Category closures

I propose certain technical adjustments such that on each Subject page, say Subject:Quux, under each level of completion, books that are actually in Category:Quux are listed first, followed by all other books that belong to any descendant of Category:Quux. There would not be any change to the categories listed on a book's main page: If a book's main page does not list Quux as an argument to template {{subjects}}, then it will not visibly list Quux as one of its subjects. (This is accomplished using hidden categories; I'll explain in more detail in a moment.)

For example, Category:Pure mathematics itself contains only one book, but its descendants contain lots of other books. On page Subject:Pure mathematics, the one book that actually belongs to Category:Pure mathematics would be listed first at its level of completion, followed by all other books at that level of completion belonging to any of the descendant categories.

Here's how I propose to do it, technically.

For each subject-category Category:Quux, there would be a hidden category called Category:Closure:Quux. (Hopefully, hiding can be accomplished automatically by a template on the category page, perhaps {{BookCat}}, that detects it's a closure category and hides it.) Category:Closure:Quux contains every book that's in Category:Quux or any of its descendants. Template {{Subjects}} automatically adds a book to all ancestors of each of its listed subjects. The trick here is that, although we don't have magic words for determining the ancestors of a category, this information is already encoded in parameters being passed to template {{subject page}} on each of the subject pages. By tweaking the code of {{subject page}}, it becomes possible for {{subject}} to extract the parent(s) of Category:Quux through translusion of page Subject:Quux. Because a book belonging to a descendant of Category:Quux does not belong to Category:Quux, but only to the hidden Category:Closure:Quux, the main page of that book still doesn't list Quux as one of its subjects.

I'm pretty confident I could make this work. The question is whether we want to do it. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 14:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If you demonstrate a working implementation that is easy for people to maintain, I may consider supporting the proposal. I suggest though using Category:All pure mathematic books for example. I think by keeping the names non-technical people will have an easier time understanding the purpose. --darklama 16:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

A naming scheme like that could work. As long as the name of the hidden "closure" category is something that can be generated automatically from the original category name, and can't collide with a name that will be wanted for a non-closure category, there should be no problem. Category:Quux ${\displaystyle \longrightarrow }$ Category:All Quux books. Hm.

We'll see, when I start testing components of the device, whether there are unforeseen problems; it is fairly elaborate. Indeed, even if the overall plan is shown to work, we'll probably want a way to phase it in somewhat gradually, rather than flipping a switch and having it go live on every book on the project all at once. (Ah, I think I see how to do that...) --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 17:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like a neat idea to me. Thenub314 (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a very good idea. I'm not very technically-minded but if you can figure it out then go right ahead!--ЗAНИA ^talk 21:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────┘
The automatically populated categories are now live. For each subject Quux, there's a hidden category of all books in subject Quux or any descendant subject of Quux, called Category:Quux/all books. The root of the hidden allbooks hierarchy is Category:Books by subject/all books. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 04:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

As a first practical demonstration, Subject:Wikijunior now automatically generates a list of all featured books in the subject or any of its descendants. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 15:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

┌──────┘
There are now three styles of display available for subject pages (though I haven't yet gotten to installing these for root subjects). The three styles are

• only list books that are strictly in the current subject; this is the way we've been doing subject pages, and is still the default.
• at each stage of completion, list first books strictly in this subject, then list books in descendant subjects.
• list books in this subject or any descendant, without distinguishing between the two.

It's separately controllable for the list of featured books, versus for the stages of completion on the left side of the subject page.

The "split" style is now being demonstrated by Subject:Wikijunior. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 14:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Featured book lists for root subjects now automatically generated (which picked up two errors in the hand-coded lists, and one bug in template {{featured book}}).

Non-root subject featured book lists now use the split-list style by default. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 19:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

...and now I've made the "split-list" style the default for the completion stages, too. If it's okay in general, but problematic for some particular subjects, perhaps we can make some alternative arrangement for those. Otherwise, I'm (finally!) about done with this, except perhaps neatifying some documentation and the like. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 22:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

With a recent increase in the number of people editing school projects I have seen a lack of edit summaries. Normally this doesn't matter - when you're adding content or removing a few little things. But there have been a few cases where a user has removed large amounts of content or blanked the page without reason. In these cases I have generally rejected the changes (unless they were the only contributor) however a few users have reacted negatively to my rejections saying that they can do as they wish if it's a school project etc. I have noticed that on Italian Wiki projects there is a very large message above the Edit Summary field warning users to leave a summary. Can something like that be done here? Would something like this be useful? Or, alternatively, maybe we could have a different Welcome template for use for users who are involved in school projects? Any thoughts?--ЗAНИA ^talk 21:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

" a few users have reacted negatively to my rejections saying that they can do as they wish if it's a school project", yes I've seen the ownership problem too. You could add a Book/group notice to the specific book with a nice big "please add an edit summary if making a major change or your change may be reverted" sort of thing? Like this one I just created.

QU ^TalkQu 22:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That will work fine I think. Is that all I need to do - create Template:Editnotices/Group/Bookname and this will appear when editing anything within that book? Simple idea and I'll put it into action next time I see any ownership problem occurring. Thanks.--ЗAНИA ^talk 22:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's just as you describe... QU ^TalkQu 11:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if the "stop" hand-sign is rather severe to show over an edit window even before the person has done anything wrong. Perhaps an "information" i-sign would give a less confrontational notice. Recent Runes (discuss • contribs) 19:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Change it if you feel strongly about it. I was just trying to find something "striking" that drew attention - mainly because today I grew tired of reminding people they can't just steal other people's work and paste it in. It's the same plagiarism that bedevils schools and colleges, just in a public way that will lead the "copyright police" to the door one day QU ^TalkQu 22:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that class projects can sometimes be irritating to deal with, perhaps because the contributors tend only to be actively editing over a short period. Their books do often reach a greater degree of completion than many others, so I think it is worthwhile to grit our teeth and be as welcoming as we can. So I have softened the template a bit, but we can always lay down the law more strongly if the same problems continue. Recent Runes (discuss • contribs) 23:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Suppose it doesn't matter for this template if it's the red stop hand sign or an i-sign (although the red hand could be offensive to some from Northern Ireland but that's another issue). As regards to plagiarism though strong warnings are necessary. Most countries do not consider plagiarism (or copying in tests) to be a serious matter whatsoever (certainly here in Italy it is expected and those who don't have the intelligence to cheat are the ones who are looked down on) and many of the school projects are being edited by students who aren't from English-speaking countries. Gross generalization over.--ЗAНИA ^talk 23:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't have expected plagarism to be any worse with class projects than other books. Presumably the content is likely to be checked by the tutor, who would also be warning the students about it. We could reinforce this message in our edit notice I suppose. Recent Runes (discuss • contribs) 01:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment a few days ago at Wikinews by Brian McNeil: "someone at GLAMsterdam was bold enough to mention the Eastern Pachyderm, and offer an explanation; The education systems of places like India, Pakistan, China, and much of the Middle-to-Far East, have a tendency towards rôte learning, and copying your teacher's words is considered a respectful thing to do – with Western cultures having a far stronger concept of plagiarism as being 'bad'." --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 05:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that example applies in making a distinction regarding our edits. In any case I disagree with that observation, in that Westerns are different in regard to coping, any change on cultural beliefs in that regard would be extremely recent and not so broadly applied (mostly originated in the USA,UK, Germany or France in various degrees). I'm a Westerner and always heard more or less the same phrase that mimicry is a way of flattering faltering (mimicry is one of the primary ways humans learn), this also applies to copying works, for instance paintings in the West were always copied by pupils or as a recognition from a master's work. But plagiarism is not about copying, it is about claiming authorship of the work of others, it also has nothing to do with copyright laws. One can copy a public domain work a claim authorship, that would be plagiarism but also be legally viable in most instances. Most Western Universities (probably with the exception of some on USA, from the reports I've read) do not object in students copying the teachers materials and in some Western countries there are provisions on copyright law in regards to education and learning.

I do not think that is possible to make that claim about a differences in treatment from the East to West in regards to plagiarism. We could probably make a distinction in regards on how teachers and other personalties regarded as wise (but without academic credentials) are treated in those cultures and we certainly could point out that people in the East, in their majority, have yet to see (or made clear to them) any advantage in respecting copyrights and in a lesser degree intellectual property. But all these aspects ultimately have no bearing on plagiarism... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 06:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about differences between East and West but between English-speaking countries and others. My experiences of plagiarism being considered OK related to Europe (Italy, Poland, Slovenia, etc.) and these are western countries. I am referring to plagiarism and not to copyright policies - I have no problems at all in breaking copyright of software, video, etc. but I draw a line at plagiarising others' work for school projects. Anyway they are all generalizations and what's important for now is that editors explain their changes especially when removing chunks of text contributed by others.--ЗAНИA ^talk 09:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

WikProject: Linguistics

So far as I can tell, there is no existing WikiProject:Linguistics. However there are a number of books that need work. And there are other questions that it would help to resolve centrally. For example, there appear to be three intro to linguistics books with essentially the same goal, which it might make sense to combine (and I may do that soon if nobody else is interested and there's no objections). Is anybody else interested in this? If I get even one other person who might contribute to the project, or say three who'd be interested in providing feedback on a central discussion page, I'll create the project page and template. Any takers? --Quintucket (discuss • contribs) 09:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe discuss with Wikibooks:WikiProject Languages? --darklama 10:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

They're rather different things. WP Languages is specifically for instructions on how to learn a language. Though this is technically a kind of applied linguistics, even applied linguistics is far broader. And though linguists are generally interested in learning languages, the reverse is not true. --Quintucket (discuss • contribs) 11:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The Languages project seems a likely place to look for people who might be interested in a Linguistics project.

Have you inquired on the main talk pages of each of the books in question? And then given it a few weeks. That being the usual procedure when trying to find out whether a book is really abandoned so that one can safely 'adopt' it. (For example, I did that before adopting the Conlang book, ages ago, and if someone were to query at its talk page whether it was abandoned, they'd likely get an answer "not abandoned" from me within a day or two.) --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 21:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "adopt" a book. I'm working on two books which haven't had any serious edits for years, however there's no way I'm going to finish them on my own. If I could write those books on my own, I probably wouldn't do it here and I'd probably try to get them published. Given that I can't, I'd certainly hope for more contributors. Incidentally, I think that the conlang project would fall under Subject:Linguistics, much as it would pain many professional linguists to admit it. Would you be interested in this project? (And you needn't worry that I'll involve myself in your book uninvited; I see an opportunity to write a linguistics text in plain language here, and thus I'm focused on that.) Any rate, I see what you mean about WP/Languages, I'll head over there right now. --Quintucket (discuss • contribs) 22:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

If a book has no current contributors, it is 'abandoned', and someone might choose to 'adopt' it as their own and perhaps make extensive changes to it without worrying unduly about reaching consensus with other contributors (because there aren't any others). My point was that you can't safely assume, just because a book isn't being edited, that it doesn't have people who are watching it, and are interested in its fate, and may even have changes to it all planned out that they just haven't been getting around to implementing. When I 'adopted' Conlang, I continued right along to describe proposed major changes on talk pages, leaving behind documentation of what I'd done, and for major changes I'd still usually wait at least a while between proposing and acting. Eventually one of the historical contributors did return, and thanks to the approach I'd been taking, we had some good discussions about changes I'd made and changes I was contemplating.

I agree that Conlang would naturally fit into a Linguistics project. In fact, we had a contributor a while back who wrote some extensive pages that we felt didn't fit very well into Conlang, and we wondered if some linguistics text would be interested in taking them off our hands. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 22:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I figure if my extensive edits bring another editor out of the woodwork, all the better. If the only changes in the past two years (or even a year for that matter) have been admins and bots tweaking the categories I see little point in discussing on the talk page, though I do anyways if a project is more developed than a handful of stubs. Any rate, if you tell me what subpages those are, I might take them off your hands. Though I'd argue that in conlanging, an understanding of linguistics is essential. (My first attempt at a conlang wasn't just a kitchen sink language; I flat-out made up rules I'm fairly certain no known language has.) --Quintucket (discuss • contribs) 23:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

A conlanger certainly does need to know the rules — but shouldn't make the mistake of thinking a conlang must be constrained by them. And that was the essence of the difficulty with these pages: they present a particular theory of how natural languages work, in a way that tends to stiffle creativity rather than inviting people to consider wider options. Great for someone who wants to immerse themselves in the mindset of the theory, bad for a conlanger. The pages also give undue weight to that theory, writing far more about it than there is (or likely ever will be) about other topics in that part of the Conlang book.

The parent of that section of the book is Conlang/Advanced/Grammar/Government. We never actually resolved what to do with it, in our discussions, which are visible on the talk page; so before actually carting it off to somewhere, we'd want to discuss doing so on the talk page. (I know there's at lest one other long-term contributor who's still interested in the book as they've made a few edits in recent times.) --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 23:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, the infamous government and binding theory, bane of linguistic students everywhere. (My professor told me I was one of a handful of students he'd taught in all of his years who actually understood that concept. Which might make me qualified to put it in plain English, except that I'd thought the book I was using already was in plain English.) Most of it's very esoteric. Interesting, but esoteric.

What you've got there is a tolerable nucleus either for a book on government and binding theory, or a more general book on syntax, or would be, if it had examples from languages other than English (which is quite important to understanding the theory). But we've had books in far worse condition in linguistics, so if you get support, we can move it to a new book. I suggest a subsection of a book on syntax; I know of at least one other major theory.

If you'd like to retain some information from the article, I think I could summarize all that you need to know about the theory for making a conlang in a couple paragraphs on the talk page. It's really only relevant, above and beyond general principles of syntax and typology, in terms of deciding how nouns and pronouns take case in your own language. (Well that, and it also raises some some interesting examples of how reflexive pronouns work cross-linguistically, but I'm damned if I remember how that works right now, and the book, like I said, only has English examples.) --Quintucket (discuss • contribs) 09:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)