attention required

Can someone here look at Cookbook:Placenta_with_Broccoli. It's in a blogpost, and I'm a tad worried about potential health issues that the current article does not warn of. Next to that, it's also a tad distasteful to a rather large portion of the world I guess, and lastly, it might be a press magnet if that blog posting gets more attention. Someone should review what to do about this. 82.75.218.92 (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this concern. I'm afraid Wikibooks is not censored, so it won't be removed on grounds of taste. The content is all created by volunteers, so if someone adds information on any valid health concerns then that's great. Until they do so, it'll probably just stay the way it is. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 08:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

See Wikibooks:Requests_for_deletion/Cookbook:Placenta. --Pi zero (talk) 12:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Top-of-the-page notices

For a while now I've been thinking how very useful it would be to be able to get out news to the greater community on several issues. I've seen Wikiversity place notices at the top of the page (presumably the same way User:WikimediaNotifier does). Does anyone have objections to this or have a better suggestion? If not, where do we set these messages? --Swift (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No objections from me. Thenub314 (talk) 10:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Linking to Windows exectutables

There's a link on Arabic/LearnRW#Downloads that goes directly to an .exe file on a foreign website. I think these sort of links should have big warning messages since these executables could contain malware. -Alan Trick (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You can fix the link yourself, it points to what seems to be a demo version (until registered) of the program. A better link would be the main site or the page advertising the program itself, as it is I doubt that it is malware but is not very useful either... --Panic (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

use of French accents on capital letters

I would like to know if it is correct to use French accents on capital letters at the beginning of a word or sentence, and whether they are used on capitals at the beginning of a name e.g. École des Hautes Études. Thanks

It is correct, however in practice they are often left out. Junesun (talk)

To elaborate, L'académie française states in their FAQ that it is preferred, but that it is acceptable to leave them out. --Alan Trick (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Introduction to Myself and A New Visualization of The Atom

Hi everyone. I wrote the WikiBook A_New_Model_of_the_Atom last year. It's A New Visualization of The Atom. A new way to view, teach, and understand the basics of atoms, and how they interact to form molecules. I didn't introduce myself earlier as I'm just now learning my way around Wiki. Previously, I didn't know that I could or should introduce myself. I am an electrical engineer by training and a Wannabe Renaissance Man by armchair. Originally from Northern Virginia, I moved to the Silicon Valley 25+ years ago to work and raise my family. My kids think my knowledge is like an ocean that covers the earth. But, I'll add that such a notion is a shallow ocean.

As my kids (they are twins) went through school they had a lot of trouble understanding the atom. They found my explanations made this difficult subject much more comprehensible than what they received in science class. Once I got my analogy of atomic theory into the heads of my children, they could “see” how pressure and heat can turn carbon to diamond, why the transformation increases carbon’s density, and why the diamond bonds are so strong. They can now understand the chemistry of why mayonnaise emulsifies oil with vinegar. I didn’t get that understanding from 8th grade science and chemistry, nor even high school. They were often far ahead of their classmates in many areas of middle and high school. From a class of 900, I like to think I had something to do with the payoff of watching them walk to the podium to receive awards as their names were announced 21 times from the graduation program pamphlet. Now in college, they have told me that my explanations, on a multitude of subjects, have often placed them significantly ahead of classmates. They ask me to write a book, so this is its beginning.

A_New_Model_of_the_Atom is intended for intermediate and high school students (or any non-physicist adult) desiring a better understanding of atoms and how they create molecules. I welcome constructive criticism. Please let me know if parts are unclear or need expansion. If readers find it useful, I'll add more ways to understand some complex issues without math. I'd like to expand upon the duality of light and add some drawings to the "Double-Slit" experiment. Some other possible subjects include:

"How Neutrinos Can Travel Through a Wall of Lead One Light Year Thick"

"How a Teaspoon of Neutrons can Weigh 1 Billion Tons"

"How Dark Matter and Dark Energy Could Give Shape to the Cosmos"

"Why One Cannot Make an Electrical Generator Big Enough to Run an Electric Motor to Run the Generator"

Please leave comments at Talk:A_New_Model_of_the_Atom  << Pcfjr9  (Page)  << Pcfjr9 (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing Wikijunior pages

For most books, it makes sense to me that stub pages (at least) would be unreviewed. If casual vandalism occasionally crops up, well, we're adults (or are choosing to operate in that mode), we can shake our heads at the foolhardiness of people who waste their time on earth doing such things, clean up the mess, and go on with our business. However, I do think wikijunior ought to be more resistant to casual vandalism. (Note the repellent notice currently at the top of the wikijunior main page.) I don't see any separate rule for wikijunior, to the effect that even developing pages should be reviewed as minimally acceptable (regardless of whether they meet the acceptability criteria); but it seems to me this should be a specifically acknowledged exception to the usual criteria. --Pi zero (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that this can be a problem, I'm not sure where exactly you're going with this. Are you asking for help to do a once-over review of Wikijunior?

As for that notice on the Wikijunior main page which advises readers not to log in, they can also change a setting in their preferences (stability tab) to always show the stable version if it exists. --Swift (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What I have in mind is something other than the mere amount of work involved, although I certainly wouldn't want to discourage others pitching in to help. I'll try to be clearer. As I read the acceptability criteria, any page can be straightforwardly upgraded to acceptable composition and accuracy; that's just good spelling and grammar, and truth or partial truth. Even if you're not sure what a problem passage was supposed to mean, it should be pretty easy to replace it with something (or sometimes with nothing) that at least meets those criteria. However, upgrading some pages to acceptable coverage would require adding more material. I believe it ought to be possible for wikijunior books to contain stub pages, which more-or-less by definition have not yet achieved acceptable coverage — and at the same time I believe all wikijunior pages should always have a reviewed version, so that casual vandalism will not instantly appear on the default page. I'm proposing that

• there should be an exception to the acceptable coverage criterion to allow wikijunior pages to be reviewed as having acceptable coverage even if they're stubs, and while we're at it
• there ought to be an explicit statement somewhere that wikijunior pages should be brought up to acceptable review status promptly, preferably before their link to the book's main page is reviewed.

Alternatively, perhaps the acceptable coverage criterion is meant to be weaker than I'm reading it to be, in which case the fact that I've misunderstood it suggests that some rephrasing of the criterion is in order. --Pi zero (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Help:Revision review, the acceptable coverage criterion stated there does look enormously weaker than what I was going by — presumably my difficulty was because I was working off of the version at Using Wikibooks, which is much stronger (on a relative scale). The question then becomes, which version of the criterion is more "official"? --Pi zero (talk) 13:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that the help and project namespaces should be considered the official version. This whole thing is very new, however, and as such is still in flux as we decide what these things should mean.

While there is a notice up top, alerting users that modules are unreviewed. I can see your viewpoint about the special nature of Wikijunior and guess we wouldn't want readers' guardians feeling that users might be stumbling onto something they consider offensive. I suggest we just interpret "acceptable" as acceptable enough to justify the sighting in light of the audience. --Swift (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to clarify the "repellent" note. And yes, I think such a repellent note is needed. Otherwise Wikijunior's reputation (and maybe also Wikibooks' reputation) will seriously suffer when parents realize what images are used for vandalism. (Imagine a mass media article with one of these images.) --Martin Kraus (talk) 09:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I mean that the notice repels potential readers. It's scarcely short of "Go away!" And although I'm sure it's not perfectly worded (Swift makes a good point about default settings), I wasn't criticizing its content. I'm lamenting that there is cause for it. After giving some thought to how it might be rephrased, I decided that I was going at the problem from the wrong end. As long as there are unreviewed pages on wikijunior, that heightens the severity of warning that's called for. If every single page on all of wikijunior had a reviewed version, then I think we could make that notice considerably smaller and less... repellent. So I started reviewing pages. As I've slowly worked my way into the task, I've observed this matter of acceptable coverage that seemed like it ought to be clarified. --Pi zero (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the notice is warranted in the case of Wikijunior, but I see it as a great tool not to repel, but draw in new users. I think that rather than the current negative "beware of bad content" we should have a positive "stable versions (of reviewed pages) are served to ensure quality". I'll be bold later today if no-one beats me to it. --Swift (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just finished going through Wikijunior:Big Cats reviewing all the pages. I corrected some grammar and made a few other tweaks here and there as I went too, so I think the book is better for my efforts. The book could still us more attention though - it needs to standardize the way it shows measurements. Sometimes they are in metric, sometimes they are in English, sometimes both (but in both orders). Also I didn't start correcting the capitalization of cat names (i.e., "The Lynx is a cat" -> "The lynx is a cat") until I was pretty far into it, and I didn't go back and check the earlier pages. So there's still plenty that could be done to improve this wonderful book. I encourage other Wikibookians to adopt a Wikijunior book and do the same. IMO, we should start with the featured books, as I assume those get the most traffic, and those books that are frequent vandalism targets, as the project stands to benefit the most from having reviewed versions of those pages. --Jomegat (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No promises, but I'll try to have a run-through the Wikijunior:How Things Work book. --Swift (talk) 05:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just finished going through Wikijunior:The Elements. Elapsed time from start to finish was about a week. --Pi zero (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed you were going through it. Thanks! --Jomegat (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm working off the unreviewed pages list now to try and get through the back of this. There are only about 600 pages need reviewing, so it should be possible to get there in a few weeks or less. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 22:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

So, pretty much done (around 95%), and will be finished in a day or so. I can't speak to the quality of most of the modules - many are very light on detail - but bad spelling and awful grammar as well as obvious nonsense have been removed. All vandalism cleaned off and each module sighted. Some are just stubs, but at least a WJ reader with the right settings is now guaranteed a vandalism free page. Now we need to lift the quality! Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 17:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sighted revision

I'd like to approve the amendments to Chess Opening Theory. How do I go about this? SunCreator (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You need to be an Wikibooks:Editor or a Reviewer. Editors are auto promoted after meeting the criteria, Reviewer rights are requested at WB:RFP Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 17:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems I meet the editor criteria. Do I have to request to be an editor? Is so, where. SunCreator (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Auto-promotion seems to be spotty, so I manually promoted you to editor. You've been around long enough that I know you are a positive Wikiforce for Good. --Jomegat (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! SunCreator (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist question

Maybe this is really a question for assistance, but here goes anyways. Is there a way to add all submodules of an existing book to my watch list with out going through them one by one and adding them? Thenub314 (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to answer your question! This is a very common question, but unfortunately the answer is no. There is no way to automatically add these pages to your watchlist all at once. You can go though the list manually and add them. Or, you can use the page Special:RecentChangesLinked to view all the changes made to pages linked from the page, but this doesn't happen in your watchlist, it happens on a separate page. I hope this helps! --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 20:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You can also update your watch list by going to Special:PrefixIndex to list all pages starting with the name of the book. You can then cut and paste the page names into your watchlist at Special:Watchlist/raw. Note, however, that the list of pages at PrefixIndex is in a 3-column format (separated by tabs), but in order to copy the page names to your watchlist, you need to list just one page per line. You could do this manually in a text editor if there are just a few entries, but if there are several hundred, this could get tedious. One solution is to use your word processor's search and replace feature, replacing tabs with newline characters. (e.g., in Microsoft Word, replace "^t" with "^l"). — Brim (talk) 04:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Brim, excellent idea. Thenub314 (talk) 07:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Rather then a watchlist, you can use recent changes for a category. In Thenub314's case it seem to be the calculus category, so: Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Calculus SunCreator (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Unsigned post

If a previous posted wasn't signed how do you get it to say who posted it? SunCreator (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

{{unsigned|user name or IP|time and date}}

--Pi zero (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Or {{subst:unsigned|user name or IP|time and date}} (to reduce the number of template calls), or {{subst:unsigned2|time and date|user name or IP}} (to make it easier to copy and paste from the diff). See also Wikibooks:Templates/Talk page maintenance. --Swift (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Have now used this. Thank you. SunCreator (talk) 11:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Response Requested

Hi - I wrote the Wikibook:

A New Model of the Atom http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/A_New_Model_of_the_Atom

I received an unfavorable comment and a favorable comment.

The favorable:

"A reader requests that this page or book be expanded to include more content...

Please continue to improve this material, even after this message has been removed..."

The unfavorable:

"This book appears to contain original research or unverifiable material. Wikibooks policy requires that all book material here be verifiable.

Original research and unsupported claims are not acceptable here. Such material might be suitable at Wikiversity instead.

If this material is not original research, or if it has been fixed to be properly cited and verifiable, this template may be removed.

For help, see WB:CHAT."

Most people have no idea how the atom "works" or how atoms link together becoming molecules. A New Model of the Atom is my original, intellectual proposal of explaining sub-atomic and molecular structure in a manner comprehensible to average Intermediate School, High School, and non-science Undergraduate Students. I believe my approach is superior to how atomic theory was presented to me in High School (it was incomprehensible). I am encouraged that "A reader requests that this page or book be expanded..." and I hope to get feedback from additional junior scientist.

I do make some claims for which I have not the tools to verify, but I suggest some ways they may be verified. If others can show my claims are impossible, then I will remove them. If they cannot disprove my claims, then I suggest we have found a viable point of controversy worth exploring. For thousands of years people believed the world was flat and displayed much hostility to a helio-centric universe. Today's scientists have 80+ years invested in current quantum atomic theory. They have a lot to lose. The more hostile they are to a new idea, without being able to disprove it, the more that new idea should be explored. Overall, my model does not upset the larger view of current theory. And, I don't believe I should be placed under "house arrest" just because it does not conform to the deeper parts of quantum mechanics, unless my detractors can supply contrary proof. Even then, my model may still prove a better introductory tool than current models.

However, given my arguments, if part of them do not conform to the WikiBook Guidelines, then advise me of which parts to remove and I shall.

If I have placed my ideas in the wrong Wiki, then please advise where it should be and I will move it.

Pcfjr9 (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)PcfJr9

First of all, these aren't intended as either favourable or unfavourable, and shouldn't be taken as such. In particular, original research needn't be poor research.

Secondly, the {{or}} template you cited gives you links to both to our inclusion policy as well as Wikiversity as a possible alternative. New approaches to understanding a subject are permissible, but new tools/theories from which one may derive new hypotheses are not.

Finally, you're not under a "house arrest" of any sort. There are problems with your text. There are some problems with the text. I've skimmed through it and will give it a better look and make some changes where I see fit. --Swift (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and please don't cross-post your comments in the various reading rooms. --Swift (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Swift (et. al.) - OK, thanks for the advice. I am learning my way around and now understand policy a bit better. In view of that, I agree with your edits. I do have 3 questions:

1) How and where is it best to discuss issues relating to my WikiInput;

a) Here in the Reading Room Projects,

b) On my Wikibook discuission page, or

c) by clicking the (talk) link of the inputting party?

I cross-posted because I had 3 comments and respond to each so, I'm not clear on where or how to respond, nor how to do so in a timely fashion. You respond to my post immediately (3/4/2009), yet I did not discover that until today (3/17/2009).

2) I noticed a few edits changed some reference subscripts. For example, H₂O was changed to H2O, and F_R to FR. If those changes are inadvertent, may I change them back?

3) If my current WikiBook passes muster as edited, and I adhere to Wiki Guidelines, which is the best Wiki area for me to publish future physics/science articles? << Pcfjr9 (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

[Mark this page as patrolled]

I get this [Mark this page as patrolled] message on talk pages I've recently edited. What this about? SunCreator (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Subject category case

Various Wikibookians have been implementing different casing schemes for subject categories. There was a discussion on this at Subject talk:Major Subjects and I updated Wikibooks:Subject pages with directions to use sentence case and the rationale. Essentially, book categories (tend to?) use title case so using sentence case helps avoid conflicts where possible.

In the interest of getting the word out there and soliciting comments, I'd like to bring this here. Please discuss away. --Swift (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I am definitely in favor of Title Casing for subjects, as I think of these of subjects as having proper names. I appreciate the difficulty that you may end up with a subject and book that have the same name, but there is no restriction that the category for the pages of the book needs to have the same name as the book itself. These conflicts could be resolved in other ways. On a related note, we should find a consistent way to resolve these conflicts anyways. I quickly found the Algebra textbook conflicted with the Algebra subject, and what ever we decide about casing will not fix this, these types of conflict will always arise.

In the end, this would necessitate changing even several top level subjects. But I suppose that at the heart of issue for me is simply that phrases like "Fine arts" "Social sciences" seem quite out of place to me. Thenub314 (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

To those of the other viewpoint, "Fine Arts" and "Social Sciences" as subjects are out of place. They seem most natural as "fine arts" and "social sciences" to me (the first capital letter has nothing to do with capitalisation schemes). --Swift (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the lowercase scheme and think that there ought to be an option to allow the first character of category names to be case sensitive separate from $wgCapitalLinks, so that both Category:algebra and Category:Algebra can co-exist. Perhaps if there is enough support for this idea, the developers would accept such an option. --darklama 21:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Swift and Thenub314 as for the issue of Fine Arts or Social Sciences labels I think it will best used on the subject namespace. Categories should be more strict, in any case when I did attempt to do some work on the subject I attempted to reduce the use of categories to the title of the book (capital) and the foremost related subject on the title page of books all subpages were tagged as belonging only to the book category so the category function performs the function what it has always been used for to provide and alternative navigational scheme for books content, enables the use of the subject namespace without collision of function and an easier maintenance. I have also linked together categories ie: the Programming will have subcategories like C, C++, ASM and other, reducing the need to use generalist categories like the above mentioned Fine Arts or Social Sciences. But without a proper guideline doing work on that namespace is futile... --Panic (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Helping on the Technical Theatre book.

Hello, I was recently reading over the Technical Theatre wikibook and noticed that it could use a lot of work. I found the book to assume the reader already knows basic terminology and concepts. I hope to see the book expanded into a comprehensive textbook. I am a professional stagehand, and would like to see the wikibook become a reference that I can send people new to the trade to for basic education needs.

Plant eater (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Outdated Review backlog

A large portion of the outdated reviews appear to be within Category:Foundations_of_Education_and_Instructional_Assessment - although we're not supposed to sic bots on them, I'm finding that there's at least a few hundred paged within that category alone, and it may take an automated task to do cleat that to a semi-manageable level. I think it might be caused by the forced siting of the first revision of a given page, since these pages were created by a mature editor and modified by various students. --Sigma 7 (talk) 05:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

How to read guide

I have been writing Wikipedia for about three years now, but have not explored the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation much. To make a long story short, I woke up this morning wondering if a system could be developed to teach someone to read using pictures and sound files--that is, a human-less teacher. There are books in the works here to teach English as a second language and these are undoubtedly helpful. But if you could sit a person, of any age who cannot read, in front of a computer and teach them to read, then allow them to expand their skills by reading WikiJunior, the Simple English wiki, Simple English Wikictionary, and eventually Wikipedia itself, well, that would be kind of cool. Obviously, there is no substitute for a human teacher, but this could also serve as a lesson plan as well. Is this something that the community would be interested in developing? Thanks! Blackngold29 (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a picture dictionary in the Spanish wikibooks project. Maybe the main challenge for this kind of projects is the lack of sound files. While there are many sound files for English, many of them are just names of nations, etc. If you are really interested in doing such a project, I would recommend that you make sure how to create sound files that you might need. I would also suggest that you don't expect a lot of help by other authors; thus, I would recommend that you better start with a small project that you are able to complete alone in case this is necessary. --Martin Kraus (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

CC PDF e-books

There is a bunch of nice PDF e-books I uploaded to Commons (e.g. File:Building a Rural Wireless Mesh Network - A DIY Guide v0.8.pdf, File:Wireless Networking in the Developing World.pdf). Can they be converted to Wikibooks?--Kozuch (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Image rollovers

Hi, I'm writing a wikibook and think it would be useful as an aid to understanding to be able to change an image slightly when the user moves the mouse over it. I can imagine that this could be useful for other books too (e.g. to make an arrow appear when you mouse over an image, highlighting a particular point). I've hacked an example together using css, but at the moment this requires users to add the following line to their personal css file

.hoverContainer:hover .hideOnHover {visibility:hidden}

I have three questions about this

1. Is this a sensible general idea, or does it conflict with ideas of what a wikibook should do?
2. Is my implementation reasonable? I've allowed the image captions to change on mouseover too, but this becomes a bit hacky (e.g. the mouseover caption is assumed to be longer than the normal text).
3. If it is considered useful, can the appropriate css line (it is very simple) be placed in the system-wide common.css file

Here's the example, with not terribly relevant test images. It obviously won't work until you add the above line to Special:Mypage/monobook.css.

Now it is a waterlily, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

Pink Gerbera: picture should change when you place your mouse over it

Generated by the following wiki code

<div class="hoverContainer" style="position: relative">[[Image:Nymphaea tetragona.jpg|none|thumb|200px|Now it is a waterlily, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah]]
   <div  class="hideOnHover" style="position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0; bottom:0; background-color: white;">[[Image:Gerbera_pink.jpg|none|thumb|200px|Pink Gerbera: picture should change when you place your mouse over it]]</div>
</div>

Cheers, HYanWong (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Done.Done!!! I made some changes though to the implementation. --darklama 01:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Or to show the same example with the implementation used:

Pink Gerbera: picture should change when you place your mouse over it Now it is a waterlily, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

<div class="hoverbox"> <div class="hoveritem selected"> [[Image:Gerbera_pink.jpg|none|thumb|200px|Pink Gerbera: picture should change when you place your mouse over it]] </div> <div class="hoveritem"> [[Image:Nymphaea tetragona.jpg|none|thumb|200px|Now it is a waterlily, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah]] </div> </div>

--darklama 22:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I've now made a template to take advantage of this: Template:HoverImage. It's not been very well documented, but it seems to work. I've tried to allow standard image syntax (i.e. unnamed parameters in any order). It seems to me to be a bit of a hack, but it works. If you have any better suggestions, do change the template code.

-- HYanWong (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi HYanWong, I just tried your template - it is great! I notice also that since it returns an image coding it can replace image coding within other templates that require it. For example, to use your template within Noframeleft, (to make frameless images with a caption):

It does the thing on the left: Or, in a drop-box, this:

I must admit however that the coding of your template is for the time being beyond me. Regards, Armchair (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Guys, please remember that it should be possible to still create a special page for printing with this implementation. How are we going to be able to do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabuljohn (discuss • contribs)

Wikibooks is not paper. Having audio, video or other interactive features that aren't printable is perfectly fine. --darklama 19:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

With the good old "print version" approach it's no problem to use <includeonly> and <noinclude> to have a screen version and a different print version. You would use the hover image only in the screen version (inside <noinclude> and </noinclude>) and maybe an array of images in the print version (inside <includeonly> and </includeonly>). With the printing of collections, I guess you have to define a template called PrintHoverImage to provide an alternative for printing. (See Help:Collections#Substituting templates.) --Martin Kraus (talk) 08:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Stored collection not on watchlist

A newly created "stored collection" is not added to my watchlist; is this a bug ? - Erik Baas (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you explicitly add it to your watchlist, or did it just not go on there automatically? --Swift (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It was not added automatically at the moment of creation, although I have the options "Add pages I create/edit/move to my watchlist" checked. Erik Baas (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Should have written that in the first place, sorry...

I just "saved" a new book (on nl.wikibooks), and it was added to my watchlist. So, thanks ! :-) - Erik Baas (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hotbed of technical queries

Hi folks.

• Is it just my imagination, or is the reading room participation a bit more sluggish than usual?

Is there nobody out there, or has it all been invented already? Regards to all, Armchair (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I am here. I just have no questions or answers. Thenub314 (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)