influenced
4. Science: preparing for the untold part of the picture
5. Media literacy: identifying and counteracting bias
6. Developing and laying out your opinion

Would anybody be interested in developing this Wikibook with me or studying it?

Junesun 16:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know enough about critical thinking to write. You might want to look at Effective Reasoning if you haven't already. Hoogli 01:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello (and a question)

Hello everybody! I'm a new user (although I registered almost four months ago I write now) and I have one question - how to upload a PDF file? I have finished two books, but there is a lot formating in them which I don't want to be lost so I think it would be the best that I upload the books and then somebody other can convert it to HTML? Advice anybody?--Vorkalloner 16:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Vorkalloner, welcome to Wikibooks. Under the assumption that you're willing to list the books under the GFDL and would not mind if an editable copy (in the form of HTML) was available (it wouldn't be a simple "conversion" though, it would have to go into the wiki syntax and all of that), PDF files are loaded using the "upload file" link on the toolbar on the left, which takes you to this page. From that page you can not only upload images, but also PDF files. Good luck! Mattb112885 (talk to me) 19:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Gita

• I wrote Bhagwat Gita in Wiki Books named as "Gita".Earlier I wanted to write Book Name as Srimad Bhagwat Gita or Bhagwat Gita. Later I selected only Gita. Can you suggest right name for this book?
• I see some dot lines like -------- and these lines make square. In this square some of my writings of Srimad Bhagwat Geeta or Bhagwat Gita or Gita are written. Can you please help me? What does it mean? Should I delete those lines or Should I modify or Does it mean that these sentences needs modification? Kindly help me. Thanks and regards.Jaipaldatta 19:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The lines that you are talking about with the dashes around them are known as "preformatted text". If a line starts with a space or a tab, it will become preformatted. Make sure that all the paragraphs in your book do not start with a space or a line. As to the name of your book, whichever you think is appropriate is probably the best. "Gita" is very simple and easy to remember, so you may want to use that. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 19:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• ThanksJaipaldatta 07:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikibooks:Census

Apparently, people at meta are trying to perform some kind of wikimedia-wide census. I don't know how exactly this is going to work, and I can't find any information about it. However, my inability to find information about this doesnt mean that it isn't really happening. We have been asked to write questions for the census, and we are supposed to have a bunch of questions written up by this Sunday (11 November).

A few questions have already been written, although all of them should be open for editing and improvement. When the time comes, I would also like to ask all wikibookians to participate in the census (however they do it) so that we can be properly represented. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Soft redirection for wikiversity materials

I'm starting to work on making "small-scope" Subject pages, and while checking links for Subject:Cichorium intybus I noted that I will be running into a lot of links on the Field Guide, which is a long-abandoned book started in '04 by User:TUF-KAT (who seems to have long disappeared from wikibooks). With this in mind, I'm thinking about replacing pages in that book and probably some other long-abandoned stubs with soft redirects to Wikiversity. For that book in particular, the "wildflowers" section has a ton of redlinks and only 4 content pages, and even the content isn't much to look at.

I think it might make sense for now to either replace the entire "wildflowers/plants" directory of that book (again, mostly just redlinks) to the Wikiversity bloom clock. In the future we could perhaps instead just import bloom clock materials (such as v:BCP/Cichorium intybus) to either the field guide or dichotomous key (the DK should probably be merged with this book anyway, since making a single DK for all life forms is pretty much impossible). Currently the bloom clock takes advantage of DPL to make regional categories in any case, so the BC keys actually function as field guides quite well (and there are nearly 450 plants on it at the moment, as opposed to the 4 on the Field Guide).

Anyway, sound like a good idea? --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 14:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I worry that the bloom clock is not necessarily a stand-in replacement for the field guide book. Even though both are about plants, I think they are covered in different ways. However, the field guide book is long-abandoned, and I think it's fair to assume that TUF-KAT is never coming back to wikibooks, at least not to contribute like he once did. If the field guide did contain good book-like materials, I think it would be more prudent to merge those into other books. If there are no other suitable books, a better Idea might be to leave the book as a stub (because somebody may eventually expand on it), post several prominant links to Wikiversity (not redirects, but just large links), and find a way to advertise both the field guide and the bloom clock together both on this site, on wikiversity, and in other places as well. I have no problem promoting the bloom clock or any other wikiversity resource, but I am hesitant to sacrifice an entire book in order to do that. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 20:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the idea is to eventually import the BCP pages to wikibooks, once there has a been a few years of data collection and the dichotomous keys are developed a bit more. The clock's pages could then be transcluded into as many field guides as appropriate, but with additional text explaining local distribution and status. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 13:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

GFDL requirement for book from other source

If I translate only one section from other GFDL book, for example, http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Secure-Programs-HOWTO/why-write-insecure.html, I must comply with all requirement in GFDL.

• 4. In addition, you must do these things in the Modified Version:
  • D. Preserve all the copyright notices of the Document.
  • H. Include an unaltered copy of this License: This would make the wikibooks pages flood by big text of the GFDL?

--Ans 06:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

So far as I know, a link to the original will satisfy the first requirement. The whole Wikibooks project has a copy of the GFDL here; each individual book doesn't need it's own copy. Happy editing! – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 15:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Mike is exactly right. Every individual book doesnt need a copy of the GFDL because the entire wikibooks project has a copy already. In this sense, we can think of the entire wikibooks website as a single "aggregate" work. That is, of course, until somebody separates out a single book by printing or something similar, and separates a book from the wikibooks project. In that case, it would need it's own copy. If you are translating from another site, make sure you leave a note about the source of the material. Also, if you want to make the licensing clear, you can use {{GFDL}}. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 17:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

But when people click view source (which is "Transparent copy", according to GFDL), they won't get the text of GFDL. Hmm, ok, it's their responsible, to reinsert the GFDL section, if they want to redistribute the individual document. However, the copyright notice (#4D in GFDL 1.1), must be still preserved in all individual documents in this collection. Besides, how about the "History section" (according to GFDL)? --Ans 05:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The view expressed by Whiteknight is his own interpretation and is not consensual, even the "creators" of the system/concept aren't clear how it should be viewed. I have previously disagreed with WK on the view that Wikibooks is an aggregation of works: But agree that Wikipedia is. I have attempted to provide all the works I have contributed here with it's own copy of the GFDL on the version intended for printing (as it is intended to create a stand alone version), and an copyrights/author attribution section; As for any other version (for use online) the bottom of a page will informs users that all pages are under GFDL and link to the license should satisfy the requirements.

We should keep in mind that Wikibooks isn't licensed under the GFDL but under the GFDL with other limitations (check the copyright section); Translations have a special section on the GFDL. They qualify as a modification and have to comply with that section 4 you partially indicated; must have a distinct name, list authors of the original document and the modification, etc... if you only fallow Mike indication, any hardcopy of the modification would violate the GFDL (even using the other limitations Wikibooks use), the best way is to preserve all the information of the original work in any modified version or at least attempt to; This seems to be a fair requirement. --Panic 16:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The only limitations to the GFDL imposed by Wikibooks is in regard to what is allowed to be hosted on Wikibooks. The limitations have nothing to do with what anyone is allowed to do with the books/documents if hosted or redistributed elsewhere, or printed. I could for example take a book from this website, create a cover page for it, add sections to it which cannot be freely copied, make a note of those sections, in the history section, print it and sell it for profit. Alternatively I could create a book from scratch under the GFDL with sections not covered by the GFDL and host it on some website. Anyone could use the sections covered by the GFDL from my book as a bases for a book on Wikibooks. The limitations just doesn't allow non-GFDL sections to be added to Wikibooks. --darklama 17:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That is incorrect, it suffices to take a look into the extended limitations to the GFDL as written on Wikibooks:Copyrights to read "Use in hardcopy" (not controlled by Wikibooks or Wikimedia) and "Use on the Internet" (that doesn't cover only Wikimedia controlled content).

What is "imposed" by Wikibooks is the use of the GFDL with those extra limitations/considerations, not only on Wikibooks but on every subsequent derivation/modification, copy or distribution in whatever form it is created or displayed inside or outside of Wikibooks and Wikimedia control.

If you make a modification/translation for distribution, you would have to comply with the section Ans indicated, that defines some limitations to the coverpage you could use, title and other data. If you add any text to a GFDL text it must comply to the GFDL, so in the example you give all the content is up for grabs (as in usable for GFDL distribution or uses defined on the license). And in the last phrase you are also incorrect non GFDL content can be used on GFDL works if a compatible license was used or if the copyright holder (not the authors, as seen on the VfD discussion on the UNESCO work) agree to it, but from that moment on it would indeed be all under the GFDL (that was probably what you intended to state). --Panic 18:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Another interesting discussion would be if other GFDL content (not originated on Wikimedia under those limitations) and even in part in opposition to the extra limitations/considerations could be used...

My view is that if no direct stated opposition, or collision with the required limitations is present it can be used; This creates the problem that not every GFDL content is compatible with "our" GFDL + limitations license and viceversa for future iterations since the limitations would apply. --Panic 19:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

My "views" on this topic are not just my personal interpretations, they are the way things are here, even if you don't agree with me. In fact, I dont remember anybody asking you what your opinion was on the issue, although you are more then happy to tell us your "version" of it repeatedly at every available opportunity. This website represents a single "work", from a technical level this entire site is served from a single database. This is the only way in which the Wikibooks website remains compliant with the GFDL. Using a flawed interpretation that every individual book and page is a separate work means that this entire site is a copyvio. Since this is not the case, you can stop saying otherwise, especially to users who are new and possibly confused enough already. Considering that your minority view has been shown on numerous occasions to be faulty, it would probably be in everybody's best interests if you excused yourself from this and future discussions on the topic. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil. If you wish to contest my opinion or validate yours you may start if so inclined by providing some information to validate and instruct us non believers about your claims "This website represents a single "work", from a technical level this entire site is served from a single database." doesn't make sense even at a technical level. --Panic 03:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing to validate, it's not my "opinion", it's the fact of our project. There is simply no other way to see it. How many times have you done this? You say things that are bogus, you belittle people who are trying to be rational by calling thruths "opinions", you refuse to understand the explanations that people give you, and the list goes on. I'm not being uncivil, i've grown tired of your particular brand of trolling, and i'm not going to allow you to spread misinformation to people who genuinely need advice about licensing. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 03:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• reset

That affirmation is not correct, this view that Wikibooks is a single work is not a fact, it has no base in any available record or even Wikimedia statements. As far as I know I'm not the only one that contests this view (and not the only Wikibookian that thinks so) on the other hand you are the only one that has so far defended the other "theory". I'm no zealot and can accept that you may be correct or at least have some points that would support your view, but it irks me that you can claim to have a superior and better understanding only because you claim so.
Since this has no bearing on the first posters question (but relates to the global discussion), I don't see any harm in adding a bit more here (but we have already discussed this without any conclusion), I'm as free as yourself to defend a different viewpoint and don't like your attempt to force your interpretation as gospel and how you react to different opinions.
We can take a simple example the project name is in plural (Wikibooks) in contrast to Wikipedia or Wikidicionary that in itself provides some clues that the intention was to have the project around several independent works. Then there is the legal framework the GFDL provides I call your attention that you may be confusing or have worded things wrong, an aggregation of independent works is not the same as "This website represents a single "work" ", all works continue to be independent and each with his own license and copyright statement (I grant you that pages outside of the books could be seen as single work, a collection, but I can't claim to be as certain as you on that regard), this aggregation view has implications on how pages have/can been moved from work to work. This is why I disagree with your view that "Every individual book doesn't need a copy of the GFDL because the entire wikibooks project has a copy already." this is just not so.
If you can't accept that you may be wrong and feel that this discussion should extend any further I will happily continue to argue my point but taken in consideration our past discussion I doubt it would lead anywhere and only be a re-hash of what has been said, but please be more open to others having different ideas and the right to express them. txs... (if you can't remember what we have said on the subject I think you can find it on Rob's talk page history, on your's and mine) --Panic 15:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine, let's play this game, again. First, the fact that "Wikibooks" is a plural name doesnt indicate anything about the intentions of the founders of this project with regard to licensing. Wikibooks was based, technologically and ideologically on Wikipedia, which is considered to be a single work for the sake of licensing (with the addition of non-GFDL images, which technically makes it an aggregate). There is no reason to make the assumption that somehow Wikibooks must be any different from the Wikipedia model, regardless of the fact that our name sounds like a plural. "Wikibooks" is a proper noun, and the trailing 's' does not imply plurality. Second, the fact that this website only contains a single copy of the GFDL means that it must either be a single work, or a single aggregation. The only reason this would be an aggregation is if we have a GFDL document combined with a non-GFDL document, such as the CC-BY-SA images. Images aside, the textual components of this website form a single work under the GFDL. Combinations of multiple GFDL documents form a "collection", which is in itself a new single GFDL work with the caveat that that individual sections can be removed with their individual invariant sections. Since Wikibooks is released with no invariant sections, that distinction is moot. You say that pages outside of books could be considered a single work, but you are making the arbitrary distinction that some pages are "in" a book, and some are "not in" it. This is just an artifact of our naming convention, that pages are named so that they appear to have a hierarchical relationship with other similarly named pages. However, all such naming schemes share a common root, which makes the distinction of page groups as books more tenuous. Multiple pages under a single copy of the GFDL must be either a single document or a collection of documents, and without invariant sections the two are the same thing. Section 1 says "A "Modified Version" of the Document means any work containing the Document or a portion of it, either copied verbatim, or with modifications and/or translated into another language.", that is any "work" (not "document") is considered a single "modified version" if it contains the document. In short, the Wikibooks website represents a single modified version containing all pages. QED. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 18:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see this as a game, we aren't competing (at least I didn't sign in for that) at best we are challenging each others views on the subject and I'm taking something from it, knowledge in general and better understanding about your side of the problem, I already have a good understanding on your stance in several points so this exercise is useful if not to you to me and if we reach a conclusion maybe even to the first poster and community.

I start by agreeing that what I said about the name is my interpretation and is as valid as yours. I agree also to what you said about the project conception, but on the scope and objectives the project is very different from the others probably the only one closely related would be WikiSource, it would be funny to have this discussion there :)

For what I understand you have "changed you view" or at least modified it a bit so to admit that for you (lets keep the universe reduced to you and me to be easier to address each side) can now accept that Wikibooks is an aggregate of works (even considering that you now do it because of the different licenses used on the images); We can even say that this was you viewpoint from the start and that "This website represents a single "work" " was a generalization of that concept. Hope I got this supposition right, this will reduce a bit my objection but I will continue on disagreeing with you and will address this as you position so far.

Ok, from that new insight I can agree and confirm that I'm in concordance with that general view in part but still think a single license doesn't cover all (lets say all GFDL) content on Wikibooks. Why? Because to your extra considerations to images with a different licensee, I add that each book also has it's own license and licenser, that it is not as generic as the one that covers all the site (this can be challenged in part and probably we will not reach a conclusion because of the submit clause, in any case the namespace were the submission is being made could serve to enforce my side but lets skip that discussion), beyond that, you forget that several works/pages don't have the submitter as author or copyright holder, and even if not using the GFDL (in the original form) no violation is being made by the contributor that is in fact relicensing a work (lets consider only valid works with proper licenses, remember that GFDL is a license for distribution). As support to this view and if we are using the aggregate definition we can read on the GFDL "When the Document is included in an aggregate, this License does not apply to the other works in the aggregate which are not themselves derivative works of the Document.", it seems to be clear to me that each work can't be considered a derivate of the hole site (or even vice versa if we go that far), they are self contained, right holders and content, more each work should have it's own license were the copyright holders grants the contribution under the GFDL license (again the submit clause), and there is the problem of attribution. For instance, to use content from Wikipedia we must give attribution to it in each work that uses content from it (now we use mostly transwiki to solve the problem, I also disagree with using this option skipping the attribution), but each book must give attribution specific and relating only to that single work, referencing also specific extra parts that may have rights on the work and specifically indicating their agreement to license it under the GFDL, this points so far may prove to you that all works should be considered an aggregated work and that the site wide license doesn't apply to those documents, I could point other subtilities that would further advance my view (but would probably raise problems in other areas), as I know you will adamantly defend the submit button I remind you just one more point, most of us Wikibookians are anonymous contributors...

As for the project name :) I only gave you that fact because it fits to what I'm stating (as we were talking about facts and both side miss them), and I still like that example...

I don't disagree that most pages on the site may be considered a "collection" when not part of a book (I gave you several reasons why this should be so and agree that what I'm defending doesn't apply to any other page not even talk pages on the books), I know that you have several other concepts that collide with mine (history pages, authors and others not related to this subject), and all the examples I gave you skip most of that minefield...

If your response is to address the submit clause then the little examples I gave should suffice but even you can grant me that the legalities of such clause is shaky and that it's use is more for protection than anything else, but if you wish to extend the discussion into that (I remember we had also a discussion about that and if my memory doesn't fail you agreed or didn't objected to this understanding)...

In any case, to recenter the discussion, we are only in disagreement here about the view of a site wide license that could substitute every other license (GFDL) or not, that each book "may" need it's own license and must have it on the print version. --Panic 04:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

IANAL, but I think that this issue is best resolved by looking directly at the text of the license itself:

You may make a collection consisting of the Document and other documents released under this License, and replace the individual copies of this License in the various documents with a single copy that is included in the collection, provided that you follow the rules of this License for verbatim copying of each of the documents in all other respects.

I think that the Wikibooks project would fall under this category. Mattb112885 (talk to me) 05:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

None of us are lawyers (AFAIK) and I doubt one would be willing to make an opinion on the GFDL licensing problem as the license was "tweaked" (so to avoid the abused word :) to cover our (project) specific needs and the evolution of the medium we use.

In any case WK covered the distinction about collection and aggregate (we can have a mix of documents under several setups), the only important distinctions is with the specific requirements (not the Invariant Sections as WK has pointed out since our GFDL is extended to avoid it), licenser mention, attributions etc...

If you take it to a very basic level it is about if every page is a module under the site wide license (rights attribution), and that that suffices for all pages. In other words that stuff like this C++ Programming/Authors should not only be avoided but completely unnecessary as serving no purpose legally (WK opposition here at this point doesn't cover the moral side or contributors liberty to add such things). --Panic 05:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The GFDL is not extended to avoid it or otherwise "tweaked". Wikibooks' Copyright page states only that anyone submitted works to Wikibooks must agree to allow Wikibooks to use it without no invariant sections and no front cover text, as a requirement that must be agreed to before clicking the submit button in order to be used here. It is not listed as a requirement that must be accepted when used, modified elsewhere, or redistributed, regardless if done so on the internet or in print. In both cases it tells you to read the GFDL link for specifics, which does include information on having invariant sections and front cover text.

Anyone is free to include an authors or contributors section, although it should be avoided. However it does serve no legal purpose from the stand point of the Wikimedia Foundation and anyone is free to add there name to it. Wikibooks clearly defines for internet use "linking back" to the book or module being used, modified or redistributed as being enough to satisfy the author requirements of the GFDL license. I think the Wikimedia Foundation stance on hard copy is its up to the person who wants to use, modify or redistribute works of any project to determine the appropriate steps necessary to properly attribute authors/copyright holders based on their local laws, and not the responsibility of any contributors to the Wikimedia projects. I think that makes perfect sense, since laws can vary by country and jurisdiction and only someone familiar with local laws has a good chance of determine who meet those requirements appropriately. None of us are lawyers and even if we were, thats no guarantee that such a person knows the current laws that apply for every place in the world. The responsibility is the person wishing to use, modify and redistribute the works, not Wikibooks or any of its contributors as a whole. --darklama 14:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that the GFDL had to have some exceptions added (therefore tweaked), and is common knowledge that if it could be replaced it probably would. (other examples of the problem can be learned by studding the need for multiple licensing or comparing it to similar licenses).

Once you license the work under the GFDL with the additions any subsequent version would have to comply to it. Do I understand correctly and you are stating that the exceptions are only valid on Wikibooks ?!?

We have addressed this "anyone is free to include an authors or contributors section" and this is not the issue here. An author is not the same as contributors the distinction has to do about rights ownership not all edits grant you ownership of the contributions and there is a problem of quantity/quality of what constitutes a significant change, this is common knowledge for software developers...

The location of the rights (jurisdiction) are clearly stated, the one that applies here is the location of the server, and I disagree with you on some points further for instance if someone abused the site wide license how would you address it (the submit clause doesn't transmit copyrights to Wikimedia, it only licenses the work under the GFDL to Wikimedia if you go to FSF we can clearly read that only the owner of the copyright can defend the abuse) ? --Panic 16:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That's another point where you are stubbornly wrong, panic. Every person who makes any edit holds copyright over that edit. There is no quantitative nor qualitative distinction what-so-ever between a contributor, an editor, an author or a rights-holder on this project. The GFDL makes no such distinction, the Wikibooks:Copyrights page makes no such distinction. It is a figment of your imagination, and unless you can show us the magical hiding-place where this information is living, you need to give it a break. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 18:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I know you also disagree but lets skip that point for now, if we start mixing it all up we will not ever find a point of consensus were we can build up, since you extended a bit I will also defend a bit my view so third parties can understand our view points (or disagree completely with them). In any case this part is not covered by the license we use by the copyright law in general and specifically on the state the server resides (as I told Darklama), the GFDL concern with this part is minimum as it doesn't deal with copyrights but only on the specific right for distribution.

The view that each edit creates it's copyright and can claim part authorship of a work is flawed in the sense that is self evident that not all edits are contributions (error correction, spelling, reorganization or restructuring of the work etc), and the copyright law stipulates clearly what constitutes a copyrightable change to a work (derivation) and defines the creator of the work (I will not discuss copyright law with you as I think it's pretty evident and if you have problems with it it you should consider carefully your actions, counsels on that field, but again in this respect you have already been challenged and one of the persons talking to you claimed to understand and have a particular relation to the law, and I to am pretty much informed on my local copyright law, European Community discussions and plans. Not only by formation but as a programmer and due to my personal interest on P2P). --Panic 19:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes you understand that part correctly, the exception is only valid to works submitted to Wikibooks while it remains on Wikibooks. That exception exists only to insure that all works located on Wikibooks are free to be used, modified and redistributed. Cover text and the invariant sections can have all rights reserved, unlike the rest of a GFDL document, which is not wanted on Wikibooks. As soon as you use, modify or redistribute it off of Wikibooks anyone is free to add cover text and invariant sections to the book which have all rights reserved or have different licensing terms.

Any distinctions if one exists is dependent on locally applied laws, which may include giving jurisdiction to some other country. Not all places are so willing to give jurisdiction to some other country. Its incorrect to assume US laws, Florida or International Laws apply everywhere. If someone abuses the site wide license thats between any concerned parties and whatever laws apply in there location and not Wikimedia nor Wikibooks. You may be very well be interested in a recent case in which someone tried to sue the Wikimedia Foundation for copyright infringement and lost. Wikibooks is just a provider with policies to follow, and enforces local policies, any issues concerning copyright infringement is between the accuser and the accused and has nothing to do with Wikibooks or its location. The case did not take place in the US and did not require considering US copyright laws, Florida copyright laws, nor International copyright laws as you would have us believe must be done. --darklama 21:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• reset

I disagree with that version and even presume that WK will also disagree with it, after licensing the work or initiating it under it that license will be completely irrevocable "Once a license has been granted to Wikibooks for material, an author may not revoke or alter that license." (even if we use the site wide view), only the copyright owners can relicense it under a different setup. (I remember you again that the GFDL doesn't cover ownership only distribution, for instance even if we use the site wide view, Wikimedia can't relicense the works under an incompatible license without contacting and getting consent from the right owners). --Panic 23:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Feedback for Manx

Hello! Before I continue on with my Manx book, I want to make sure that everything can be geared and appropriate to all levels of learning. Please view: Manx Lesson 1 and any other parts of the book that are done at the moment. I'd like to see what everyone thinks of it, the level or teaching, format, and so on so I can better this book before I start using lessons as a generalised template for my other chapters and Language books. (By the way, Manx is the language spoken on the Isle of Man). ^^ --Girdi 20:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

As a fellow Manxie I love this idea. I've helped develop many of the language books and one thing that would greatly help any of our books would be some kind of pronunciation guide especially if you can make audio files to help pronunciation further. I think the Spanish and German Wikibooks have audio files for listening and pronunciation practice.

Wow, you are Manx? I am not Manx unfortunately, but I like how you think of me as a fellow Manx. Haha. So yeah, I was planning on working on audio files eventually after I complete the written lessons. Do you speak Manx? --Girdi 05:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

New to wikibooks

Hello everyone. I am new to wikibooks. I look forward to browsing the site. My name is Shannon Horn. I am in a introduction to teaching class.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shannon h82 (discuss • contribs)

Hello from newbie!

Hello there, following a welcome from User:Mike.lifeguard, I've been encouraged to pop in here and say hello! I am in the process on writing a book explaining the basics of Building Services, well actually I've literally just started it. I have found very little info on the internet about the subject so intend to do something about that!

I'm fine with writing the text but I need a bit of help with putting the book together and naming conventions etc. Can somebody please tell me in layman's terms the following:

1. I want to create a new page (module) so I create a link with the title of it in the page it is going to come from then click on that link to go to editing the new page but what should it be called to comply with the naming conventions? Say I have a chapter called 'ventilation' and I want to create two modules: 'natural ventilation' and 'mechanical ventilation' with links from the chapter intro page.

2. What about the chapter intro pages? What should they be called?

The naming conventions page just confuses me further! If anyone has any tips for putting this book together, that would be great. Thanks.

GaryReggae 12:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Gary! welcome to Wikibooks! I've been following some of your progress, and your book looks like it's off to a great start. You may be interested in reading some or all of Using Wikibooks, a book that we are in the process of writing to try and explain some of these details. Specifically, the page on Book Structures trys to cover some of the naming convention issues (although admittedly it's still a short rough draft). To try and answer your question directly, You name pages using a forward-slash, such as "Book name/Chapter/Page". In your case, you would have pages named:

• Building Services/Ventilation
• Building Services/Ventilation/Natural Ventilation
• Building Services/Ventilation/Mechanical Ventilation

If you wanted to have a page that serves as an introduction to the chapter, you could do it at Building Services/Ventilation, or you could do it at Building Services/Ventilation/Introduction. I hope this answers your question, if you have any more just let us know. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 12:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, brilliant, I thought that was kind of the case, hence the fact some of the names you suggested as links work. How do I actually rename a page once it has been created? Also, what should I call the main page of the book, ie where the intro and TOC are? At the moment it's just 'Building Services' with nothing in front of or after it, is that right? I'll just have the intro to each chapter on the 'home page' for that chapter, ie Building Services/Ventilation. Hopefully I'll write another chapter or two this evening.

Next question, I'd like to make the book look a bit more interesting with some images but I don't really have many suitable photos or opportunities to take any and I know it is not a good idea to use photos from external sites. Do you know of a good source of free images I could use? Otherwise I'll just have to get Google Sketchup out and draw some models and take screenshots of them.

Thanks,

Gary GaryReggae 13:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a move tab at the top of the page. Just hit that, enter the new name, and click the button. You can't move a page to a name already in existence (but an admin could if you ever need that done). Building Services is a good spot to have the intro and a TOC. If you want to give the book a cover you can do that at Building Services/Cover for example. The main page (the top of the hierarchy) is also the page you want to categorize with {{Subject}}. So you can keep track of all the pages in the book easily, you can categorize them all with Category:Building Services. So that last category keeps all the pages of the book together, and the {{Subject}} template on the main page lets the book show up in Subject: pages, for example.

Commons has tons of free images that you can use here. There's no need to upload the images locally, just use the same image syntax as you normally would; the software will search on Commons if the image isn't located here. Hope that helps. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 16:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks, I'll have a look at the Commons and all the other tips as well. GaryReggae 19:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of external links

Hi there, I am a big user of wikipedia and just found Wikibooks. Found the Study_Guides:Microsoft_Certified_Professional_Developer_MCPD\CExam_70-536 book, which is fine because I am studying for that certification :-) A question thow, there seems to be MANY pages associated with this book, most of them with only external links (no specific article). How should those kinds of links be arranged?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jacques Bergeron (talk • contribs) 04:36, November 17, 2007.

I don't know about that book in particular, but if there are pages which consist solely of external links, then that's no good. If the link is legit, it should be with others on a different page which has actual content. That's my take, at least.

You may be interested in Wikibooks for Wikipedians. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 04:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. In that particular case the external references are very important for studying so I think they are ligit. I will try to see if wee can put a "reference" section and check with those who started the book. If it works there will be many pages to delete. I will do some of the cleaning and ask if I have any questions.Jacques Bergeron 13:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Not long before I had a question :-) I started to change a section to integrate the external links in the main page so that the "dummy" pages are not required anymore. See http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Microsoft_Certified_Technology_Specialist/Exam_70-536 section Mannage_data_in_a_.NET_Framework_application_by_using_specialized_collections for the new setup. Question is, how do I delete the pages that are no longer referenced. --Jacques 14:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Pages meeting speedy deletion criteria can get marked with {{delete|reason}}. An admin will come along and take care of it. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 17:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Community fire safety book

Hi...just like everyone else here, I'm new and looking for a little (some would say a lot!) of help. I'm proposing a book on community fire safety that will cover a wide range of topics related to fire safety. This will include fire protection engineering, fire prevention practices, education, human behavior, building design, fire behavior, etc. In other words, a cross between engineering, social sciences and some other topics.

So, I'm not quite sure where to put it. Suggestions or ideas?

A draft of a section can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campus_fire_safety which I would like to move from Wikipedia over to Wikibooks.

Thank you!

Ecomeau 09:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ecomeau, I think this would be a great addition to Wikibooks, I wouldn't mind importing that page (I'll give you a link once I do it if the import succeeds) into Wikibooks, and then you can move it so that the title is whatever you want it to be (I think "fire safety" would be a good title). Mattb112885 (talk to me) 16:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Done; the page now exists at Transwiki:Campus fire safety; enjoy! Mattb112885 (talk to me) 16:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

New book: French For Football

Hi, I just created this book and copied my early work into it. I'm not sure I've got the Subject and Category tags right, so I would appreciate someone having a look at the front page. Thanks. Recent Runes 20:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 00:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

help i need to learn

hi my name is candice i just found this site yesterday im going on an education beng and i need to read anything that is going to teach me something im not verry book smart or wordly i feel like i don't know what happen who did and how they figured it out i need a list of books thats going to teach me everything about the world life past present and future im bad at math and spelling too i spend most of my days at home and never leave thats another reason why i feel like i missed everything do you have any sugjestions

Want to learn about everything? that's a tall order. Are there any places that you would like to start? Some of our best books are listed at WB:FN. Books in this list cover topics from math and science, computer science, arts, humanities, education, etc. I would say that this is the best place to start reading, if you are looking for a little bit of everything. Another place you can look is at WB:AS, which is the "top" of our organizational system. You can navigate through the various categories until you find books that you are interested in. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 19:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

MISSING

TRY TO FIND INFO ON THESE WORDS NO YES NOTHING EVERTHING

CAN'T FIND ANYTHING ???????????????? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.37.119.230 (talk • contribs) 01:48, November 15, 2007.

Those are not subjects that a textbook has been written about. Go fish. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 01:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe try wiktionary? Mattb112885 (talk to me) 15:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Logo Selection Process Straw Poll

I've started a quick straw poll on meta to see if people are generally in agreement with the rules and the process that have been suggested for selecting a new wikibooks logo. The straw poll is located at meta:Wikibooks/Logo#Should_We_Get_Started.3F_Straw_Poll. The approved rules are:

And the suggested process outline is:

I would like to hear what other wikibookians have to say about this process, and if there are any other suggestions. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 17:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused by "the top 10 submissions are removed from the pool. Discussion can occur on all surviving logo nominations". That is the opposite of what is meant, I hope. ...Selden 18:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right, that was a typo on my part. Fixed now, it should make more sense. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 21:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Mentorship?

After commenting on an RfA just now, I got to thinking that perhaps the Wikiversity model of mentorship might serve us a bit better. We've been using it for over a year there, with no problems... and I suspect it probably achieves the same result as our process.

The way it works is that someone requests adminship (well, "custodianship" there, but same diff), and rather than doing a vote, they instead just need to attract a custodian (i.e. administrator) to "mentor" them. The mentor is then co-responsible for the "mentee's" administrative actions over the next month, and at the end of the month nominates (or declines to nominate) the user for permanent custodial (administrative) status.

In the RfA that I commented on today, my response on wikiversity would have been more like "Flickts, I don't think you're going to find someone willing to mentor you right now." --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 18:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

So what happens at the end of the month? The mentor nominates (or not) this person, and then there's a vote on whether we accept the mentor's recommendation? I'm not sure how I feel about someone running around with admin tools before being approved for them. If they mess up while their mentor isn't around, then...?

I'd be more likely to support a trial run after approval instead. It can still be a mentorship, but after they're already approved - as a way to learn how to use the tools. We could include a mandatory "review" after the first month of having the tools, and we'd request comments from their mentor and whatnot...

All in all, I think our process doesn't need changing though. I expect that Wikibooks is going to enjoy more growth then Wikiversity in the near future, and adding another level of bureaucracy wouldn't be good if that's the case, as it would lead in the direction of Wikpedia's (arguably) broken processes. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 18:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's designed to be a step away from the wikipedian process, which has become highly politicized (check out w:WP:RFA). Yes, the field is left open for comments after the one-month trial, though it tends to be a low-key affair. If there were any problems during that month, there would likely be a more heated discussion (or more likely the mentee would just be speedy desysopped... stewards are readily available via irc). Also, they're not exactly running around unapproved, since they have to attract a mentor, and that mentor will be watching their logs. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 09:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I admit I like the idea of having a mentor period, the only thing that bugs me about the whole idea is that it limits the tools to people who got the support of at least one person who already has the tools, which removes the community from having any say in it. For example if the community strongly supports giving someone the tools, but there is no current person with the tools willing or having the time to mentor the person, then that would prevent someone from being able to get the tools and would go against consensus and what the community wants.

I think one possible solution would be to make the mentor concept an alternative to getting community consensus right away, where if someone with the tools is willing to mentor a person and there is no strong objections, they can get the tools more quickly and then after a month the community can decide whether the person should continue to have them. --darklama 12:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

We talked about this in irc today, and I absolutely agree with darkcode's ideas here (in fact, we're looking into doing the same on wikiversity now that it's come up). The plan we discussed is more or less like this:

1. Someone asks for admin tools
2. A mentor may volunteer, but:
   1. If a mentor volunteers, but there is a reasonable objection put forward, it goes to the voting method
   2. If no mentor volunteers, the requestor may ask for a community vote
3. If the user attracts a mentor, and there's no objection, the 1-month mentoring period begins. If there are reasonable concerns about what the provisional administrator is doing with the tools during that month, there will be a speedy desysopping and it will go to a vote.

This would allow us to avoid any potential cabal problems. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 15:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a few issues over this idea. An "easy-going" admin could choose to mentor all sorts of unqualified people, effectively opening the door for anybody to get the tools. All it would take is one admin with low standards to force a lowering of standards for the entire community. Voting is an averaging process: some people are very strict, and some people are very easy, and the average result is that nominees of a certain level tend to be promoted.

Also, it essentially gives a single admin the ability to decide for the entire community who can become an admin, without requiring any kind of community approval. At least the way we do things now, we all have an opportunity to weigh in on all new admin nominees. Even though through the new system, we all have the ability to weigh-in after the fact. You should realize that reversing an admin promotion is always going to be harder then choosing not to grant the tools in the first place. It is especially troublesome if a steward is required.

Another issue is that only a bureaucrat can choose to promote an admin, and saying that a candidate has been nominated and has found a mentor, that doesnt mean that any bureaucrat is going to honor the request. Without a standardized voting system in place to help guide the bureaucrats, it becomes completely up to them, without any community input. The system may work well on wikiversity, but I'm not convinced (for these reasons and more) that it will work here. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 21:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well seems to me like in order to qualify for being mentor a person would need to meet the minimal requirements already in place. Also a short waiting period would exist in case there are any strong objections to someone being mentor, so if there are any strong objections, they would have no choice but use are current method. As a result no standards would be lowered. This would include any objections by bureaucrats, so if a bureaucrat doesn't want to do so, they would not be obligated to do so. This is an addition rather then a replacement for are current system. --darklama 17:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It still gives opportunity for an admin promotion to be made without getting community approval first. And even if you say at great lengths that the granting of the tools is just temporary for a certain period, a person who has not gotten community acceptance is still running around with the tools. What I would like to see is some kind of rundown as to the possible benefits. That is, what do we stand to gain from removing the community from the loop (even if only in a select few cases)? I would be in favor of requireing a mentor for all RFAs after a normal election. Under that kind of system, an admin candidate would need positive community support at RFA and must have a mentor in order to be promoted. That all seems like a waste to me though, because we already do a good job of supporting and teaching our new admins, without having to add another layer of policy onto it. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 19:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Mentoring strikes me as a patronising way of saying 'we dont think you're intelligent enough to use the tools correctly so we'll guide you for a month'. By all means provide mentorship to those who request it or demonstrate that they need some help but it should be the exception rather than the rule. Xania ^talk 23:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been mulling over this for a bit, and considering something on textbook-l about what unique software/hardware requirements we may want to suggest to help out Wikibooks.

In addition, there was a proposal on Wikipedia awhile back for something akin to an "Apprentice Administrator" that had a number of the tools that an admin uses, but not necessarily all of them. Most noted was the ability to perform a quick revert directly from the "Recent Changes" page, and perhaps one or two other things that might be useful for somebody to help the project but wouldn't cause undo problems. Perhaps something like a "timed" page freeze, where somebody with this level of "authority" could freeze edits for a certain amount of time... normally to cool down an edit war or to stop blatant vandalism.

What I'm wondering is if this is something that might be reasonable to experiment with here on Wikibooks? It would require modifying some of the MediaWiki code to make this possible (adding a new class of users with specific functions), and the full extent of what would be allowed for this class of users... or if having an extra level in the "heirarchy" of user privileges is even desirable. The idea here is that we could be much more free with whom we could give this level of privileges (they can't do as much damage as somebody with full admin privileges), and it would also be useful in terms of building trust with the community... as they have the ability to make positive contributions to the community as a whole. Or show they abuse even a little authority once it is given.

Wikipedia ultimately rejected the idea entirely, but this isn't Wikipedia...is it? --Rob Horning 18:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Amazon's Kindle

Has anyone looked into publishing a Wikibook on Amazon's site for the Kindle? If my main project here were ready for publication, I think I'd try this out. The terms of the GFDL will allow this, but I wonder how well Amazon understands the GFDL, if what they're offering has terms that are at odds with the GFDL, or even if they care. Anyone? --Jomegat 01:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks interesting! I wonder though if people will pay for content they can get for free from the web? It seems you have to charge for anything you upload. Though I guess perhaps the only way to get content onto one of those things is to buy it through amazon. I hope we'll see a few more devices like this in the next few years; if you imagine the appple itouch, but twice as big... --AdRiley 07:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you do hafta charge, and the minimum is $0.25 US. They also reserve the right to add DRM. If you can still get the content for free from Wikimedia though, that might not be an issue, especially if the book flat out says you can do just that in the text. I don't know if there are other routes for getting books onto the Kindle either. It suddenly looks less compelling to me. --Jomegat 15:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sound Samples for Guitar/Metal

Hey, I just wanted to know how I could add samples of riffs in audio form to Guitar/Metal. I know I have to upload the recording, but how do I place it on the page so the reader can hear it? Also, what format should it be in? Thank you. --MetalGeoff 00:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

We use .ogg (exclusively?). If your software can't do that already, you might try mediacoder to transcode it. As for using them, I think it's the same syntax as an image (only you can't alter the size). Try w:Wikipedia:Media for more info. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 03:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

--59.93.15.26 10:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)edited

Technical "Wish List"

Anthere sent a message to textbook-l asking if we have a "wishlist" of technical developments that are specific to wikibooks. She wasn't very specific about what kinds of things could or could not be considered. Here is an abridged copy of the message:

Does Wikibooks have a wishlist in terms of technical developments that 
might be useful for the project ? ...if there are 
specific developments which might be super useful, please say so, I 
might get it added somewhere.

Some things immediately come to my mind such as:

• "Search this book" feature being a special page, not a link to a google search
• Per-book stylesheets (although we could just as easily do that in javascript, it might be nice to have the javascript added to the core MW distribution)
• Book organizational meta-pages. A page where you could specify the layout for a book, and it would then generate an automatic TOC, and automatic forward/backward links, etc. Darklama can probably explain this idea better then I can
• List of books. Like the special page Special:Allpages, but would only list the main page of a book, not all pages.
• The wikijunior "read only" domain that Xixtas and I have been talking about. Possibly a "read only" storage location for all stable book versions, which could be updated from Wikibooks when necessary.
• The GNU Lilypond extension, for music and other types of displays (we've asked many times, and never got them because of technical reasons

I'm sure there are more things I am missing. I would like to send back a reply to anthere ASAP so she doesnt forget about us. Any ideas? --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 16:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been having trouble generating a print version of my book, because I have a template for chapter headers that rely on SUBPAGENAME. In the print version all my chapter headers become "Print version". I'd like maybe some other keyword that sticks with the transcluded page vs the transcluding page. Print support in general could stand a lot of improvements, such as automatically breaking large books up into separate sections. Better yet, a PDF generator. --Jomegat 16:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Those are both very good ideas. An automatic PDF generator would be great, and better support for print versions would be good too. This could be a side-effect of the "Book organizational meta-pages", that you could generate a printable version automatically based on information about the structure of the book. Templates that can recognize the SUBPAGENAME even after the page has been transcluded would be a big help as well. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 16:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think someone was working on a pdf generator. I'm hazy on the details, but they had gotten it to the stage where they made a few examples of output. It's not pretty, but with tweaking, could be good. You might poke around meta and see if something pops up.

I definitely like the idea of an automatic TOC-generator tool. Several people have asked how to create new pages; this would help with that by providing a TOC of redlinks for them to work on, and would also foster greater organization of new books right from the get-go.

Search by book is a must-have!

A list of all top-level pages in the mainspace would be great, especially if it can be done dynamically (as opposed to periodically sorting through the database or something).

Some way of getting more flexible layout is a must. For Wikijunior, there is obvious benefit, but even for the rest of the books. I can certainly envision First Aid being reformatted to be far more aesthetically pleasing. A "themed" background (similar to themes in Powerpoint slides etc), more beautiful ways of creating things like {{FA Best Practice}} (this can be done already, I'm just not good at it), using columns and non-linear text for certain parts. The easiest way to do that now is to create each page as an image and upload them - but that's not very freely editable. I don't know what sort of flexibility is possible, but it'll be better than what we have now.

I'm still not sure what I think about the read-only concept (or other versions of quality control being considered), but it's definitely worth discussing.

So that was basically an endorsement of almost all the proposals you mentioned. If prioritizing is required:

1. Search by book (should be easy to do)
2. List of top-level pages in the mainspace (ie books) (should be easy to do)
3. per-book styles (most important thing to do requiring some work)
4. Good PDF (and/or print version) generation (requires lots of work, and is probably difficult to do properly)
5. TOC generator-thing (should be easy to do, but we can function just fine without it)
6. Read-only (needs lots of discussion before anything else)

</random thoughts> – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 17:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a pretty good list so far, i'm going to try and compile some of it down into a more concise form and mail it to anthere. I'm sure that if more ideas were raised in a relatively sort period of time, that we could send them in as well. I'll try to get more details from her about this whole project as well. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 22:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I sent a response to that email on textbook-l a few hours ago. You may wish to read it first. --darklama 22:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, i saw that before I typed anything. you covered most of this pretty well, I guess I dont need to post a follow up. Your points #9 and #10 were maybe a little confusing, I wouldn't be surprised if she came back asking for clarification on them. Other then that, lets cross our fingers and hope we get something nice! --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Glossary tool. --xixtas ^talk 04:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

reset

I thought of another thing I would like for RC patrolling. It would be nice if there were a way to show only the latest edits to a recently changed module (like the watchlist does). Dunno how many times I've clicked on the diff, saw horrible vandalism, and then noticed that it had already been reverted. Another thing that would be nice in RC would be a "Hide user X" link. After looking at a few edits of a user, you get a pretty good idea of whether he's up to mischief or not. Maybe these things already exist and I just don't know about them. --Jomegat 20:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Try enabling "Enhanced recent changes (JavaScript)" from the "Recent Changes" tab of your preferences. That should at lest make it easier for the first one, because all changes to a module available in recent changes will then be grouped together with the latest change at the top of the list. --darklama 20:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have info on the auto-PDF generator that was in the works? I remember reading about it (mailing list perhaps?), and seeing a sample of it's work (hideous, but readable). I'd like to follow development of that project. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 20:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Protected edit request

This protected edit request has been pending for some time. Could someone take care of it? (I'm not familiar enough with the syntax used) Thanks. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 20:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Done . At least, I think that should work. Somebody double-check me, i don't have a lot of time today to play around with it. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

New user

Hi, I'm a new user. I plan to edit mostly in the Motorola DVR page with some my DCT expertise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ToddC (discuss • contribs)

Hello, welcome to wikibooks! I'm glad you're looking at the Motorola DVR book, it's basically been abandoned and could use a lot of help. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

'Nother New User

Hi. I'm Lisha. I wanted to have a PDF copy of the Arabic book, so I jumped in and started making a Print_Version of the book. I've been poking around, and I think that when I'm done with Arabic, I'll prolly fix up some other Print_Versions around the place. Having a PDF on my laptop gives me something to read on the way into work in the mornings. :) Lishevita 20:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello

As i am invited here, here i am. I am from Italy, and i am already banned from wiki.it (infinite) and wiki.en (one year). So go figure if i am very happy about that. Noteworthy that, before been banned i created almost 2000 new articles for wikis. I have a lot of stuff about aviation, but this is not my only interest. Since in wiki.it i was called NNPOV and so on, and wiki,en banned me because i was 'strangely enough' nervous about continous rollbacks 'due to spell errors', so i am here. I yet to accept to have write around 5 MB in the NS0, doing my best and still, being handled so. No problem if someone notice that i not always write very well and very percisely, but there are best ways to do this than the ones used. Perhaps i'll contribute effectively in this project, perhaps not, the idea is interesting, expecially for me, that usually make a lot of stuff (more as book than as article). But due to those bad experiences, and the trap set everiwhere by fellow wikipedians, i am instead more inclined to contribute just seldomly. This is balanced because from one side i am disgusted by some guys always ready to provoke and then punish, for another side i am inclined to contribute effectively to wikiprojects itselves because i silly believe in this concept of shared knowledge. So i cannot grant nothing about the success or not of my partecipation here. If someone want info from me about military aviation and some other stuff-expecially in Italy- he can ask to me with kindly manners, and be answered as well in the same way. Try to believe.--Stefanomencarelli 22:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame that you have been blocked on other projects, but that doesnt affect your work here on en.wikibooks. So long as you can follow our WB:PAG, there shouldn't be any problem. We don't mind if you have spelling or grammar errors, but just to make sure it's always good to mark a page for {{Cleanup}} so that other editors can come and double-check any work that you aren't sure of. Let us know if you need any help, and welcome to Wikibooks! --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Stupid question on deletions

Hi, I have been doing some cleanup and restructuring on a study guide (Exam 70-536) since last week.

One of the page that is marked as deleted (AccessRule class) is still referenced on a category page (Microsoft Cetified Developer). How can a deleted page be in a category?

OK Probably a caching problem because it is not there anymore :-) --Jacques 04:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just checked and the page isn't there anymore. Must have been a caching problem. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Facebook publicity?

I use Facebook, and they've recently enabled the creation of what are essentially organization profiles. On a whim, I started a page for us, but I'm required to be authorized by the organization to create the page. I've taken content from WB:ABOUT to start the profile. a) Should I bother? b) How would I go about getting authorization? It seems like a fairly trivial thing, but if it brings even a few editors to the project, I think it'd be worth it. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 08:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I use facebook myself, and never thought about creating an organization for Wikibooks. So, good idea! I don't know whose authorization you would need to create something like this, although I can send off an email to the foundation about it if you want to be sure. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 14:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Permission granted; page published. If you're on Facebook, you can become a "fan" of Wikibooks now. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 23:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Good work. One question though so far. Why is the logo on the page not the Wikibooks logo? --darklama 23:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Because it is copyrighted. This is the Image:Wikimedia Community Logo.svg. I am trying to figure out if/how I can use our logo. Advice? – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 00:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

A quick question for future reference, how did you get permission? Who did you contact? was it relatively easy? --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 14:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I just emailed Anthere. She basically said I didn't need permission, but thought it was cute that I cared enough to ask :) Also, if anyone else wants to admin the page, you're (probably) welcome to. You can't do anything interesting - just change what the page says etc., but still worth it to have more than just me. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 15:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I need to fix up my facebook page, I haven't modified it much since highschool. I certainly need to get a more "mature" image for it, and ask my friends to stop drawing inappropriate pictures for me on my "graffiti wall". --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 17:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I forgot about that. I sometimes forget the WMF logos aren't released under a free-license. I don't know Facebook's policy, so you may want to look, but they might allow the use of fair use images, and if so the Wikibooks logo might qualify as fair use. Alternatively you could try getting WMF's permission to use it, make alterations to it before using it as fair-use, or try looking for an existing one on Commons that uses a free license. Using one from Commons is probably your best optional, if you are like me and would rather just avoid any possible issues involved with fair use and you can't get WMF's permission to use it. --darklama 02:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You have to give them a license to use it with basically no restriction whatsoever. I wouldn't want to do that to the real logo (this one is PD). – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 15:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[reset] Sweet, I'm in! Mattb112885 (talk to me) 06:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Stewards election

Wikibookians who are interested should take a look at the stewards election page on Meta. There are a strong bunch of candidates & I think it is right that all communities at least review the candidates. While it can be argued that Stewards are a little remote that are crucial to aspects of the day to day working of Wikis. Please take a look & if you are eligible please consider voting - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a side note, stewards may seem "remote" like herby says, but they do play an important role, especially for smaller wikis. There was also at least one occasion where I has having problems accessing wikibooks (my ISP's DNS server is garbage), but was able to contact a steward on IRC to combat vandalism. Stewards can also be called upon to help with a few special tasks that nobody here has the permissions to do (oversight of sensitive edits, desysopping, etc), and they can also help out when people with the permissions aren't here (admin promotions, user renames, checkusering, etc). This is also another good opportunity for Wikibookians to get involved in WMF-business, and attract a little attention for ourselves. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Logo Selection

Logo selection processes for Wikibooks and Wikijunior have started on meta. All Wikibookians are encouraged to join the discussion and help to select new logos for these projects. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 16:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, World.

Well, figure I'll say whats up since I'm new. I'm downright fascinated with the wikibooks concept and thought I'd start contributing like I should. I'm an engineering student so I'll be editing some math, etc. My current project will be cleanup and completion of the Algebra book. Hope I'm able to be a benefit to the community! Thanks for not being evil.

~Nick

Icurays1 07:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Engineering? Great! I'm an engineer (or at least a student of it) myself. What discipline? We actually have lots of engineers around here, but most of them don't want to write about engineering here. I can't blame them, if you do it all day at work, the last thing you want is to do engineering all evening on wikibooks. There are lots of engineering books that need help, so if you want to do something besides algebra, you are welcome and encouraged! Let me know what you need! --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm studying manufacturing engineering, which is kind of a mix of mechanical, electrical, and hands-on CAD/CAM. I'd like to get into advanced-technology engineering, nano and anti-gravity kind of weird and wacky stuff - I'd like to see some Tesla inventions resurrected too. I want to start with just one wikibook and then go from there. I'll certainly take a look at some of the engineering texts =) Icurays1 03:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

hey

Hey my name is rawan.Iam a new user in your website and i just have one question, my mom cooks very well and she has an indoor menu,but she doesn't have a website to publish her menu in ... she cooks almost every Egyption cuisines,In addtion to many dessert stuff .... i just wonder if you can help her put her menu on any of the cooking websites if possible. your efforts are highly appreciated if you consider the issue ......... hope to hear soon!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawan (discuss • contribs) 27 November, 2007

As it says above, please sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~), Rawan. Welcome, by the way! Now, in response to your comment, I think it may be better if your mother, say, started a weblog or something of that nature. As far as I know, ... well, to be frank, I don't quite know how Wikibooks varies from Wikipedia, or what its purpose is (I'm also new to Wikibooks; though I'm not too new to Wikipedia). ... maybe you could try Wikihow. Qwerty Binary 13:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikibooks has the Cookbook, a great place for you or your mother (and all the rest of your friends and relatives) to publish their home recipes. The cookbook has hundreds of recipes from cuisines all over the world, but there is always room for more. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 17:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Phase out Bookshelves

We've had the Subject: namespace for a little while now, and I feel like it's been a very successful tool for organizing books. I don't think we've quite reached the full potential of it, but the initial uses look very promising indeed. The "root" of the subject space is located at Subject:All Subjects, and for the moment you can see a complete list of all available subject pages that are available. In the future, as that list becomes larger, it may become impossible to list all of them on that page.

Every bookshelf basically has at least one corresponding subject page, and some bookshelves have even been broken down into logical sub-divisions. Art and Music, for instance, no longer need to share the same bookshelf page, because they have been broken down into separate subject pages. Also, these subject pages are category and DPL-based, so we don't need to maintain the lists by hand.

What I propose is that we can start phasing out the bookshelf system now. I think that by this time next year they will be completely obsolete as a method of organizing our books. Some steps that I think we should take over time are:

1. Link all bookshelves to the corresponding subject pages
2. Ensure all books that are currently on a bookshelf are properly categorized using the {{Subject}} template.
3. Protect the bookshelves from editing, and redirect all new searches and additions to the Subject pages instead
4. Redirect the bookshelves to the corresponding subject pages.

A gradual phase out like this can happen gradually. We've already basically started the process with the new {{New book}} template, which only asks that new books be tagged with {{Subject}} but not added to a bookshelf. If we do this, of course we are going to want to improve the subject pages aesthetically, something that we can start doing now to make them a more attractive alternative. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 19:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Support I think phasing out the bookshelves is a great idea. My only issue right now is that I don't think we should be requiring subject pages to look a specific way or have specific things on them. Instead experimentation should be allowed and encouraged, so long as its relevant to organizing our books and providing related information. I say this as I've been doing things differently for one subject page and at least one other person I think has other ideas of how to present information on subject pages. I believe they can co-exist and should not be changed simply because they don't look like the vast majority of the others that have been created so far. --darklama 23:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely, the subject pages should be customized as much as needed, and they should likely be made to look very different from one another. The only reason that they all look the same now is because I made most of them, and my artistic skill is just one step above "absolutely horrible". I think it is very useful to list the books that are in that topic, along with books with PDF and printable versions from that category, but it certainly shouldnt be a requirement. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Support The bookshelves never really worked, and their structure was rather limiting. I strongly support Darklama's idea too: let's not impose any structure on the subject namespace until we've had plenty of time to see how it works (I mean years, not weeks or months). --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 23:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Support - Customized Subject: pages are definitely a good idea. I don't know which ones aren't the same as the others (I think Engineering might be slightly different) - most of them were made with the same templates. We should definitely be going through the bookshelves and making sure everything appears properly on the appropriate Subject: page(s). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike.lifeguard (discuss • contribs)

Support I really don't like the bookshelves. I can imagine that they worked well when there were fewer books and a higher editor to book ratio, but currently the bookshelves are ill-maintained, though not through lack of trying. I'd just like to point out my appreciation to everyone who has maintained the bookshelves over the years. It is clear to me that a more automatic system, like the subject pages, is necessary. Urbane (Talk) (Contributions) 18:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment If this makes things easier for editors and readers then I'll probably support it but do people actually use Subject namespaces or bookshelves? Do we have any stats to show how our users actually find books? I have never found a book using either method and I suspect it's the same for most people. People just enter the name of what they're looking for in the 'search' field and see what they find. Can someone explain the purpose and advantages of this new system. Xania ^talk 23:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a very fair question, and one that I suppose i'm at a loss to answer. We do have the page counter running right now, although the results really need to be viewed with a certain level of suspicion. Unfortunately, only the main namespace is being counted right now, so we dont know how many hits either the bookshelves or the subject pages are getting. I would be surprised if either method was being well utilized by readers, but neither the bookshelves nor the subject pages are directly linked from the sidebar (eventually, I think the subject pages should be). If we accept the premise "books should be organized in some manner" a priori, we can draw a number of conclusions:

1. Bookshelves and subject pages basically contain the same information (books listed by subject)
2. Bookshelves are manually updated, subject pages are automatically updated using DPL. This means less hassle for organizers.
3. Bookshelves are relatively fixed in number. Subject pages are more dynamic. books can be easily cross-listed on multiple subject pages in a more natural way then cross-listing books on bookshelves.

With all this in mind, if we accept the premise (which is certainly open to argument) the subject pages are superior because they contain the same amount of information, but require less effort from organizers to maintain. If the premise is false, we don't need either method (although I would like to have something, personally). --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 00:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of this new system is to organize books by subject with links to related subjects. Related subjects may be more general or more specific subjects. Books are generally added automatically rather then manually through the use of categories, making it much easier for people more familiar with other projects. Since it has its own namespace, if we could have included in the default search and maybe the default action of the go button, would make it much easier for people to find books. When your searching for a book are you more likely to search for a specific subject or a specific book? Think about it. Subject pages are also a way to encourage more interwiki cooperation. Like including links to wikipedia articles for people who want a quick read, or links to wikiversity lessons for people who want a more lesson based approach. Its too early to say all possible advantages, but the possibility is there to be way better, and more expendable then the bookshelf system.

I think another question to ask is what are the disadvantages to the bookshelf system. I think the bookshelf system has reached its breaking point and has outlived its usefulness as a means for people who want to find books by browsing through what books we have. Bookshelves have gone though a lot of metamorphoses since I've been here to try to deal with the growth of the project and the number of books we have. Trying to divide bookshelves into smaller bookshelves and reorganize how bookshelves related to one another and then we started having departments to try to deal with all the bookshelves we had. We've tried to incorporate other systems to help finding books easier, like listing books alphabetically or using a restrictive form of the DDC and LOC system, which favors some types of books over other types, requiring even more dividing in some cases. I think Wikibooks has been mostly applying band aids/patches and for the most part up to now, creating systems to organize systems intended to organize systems. The quality and the usability has over time gradually decreased as well as its maintainability.

Subjects on the other hand related to one another more easily, encourage more cross-linking, organize well with one another by related subject subject, more specific subjects and more general subjects. Since subjects can organize other subjects, there is more possibility for flexibility and expanding much more easily, without having to change a lot of things and without having to invent new systems to keep things organized and functional. --darklama 00:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Featured books template

I have been away for a while and returning have found that the featured book section has had its full descriptions removed and replaced by a library catalogue. I have assumed that this is a mistake and restored the full descriptions (people have gone to some lengths to produce these) but am unsure about whether this had had an adverse effect elsewhere. RobinH 10:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This was not a mistake. All of it was still there, only inside collapsed boxes to make the pages that use it more compact, where you click the down arrow in the right corner of each box to expand it to see the section of book descriptions someone is interested in. --darklama 14:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I dont understand. Why would you replace a display of featured books with the full library catalogue in a section entitled "featured books"? Why have you changed it back to a library catalogue? Surely the catalogue should display somewhere else. RobinH 17:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "Library Catalog", and why is it such a bad thing? I guess I'm confused about your complaint here. Are we talking about the page at WB:FB? --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 17:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

(concerning Wikibooks:Featured books/Templates) I think Robin should try clicking the downward-pointing triangle at the right hand side of those bars. It will expand to show everything you had there. No content is missing. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 17:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ha! But I am only averagely stupid. Will new visitors to the site understand the down arrows? Perhaps there should be an explanation. Or maybe it would be better to leave the pictures expanded... RobinH 18:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it may not be as intuitive as we think. I'm trying to figure out if we can have [show] [hide] as an option for that template. The arrows are default, which is defined in Common.js (I think), but perhaps an option is possible... Maybe the folks who actually understand js could take a look? – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 18:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem, and one that is getting bigger as we feature more books, is that these blubs take up so much page space. One page just isn't going to be big enough to hold all of these blurbs in a single place, at least not in a practical way. It may not be a serious problem now, and it may not be serious for some time, but unfettered growth of the featured book program will eventually cause this page to become unbearably large. Using these drop-boxes is a solution to the problem, although we can argue about the benefits and implemenations of it all day long. Relegating these blurbs to subject-specific sub-pages is another option that may be worth considering. This really is a good time to stop and think about the long-term of this program: what are we going to do when we have 100 featured books? 500? 1000? I know that we could be so lucky to have 1000 books of featured-quality, and it's hard to think of that as a problem. However, when we are in that situation, how are we going to organize them all?

Causing the boxes to be expanded by default basically defeats the purpose of having the boxes at all. The whole point is to hide the blurbs so that they don't overwhelm the page. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 18:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for putting me straight. I have added some text above the drop-boxes to help anyone else with this proplem. RobinH 17:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"Successful" book donations

I was trying to think of some books that have been donated to Wikibooks in the past, but my brain is being slow and stupid tonight. Anthere is in talks with a representative from the World Bank over the possible donation of another e-book to wikibooks (and possibly more then one, if i am reading between the lines correctly). I think what the World Bank people are interested in, is hearing about books that have been donated in the past, and have since received attention from editors and writers. That is, have there been any books donated to Wikibooks that have been updated/improved?

I was going to say the Modern Physics book was at least partially donated, but I can't remember if that's true or not. I also thought that a few computer science books, such as GNU Compiler Collection were partially donated, but I don't know if that's true either. The UNDP-APDIP Books were donated, but they haven't been "updated" or "improved" since they've been here. I can't think off the top of my head what other books (if any) have been donated in the past.

If we have high-profile donations from groups like the UN and the World Bank, that might be a good starting point for recruiting more donations and also new contributors. At least, I hope that's what it turns into. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)