I want to draw your kind attention on these lines mentioned here under. It states that small enterprises are facing problems in installing their ERPs due to employing personnel who have qualified from APICS. If this is typing error then please correct it as it is destroying the goodwill of the institute & if it is the judgment of the market then it should be brought in notice of the institute for taking corrective measures for their course materials & teaching staff. we readers consider articles written in Wikipedia as very authentic & post reading these lines; one is having second thoughts about the institute for taking up a course. Here are the lines from "ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING" {Under heading: - DISADVANTAGES OF ERP}
I am new here. This website is amazing! Does anybody know if there is a way to bookmark pages when I am reading a book?
I mean, for now I just leave my computer on with the browser open. Is there a way that I can bookmark where I am in the book?
I would appreciate if you could answer me. Thanks!
Hi everybody, I'm new here and it's nice to meet you all.
Hi, my name is Shirley Osei-Mensah. I am 16 years old. I am from Ghana in West Africa. I am here to learn and broaden my knowledge by reading Wikibooks of the subjects that I have interests in, so it's nice to meet you all.
Hi Shirley. It's always good to hear from users outside the Western industrial societies. If you need help finding something, don't hesitate to ask. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 15:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Mike. I really appreciate your hospitality, your generousity, and your help towards me. Thanks again. :) Shirleyom (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Adolescent Fiction Wikibook
I have a problem. My new book, Writing Adolescent Fiction, on which I'm going to need some help writing, has not been showing up in the list in the new books template. How do I get it to show? Is this a new bug? Cilantrohead (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Merely a caching problem, it's showing up for me. If pain persists, append "?action=purge" to the page you are viewing. Webawaretalk 08:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It shows up now. Do we have any fiction writers here? No one's even categorized my book yet. Cilantrohead (talk) 06:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, you'd better hop to it then! Add something like the following to the bottom of the page: Template:TlxTemplate:Tlx. You'll need to have a look around at what categories are appropriate. Have a look here for more information. Webawaretalk 09:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
SAS Progrmming
Can any one provide me the book for SAS programming—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.92.159.172 (talk • contribs) 14:26, March 12, 2008.
User:BrisbanePom has a draft on their userpage. The only other stuff I could find was a low-quality stub at SAS. Hope that helps! – Mike.lifeguard | talk 19:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Creating a new page
Hi...I am totally lost. I have a book, Campus Fire Safety, that I want to break into chapters. For the life of me I cannot figure out how to do that. I find a lot of references about creating new pages, but nothing that actually tells me how to do it. Can someone please help this page-challenged author? Thanks... Ecomeau (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
If you create a redlink (a link to a page that doesn't exist like This link to a page that doesn't exist) and click on it, then you'll be taken to the edit page so you can create it. Also, if you put the pagename you want in the search box, & hit Go, you'll see a redlink at the top of the page. Click that and you'll see the edit page. Hope that helps. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 20:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Yup. Do you know how to make wikilinks? Much better than using the URL :) – Mike.lifeguard | talk 20:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that's pretty tough to figure out. Is there a "wiki for dummies" out there? I feel stoopid. Can you kind of walk me through it? I'm trying it right now and it is not working. Ecomeau (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, most of our help pages are in bad shape. To make a wikilink (ie to a page on this wiki) put [[Main Page]] (produces Main Page). To change what the link says, use the pipe | character: [[Main Page|over there]] (produces over there). That should be enough to get you started. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 21:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, i'm new on WB and Mike.lifeguard asked me to come introduce myself here. I'm a french wikibookian and i mainly contribute on the french-speaking project. On fr: i contribute writing entires books and as an administrator. I wrote fr:Monter un PC which is quite similar to How To Assemble A Desktop PC.
I came on en: to see what en: contributors can bring to fr and what we, at fr:, can bring to you. I think wikibooks projects have to work together if we want to make it a great project like wikipedia. My goal, by browsing en.WB, is to see what can be done to make both projects reach a high quality of content.
I'm not a native english so the correctness of my english is not guaranteed. Don't hesitate to ask me things i say that you don't understand. Subfr (talk) 11:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Subfr, and welcome to en! I am a native English speaker, and the correctness of my English is not guaranteed either. I'm glad to have you here. --Jomegat (talk) 11:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello
Hello everybody I am new here. :) The Obento Musubi (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Introduction to History
Wikibooks and Wikiversity do not seem to have caught on the way Wikipedia did, which seems a shame, since most schools are so badly taught and most textbooks are so badly written. I've been trying to write an Introduction to History text, and have made a start, but it has been up for a couple of years and nobody else has contributed to it. I am also tempted to write elementary mathematics books, modeled on the Singapore series, but don't want to put in the time and effort if nobody is going to use them.
Does wikibooks have the same No Original Research policy as wikipedia?
I've been wondering for a while now and somewhat stuck.
The whole issue confuses me. You can't have 'original thought', yet this sentence I just wrote and this Reading room page is almost entirely original thought that can't be referenced. Wikipedia itself has numerious discussion pages in the same way. I'm not being trying to be stupid, I'm quite confused. ChessCreator (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikibooks has a policy proposal, and also states no original research in our inclusion policy. When dealing with textbooks there must be a bit more leniency since it's impractical to reference 50% of the sentences you write. Also, we allow plenty of leeway in terms of how content is presented. So in a basic chemistry text, it might say something that isn't actually true, but is useful for teaching purposes. For example, when dealing with Lewis structures, you might say that there are 2 electrons, and then 8 for each level after that. That's not true, but it's a good teaching technique. So our proposal has to reflect that kind of thing, which we haven't been able to do yet. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 01:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Let me find an example. Okay, here you've made a change to a content page. You added the sentence about Reflexive pronouns (line 75) "Longer ones can sometimes be used on the beginning of a sentence while short forms can't."
Now is that adding original thought? And that whole page, over time all the edits are original thought? It could be taken from a book I suppose but if it is there is no reference to say so. That's just one example found at random, same applies to wikipedia. So I'm not understanding why it's not original thought. ChessCreator (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I think this example could be called common knowledge, at least among potential contributors to this book. For a text to be original research, it would need to be putting forward something new. Recent Runes (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Some books have a PDF version which you can save to your hard drive; some have a print version that you might be able to save as well. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 20:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
computer aided software engineering (case) tools
hi,
please help me with the areas where case tools can be used.
I'm having difficulties in adding text to screen shots to comply with the fair use policy. If I upload an image do I fill in a template in the description area?
Second how can I edit this for existing images? I've been working with computers for nearly forty years and prefer Firefox but for some reason how to do this isn't clicking.
Thanks John
Answered on my talk page, but a brief recap here. When uploading, you can choose the Proprietary software screenshots option in the combo box. In the text area ("Summary") please add Template:Tlx and Template:Tlx. The template code for both appears on the template pages.
To add this to already-existing images, edit the page with the edit tab, and go from there. Re-uploading the image won't work. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 17:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been noticing the lack of change in the Featured Books of the Month. For at least 3 months (until I changed it), it had not changed. Now, I think this is a feature that should be done in one of the following ways:
Delete it entirely
Make a discussion page for it, to discuss which books are for that month (discuss March in February, etc.)
Just leave the way it will go, allowing whoever wants new books posted to post them (I did this)
My personal opinion (why I posted this, in the first place) is that we should go with proposal 2. But, these kinds of pages aren't frequented! I only (as far as discussion rooms go) only check my watchlist. After that, I might check the posts I am interested in, but then head off to somewhere else. Thoughts? Laleena (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Its just "Featured Books", its not "of the month" and/or changed monthly. Featured books consist of what the Wikibooks community considers to be good books that deserve recognition as the best of what Wikibooks has to offer and what people should use as good examples to follow when creating new books. All these books are intended to be shown a bit randomly on the main page. As the community expects more out of the books, some books may be removed from featured status as they no longer meet the community's expectations.
Originally Wikibooks did have two separate projects one to try to encourage collaboration on books that people feel could use it and one to highlight a single book for a monthly period. Both were discontinued in favor of featured books, I believe, due to the belief that books suffered from a decline in collaboration by writers thinking such books were finished works and concern that too many incomplete books on the main page were discouraging new visitors to Wikibooks from sticking around. I don't think Wikibooks would benefit from going back to per month, and I don't think it would have any advantages over the current method of showing all the books randomly. --darklama 01:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok then, why don't we get rid of that feature? Laleena (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
If you're referring to the months featured books on Wikibooks:Featured books/Templates, I believe the intent of that is/was to make it easy for anyone to find out what books have recently been given featured status, a log basically, and not as something to be discussed and decided on a monthly bases. Perhaps it could use some clarification to make that more clear? --darklama 02:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, sounds great. But not many books have been featured recently (other than World at Work and Animal Physiology) and we have a de-featured contesting up right now. I, personally, would suggest that. Thoughts? Laleena (talk) 13:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The main issue here is to monitor the work of newer wikibooks and make sure that efforts go rewarded in terms of nominating books for featured book status. I've had success at doing this in the past when engaged in a general cleanup of the project, where sometimes a surprising book that I wasn't aware of in the past.
One feature of the German Wikibooks, that we don't have here, is a "cleanup of the Month" or basically a request for editorial assistance. The challenges of trying to create content don't always coincide with the ability to proofread the content for grammar errors or be able to organize that information into an attractive format. Perhaps there could be some effort to help identify those books that are fairly high quality books, but just don't quite meet the top standards of being "featured". I'm not sure if we want to go as far as the letter grades that Wikipedia articles are using, but there certainly could be a range of books from "stub-class" to "featured-class" and in between grades that could identify books of rising quality, perhaps as a suggestion for some people to know where they could help out here. --Rob Horning (talk) 10:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Study
Hi all. I received an e-mail asking my participation in a study of Suthiporn Sajjapanroj, Ph.D. candidate, Indiana University, about Wikibooks. My question is, is this for real? I have not seen any announcement or discussion anywhere. - Jota (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I got that too. It looks legit to me, but I'm absolutely not thrilled about getting the email. I don't know whether the community thinks such mass emailing is inappropriate, so I haven't taken any action. I guess we should think about addressing it though. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 00:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is another problem. I think it would have been more appropriated if they had discussed it first. Anyway, thank you, Mike.lifeguard. - Jota (talk) 05:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Namespace RSS
G'day, is there an easy way to make an RSS feed for RC patrol of a namespace? I've set up some RSS RC watches on a few books of interest to me, so that I can quickly check for changes using a feed aggregator like Akregator, and I'd like to add the Cookbook and Wikijunior but can't see a way to do it without a Wikimedia extension. Webawaretalk 01:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Images
Two things,one of the image help files, Help:Files, is broken (near the bottom when it discusses using images from wikicommons). Second, how does one use images from wikicommons? Particularly, I want Macroeconomics/Harrod-Johnson Diagram to have this image. Thanks, Smmurphy (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
This was produced with [[Image:Harrod-Johnson diagram.png|thumb]]I think I fixed the help page. As for using images from Commons, just include it as you would any other image; full syntax is described at the help page. Hope that helps! – Mike.lifeguard | talk 15:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi!
Hullo everyone, I'm new here. Most of the stuff I've done has been project work for my classes. But I plan to contribute even after it's no longer a graded requirement for school. Glad to be a part of the wikibooks community.
Hello DieselSandwich, welcome to Wikibooks! I started out the same way, adding notes from my classes to Wikibooks, but I continued here after the classes were finished. What kinds of topics are you most interested in? --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 17:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I was invited...
to come by and introduce myself. I'm not really a new user - I'm just an atavistic throwback and a technological clutz, therefore, I've been sorta wondering around all this time. Actually, I've started a series of wikibooks on Theology and one on Effective Reasoning. I hope that's not too oxymoronic. I've been offline for a couple of years (as far as the Wikibooks are concerned) but I'm back (actually, I found a software package that's helping me organize my thoughts more effectively - I'm dyslexic, and it's given me a new lease on academic life :) ).
I enjoy intellectual discourse, honest critique, and collaboration, so, if you're interested in my topics, visit the projects and see what you think.
Fantastic vocabulary! It's fun to see such a use of the word "Atavistic" outside of stale works on genetics or evolution. I will certainly try to take a peek at some of your writings. If you have any questions about anything, let us know and we'd be glad to help. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 17:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
"Userbox" on module design
Where can I discuss the design of the "Userboxes" used on module pages (usually the intro or topic page), as in Spanish or Russian? Russian looked fine until this redesign, in which there are several styles used making a previously legitimate layout confusing and ugly. Spanish is a nicer-looking example of how I suppose "they" wanted it to look, but it still looks messy with the "Spanish Edition of Wikibooks" and "Category II" boxes in different sizes. It's a decent style for warning back on Wikipedia, but where was it discussed that it should be used on here? There aren't "levels of importance" of boxes, so the color scheme is useless, and it looks messy when before we had clean, neutral grey boxes with function over fashion. Think of the menu bar on the left, we don't have colorful headers on everything. When we do, it cheapens our look and it begins to look like Wikia sites. ALTON.ıl 22:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Alton, I was actually thinking the same thing not too long ago. If you'll check out an old version of the Spanish page, I took the "userboxes" and put them in a neat (okay, neater) arrangement. I agree that we should have some sort of standardization in size so that they don't look messy. Νεοπτόλεμος ( talk | email | contribs ) 23:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, as you can see, Russian is in that sorry state right now, because these things just seem to happen without warning. I'd really like to discuss this wherever it was first proposed that they change them in the first place, because I think the new style is their attempt at 'standardization.' What I really hope for is that they go back to the way they were before. ALTON.ıl 10:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The new style definitely is an attempt at standardization, and I personally would say that it has been very successful. Previous to standardizing most of the templates with the new design, templates were all completely different, and were completely unmaintained. The new styles helped to improve many many templates, some of which hadn't been modified in years (and were showing their age). Beyond making the templates standard, it really helps to make our books look more polished and more high-quality.
Rather then trying to revert this entire standardization effort, I think there are two good possibilities here:
Update the few remaining templates to use the new style. This is my preferred option.
All the new templates have the ability for you to specify CSS styles on a per-application basis. This means that you can, on your own book, modify those templates to look the way you want them to (which might just be the way they looked before). This modification ability is not completely unlimited, but there are a lot of options for you.
I think the first option is the better of the two, and I think you will be pleasantly surprised by how the books look when all the templates are standardized. Of course, I won't make any changes if you don't want me to. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 14:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I suppose it is best if you carry out what you suggest. I would just like to voice my discontent with the style, period, but I don't want to make any waves. Thanks for the offer. ALTON.ıl 07:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to make a suggestion, namely, that we get a name-space similar to the above one. I think that it would be useful to have such a thing to protect passwords, secure stuff, etc. Thoughts? LaleenaWiki (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Mike :-). LaleenaWiki (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello
Hello everyone. I'm from Turkey and hopefully will make minor contributions from time to time. Computers, history and political science are my strengths. Glad to do something worthwhile.
--Eleman (talk) 05:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Excellent, welcome to Wikibooks! Computers is an area where we have many books, but those books tend to be incomplete or abandoned. History and political science are areas where we do not have as many books, comparatively. Of course, you are welcome to contribute to subjects which are not your "strengths" as well. Edits and "minor contributions" are some of the most valuable kinds, because they help to improve the quality of our books. Have fun, and let us know if you need any help. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I just attempted to edit a portion of the above reference because it is full of false information. I do not have the time to do the job that is needed. Neanderthals were extinct before the walls of Lascaux cave were painted. The author stated otherwise. There is further question about the veracity of his/her comment regarding a genetic study conducted on human remains from the Clovis culture and those from the indigenous people in North America.
It would be helpful if there were an easier way to draw attention to a poorly written and inaccurate article. As soon as I started to make changes, I realized how much the entire piece needed work.
Please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~), which will also add a timestamp. This makes discussions easier to follow.
Modules or sections needing work can be tagged as appropriate with one of the cleanup templates. I've tagged that module with Template:TlxTemplate:Tlx, but you're encouraged to be bold and fix things yourself if possible. Thanks for noticing and bringing it to our attention. Come on back if you need anything else. Happy editing! – Mike.lifeguard | talk 18:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
rating an article
I'm trying to rate articles in the Foundations of Education and Instructional Assessment, but it won't allow me to.
Jdoli002 (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
That function isn't part of the Wikibooks website. You should maybe contact the prof supervising the project, as that would be something they're involved in. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 21:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Single User Login (SUL)
Just a short message, apparently Special:Mergeaccounts has been activated. This is part of the SUL project that will allow people to merge accounts from different projects. I haven't heard any kind of announcement about this, and don't know that this page is supposed to be active or not. I recommend that nobody uses this special page until we figure out what is going on with it. I would hate to see somebody's account data be messed up because the software is still in testing and isn't supposed to be available. I'll post a follow-up message as soon as I learn what's going on. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 13:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
It has not been activated - that was presumably a mistake. False alarm folks. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 20:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
That's what I figured, and thanks for the update Mike. I just didn't want anybody to be plugging their username/password into the form and have it create any problems for them. It's a good sign though that they have the pages set up, that means that SUL will probably be going live sooner rather then later. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 22:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Tone and presentation
Hi, for about the last three weeks I've been building the crochet module. Requesting feedback, particularly regarding the four sample projects: Introduction to Crochet/Simple projects.
These are original designs. A creative copyright applies to crochet design, so I've been putting my own creative work under copyleft license, uploading to Commons, and writing instructions for making the items. I hope this is compliant with the no original research policy.
Is the tone appropriate? Textile craft instruction books are often written in an informal voice. Please advise if the current text is compliant with site guidelines.
All looks fine to me - and a nice collection of "recipes" you've got going there. Instructions on how to do things aren't OR, don't worry. BTW, I've pointed SWMBO at this book in the hopes that she might add some bits too :) Webawaretalk 23:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Wonderful, thank you. Durova (talk) 03:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
These pages look very nice. Regarding the OR policy, we allow materials that are verifiable, but we allow things to be verified in multiple ways. For instance, materials which are self-verifying (such as projects that you take a picture of to prove that it's possible) or materials that can be verified independently (things that can be easily and safely reproduced by the reader) don't qualify as OR. Finally, a fancy design for a crochet bracelet hardly qualifies as "research" at all, it's practice and there is no reason to doubt it's verifiability.
As to the tone, you're the author, and you get to decide the best way to present your materials. If this is the way you think it's best, then that's the way it should be. You may want to codify this by writing a local manual of style for your book, so future contributors can follow the same design directives. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 04:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the advice and encouragement. Durova (talk) 05:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Good find. Yes, there's a typo there, so I've moved the page. Thanks! – Mike.lifeguard | talk 23:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Need a book on capaciators
Hi, I don't know if this is the place to ask this but I would really have liked if somebody could have startet a book on how to create capacitors.
I have read that there is a whole lot of diffrenet kinds that you could make (and some that are really easy too), like for example by using two jars filled with water, one being thinner than the other and placing it inside, you easly create a storage for electricity without the fear that it could explode if you do something wrong.
Also there is of cource a lot of other ways you can create capaciators too, and I though that that could be a interesting book that a lot of people could have wanted to read.
--130.67.132.249 (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Naboo0o
Math help
The LaTeX compliling seems to be quite poor: Some formulae appear in the usual large and bold font while some appear as normal html text in special font. This makes the text look cluttered and uninviting. Can anything be done about this? Also can't we use the $ tags instead of and ?
I hope I'm asking in the right place - I'm new to Wikibooks
G'day, there are a few tricks you can employ to force the maths markup to render using graphics instead of HTML. Check out the help page on meta, which discusses the various options. Webawaretalk 06:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I have a wiki-related problem [[1]], but I'm not sure whether the original authors are active. Could you look over it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SPat (discuss • contribs)
G'day, I took a stab at it. Could you check to see if that's what you wanted? Webawaretalk 07:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
creating an account
I am trying to create a page because I am new to this site. However I erred in my user name and email address using the letter i instead of the number 1. I tried to change it but I am not getting through. Please help. email me at d1originalgodsandmyths@yahoo.com {wikibooks have me as dioriginalgodsandmyths It is d1 not di
The software will not allow to create usernames which are very similar to ones which already exist. However, a bureaucrat can rename you to whatever you like. Until they do, you can edit through your account - any edits you make will be moved to the new username when the account is renamed. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 15:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Common .js upgrade for Morphing Objects
Morphing objects are pretty damn useful. I first saw them on Encyclopedia Dramatica's Memes article (see pages Template:Memes, http://www.encyclopedia_dramatica.com/MediaWiki:Common.js (no underscore), and Encyclopedia Dramatica: Morphing Objects). Basically, they're kind of like the navigation thing on User: Darklama/Main Page, but not quite the same. Anyways, they weren't working when I tried to use them on wikibooks, because they require javascript. Mike_lifeguard, on IRC, suggested that the javascript for the morphing objects should be in common.js, and I agree. What do you all think? PiemanXC (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Before this disappears into the archives, perhaps someone who knows javascript could take a look at adding this & let us know whether it's a good idea or not? – Mike.lifeguard | talk 20:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Requested advice for a hit counter
I am a bit new to WikiBooks but have done some recent editing
on a few pieces. Is there a way to know the surfer hit-count
for individual WikiBooks pages? I thank you in advance for
any technical advice or assistance. Hyundai (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, there isn't any accurate way to know the surfer hit-count for individual pages currently. There has been attempts to count them, but its not reliable. --darklama 16:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, he seems to be informally citing sources, so hard to say. Certainly appropriate for Wikiversity if not here, but looks like the start of a textbook to me. --SB_Johnny | PA! 11:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Cool, I'll let it be. cheers, Webawaretalk 12:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
You'll want to try asking at Commons if nobody else responds. Also, there will be photos of insects if you prefer that to drawings. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 00:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Excursions
I'm considering a project that I've started on my home website (but there's not really enough memory there to do it right) and it struck me that it might actually make a nice Wikibook project - what do you think?
It's a book of scientific (and other) explorations. I enjoy such things and I though that I would share them with others that have the same interests. I'm currently playing around with mathematics and you can see my work on:
I suspect that it would be fun to have several people concurrently posting similar "excursions" and have them clash together and develop into a community of sorts.
It sounds like a really good idea to me, although it's probably better suited for Wikiversity then for Wikibooks. We are more rigid in our requirements for things to be "Books", and they are a little bit more free-form when it comes to learning experiments. I would check out Wikiversity first to run this kind of thing, but if you produce good results we would love to have them here in book format. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 18:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I have to cogitate on it awhile before I can convince myself that I can make a good start - maybe get a little more material down first. But I will check out Wikiversity. Thanks. WolfVanZandt (talk)
Call me crazy, but it looks like they are already! I'm using firefox 2.somethingorother, what browser are you using?Mattb112885 (talk to me) 03:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I almost aligned the 96 with the 109 by inserting a backslash-space in front of the 96. Is there a way to just right-justify? --Dr.enh (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
You might try putting each digit into a cell of a matrix, but that might insert too much whitespace. You might have to tweak things to get it exactly right. I don't see the problem here though - it seems like what you have there now is just fine. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 04:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
New parser magic: New Templates
The new parser software allows some of the old XML-style tags (<math>, <dynamicpagelist>, <imagemap>, etc) to be written in template-syntax using the #tag: parserfunction. Now, I know that this all sounds like high-tech gobbledegack, but There are some practical benefits:
1) Now we can use DPL in templates. I've created three templates now that work pretty logically: Template:Tlx, Template:Tlx, and Template:Tlx. I'm working right now on setting up documentation for these.
2) We can use equations in templates now. As a demonstration, I've created Template:Tlx. For instance, if I type:
There are other things that can be done like this too.
3) We can now (once again) use the Template:Tlx template to make images clickable. Thanks to Darklama for updating this one. That way you can easily use images as hyperlinks to pages.
This should make some of these tasks much easier for most users. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 00:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Bot Policy
We don't currently have an official bot policy here. We do have a proposal that I wrote previously at Wikibooks:Bots, but I think that proposal falls short and is in need of a re-write. Over the past few months we've been going through a de facto process of people requesting the bot flag at WB:RFP, and people voting on whether the flag should be granted. We've basically been treating it similarly to an adminship request.
In the past few months, people have used bots that have flooded the RC list. I'm one of those people, and my bot has flooded the RC list on more then one occasion. This makes it more difficult for our page patrollers to find and reverse vandalism. When things have gotten very bad, I personally have granted some users the bot flag on a temporary basis. This includes bots used by myself, User:Mike.lifeguard, and User:Monobi. In each case, the bot flag was granted temporarily to prevent flooding the RC list, the flag was removed shortly thereafter, and discussion about granting the flag permanently was continued at WB:RFP. After some time of doing things this way, I propose we change the process slightly:
Giving and taking the bot flag should become no big deal. That is, the barrier to entry should be very low.
The bot flag should be given after a demonstration of it's proper operation, and:
A request by the bot operator to have the flag granted on WB:RFP
A request made by a page patroller, on WB:RFP or directly to a bureaucrat (such as through email or preferrably on a talk page) to flag a bot when it is flooding the RC list, and it's edits till that point demonstrate proper operation of the bot.
If the bot belongs to a bureaucrat, and that bureaucrat determines that use of the bot will flood the RC list.
In all these cases proper operation must be demonstrated first. Then, the flag can be granted upon request, or upon seeing a need (such as the bot flooding the RC list).
Since the bot flag is really no big deal, i think that granting it should be done more freely. Being a bot doesnt give the account any extra rights or abilities, and it can be taken away by bureaucrats just as easily as it can be granted. For these reasons, I think that the process should be streamlined, and the flag should be given away more easily. If people don't object to this, I would like to rewrite the proposal at Wikibooks:Bots to reflect these ideas, and then push to have that proposal accepted. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 22:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
As long as "a demonstration of it's proper operation" means that bots doing controversial tasks are not given the flag without prior consensus, I'm happy. Bots which perform controversial edits without gaining prior community approval should be blocked. With that said, +bot gives no abilities save hiding the edits in recentchanges, so of course it should be no big deal. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 22:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with that. This proposal doesnt cover things like admin bots (such as deletion bots, etc). It also wouldn't cover the use of bots to do things that we don't approve of anyway. "Proper" bot edits should be free from serious technical defects, and the edits should be productive and acceptable. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I've Nominated Mike.lifeguard to become a bureaucrat. This is one of the first bureaucrat nominations that we've had in a while, and all Wikibookians should check it out. Mike could play a very active role in future adminship requests. I encourage all wikibookians to check out the nomination, and participate in it. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 02:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Seeing this wiki is producing books, it would be helpful if there were a more convenient way to print all/part of a book with out having to go to the printable version of each page. I'm not sure if its possible with the software, but it would defiantly be helpful to the user. Or if there is currently an easier way that I'm missing, please let me know.
Some books have print versions or PDF versions, which are more convenient to print the entire book than going through each page separately. Other than that, there is no way to do that at this point unless someone makes one (there is a print version creation gadget somewhere on the project, I'm not entirely sure how it works but I'm sure someone who's more into the technical side of things would be happy to show you). Is there any book in particular you're looking to print? Mattb112885 (talk to me) 14:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
History merges
I've been wracking my brain and reading a lot of poorly written instructions on how to do a history merge within Wikibooks. The effect I'm looking for is essentially the same as doing a {{subst:Someone else's Wikibooks module}} in [[My stuff]], but I want the histories merged. subst does not merge histories (should we ask for that?) I obviously do not want to destroy [[Someone else's Wikibooks module]] or clobber its history. So... would this work?
open [[My stuff]] for editing and leave it open in its own window (or tab) as I go through the rest of these steps.
open [[Someone else's Wikibooks module]] in a second window or tab.
move [[Someone else's Wikibooks module]] to [[My stuff]], and confirm the delete.
move [[My stuff]] back to [[Someone else's Wikibooks module]].
delete [[My stuff]]
restore all versions of [[My stuff]].
save the original version of [[My stuff]] still open from step one.
I've tried something like this in my sandbox, and got it to work (eventually... maybe). I'm not confident enough to try it on someone else's work. Help? --Jomegat (talk) 03:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Nope. That no worky. The history for [[Someone else's Wikibooks module]] is not merged with [[My stuff]]. --Jomegat (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it works that way. In the database, there is a revision table that is related to the page table. revision has a flag rev_deleted that determines whether it shows up in history views of the page. page has a page_title which is what changes when you move / rename a page. The revisions in revision don't actually go anywhere when you move one page over another; the rev_deleted flags for the deleted page change, and the page_title of the moved page changes in page. When you move the page again, you're just changing that page_title again. The edit history you see is a select-merge of revisions for pages with the same title; changing the title of one of the pages "moves" the revisions with it. No actual merge happens in the database. Webawaretalk 08:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I can think of a bad way to do it, but I'm not real excited about it. Basically, import it to another wiki and then import it back. Or copy the edit history to the talk page, but that's not too pleasant either. Is there no other way? Shouldn't subst automatically copy the history too? --Jomegat (talk) 12:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I think its safe enough to indicate on the talk page or like some credit section of the book that its a fork of Someone else's Wikibooks module proving a link to the specific revision your copying from so as to give anyone wanting to reuse the material a clue of what credits would need to be included. However your not the first to suggest that maybe the best way to handle it is by cloning the history through importing to another project and back again. --darklama 12:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a extension which will duplicate a page's history, which works nicely on my test wiki. Apparently the devs do not like it though (I don't think it's a technical reason, but they didn't really say why). As well, keep an ear to the ground for mergehistory, which should be coming along soon (which I don't particularly like, but will take care of some history merges nicely).
For now, yes just put a link in the history like "forked from whatever page" and that should be fine. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 14:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Instead of trying to merge the histories on your page, Include a link in the edit summary when you subst that points to the page history in question. That way there is a record that is forever a part of the revision history, that shows where the older edits come from. A diligent researcher can follow that link back to the remaining records. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I feel your pain, perhaps we should make a proposal to enhance the way wikibooks works to allow better modularity.
This could be done by treating wikibook texts as macromodules, topics as modules and subtopics as micromodules.
They are already basically treated as such, but formalizing this would allow alternate versions to be produced with relative ease (an expanding menu with check-boxes for each topic and subtopic to include or exclude for example)
On the edit menu one could see what wikibooks (macromodules) and topics (modules) the micromodule he/she was editing would effect and could decide whether to continue editing or add an additional subtopic (micromodule) to his/her wikibook of interest.
This would have several benefits
Ability to create modified version of texts to meet state/locale specific standards
Possibility of creating fast track subject texts using prerequisite flags to include all prerequisite modules/micromodules
Better evaluation capability - testing areas could be easily referenced to the corresponding micromodule to upgrade weak testing areas
Teacher and student version of texts (one version with answers and one without etc...)
Study guide creation using question bank micromodules
Export selected question bank micromodules to CMS software (Moodle etc...) for testing.
Reduced space requirement and better future expandability and usability (adding curriculum, integration with other wikmedia sites etc...)
Easier to create a permanent, taylored curriculum or entire course (which could also be shared)
further study
Hi All of u.
I have completed my graduation in March 2007 and now i want to do my futher studies. Currently i am working in finance dept and i want to do further course in finance but i am not able to understand from where do i start
Pls help me. Suggest me some instituted and which course in finance is better in future.
Regard,
Ganesh k.
Wikibooks is a site for people interested in writing educational textbooks, not a careers advice site. Anyway, you would need to give a lot more information about yourself for anybody to offer relevant advice. i.e. Which country are you living in now, where do you want to work, what qualifications do you have already, etc. Probably your best bet is to start by seeking advice from other people in your office. Recent Runes (talk) 13:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I should point out that for general questions of this nature, Wikibooks:Study help desk has been an invaluable resource. Sometimes not answered, but can be quite interesting, and there have been an incredible range of questions asked there. I'm not exactly sure why this page isn't linked so closely to the discussion pages like it used to be, or why it isn't being used much any more. --Rob Horning (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure either, so I added a link from the main reading room page; I don't see why not. Mattb112885 (talk to me) 23:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedian
If someone using wikipedia is a Wikipedian, what is someone using Wikibooks called?
Is it correct to say
"A project to better improve information and communication on chess-related articles. This page and its subpages contain suggestions; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians." (from Wikibooks:Chess) ChessCreator (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
We are Wikibookians, notWikipedians! :) – Mike.lifeguard | talk 14:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Mike is correct, we are generally called "Wikibookians". As a possible point of confusion, members of all WMF wiki projects are referred to as "Wikimedians" (notice the "m" instead of the "p" in there). --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Would like to create a new template. If this was wikipedia I'd create the template based on W:Template:Navbox. Issue is this template doesn't existing on wikibooks. Is it possible that I can copy from W:Template:Navbox and create the same template on wikibooks? Or is there some problem with that? ChessCreator (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I imported a copy (along with all dependencies, I think) for you here. It uses complex template markup; good luck! – Mike.lifeguard | talk 17:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Some bits missing it seems. Title colour default not normal, no option of hide/show which is default also. Template:ChessOpenings is my in progress template. ChessCreator (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it does seem rather a mess, doesn't it. Probably best to modify Template:Tlx then. Sorry 'bout that. If you sure it can't be repaired, I'll delete it as unneeded. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 19:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The Template:Tlx isn't suitable as the box is collapsed and I want it open, so Navbox seems more suitable even in it's incomplete state. ChessCreator (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
If that is all that is keeping you from using it then you just need to pass the right parameters to it.
I'm looking for the existing templates used about chess and want a place to add a new one.
I've found one template Template:Chess/Navigation, but there are others template:'chess position' used on many pages of Chess Opening Theory for example Chess Opening Theory/1. d4 and template:'Chess diagram small' using on Chess/Basic Openings etc.
Can someone help me locate those templates and let me know where is a sensible place to create a new template. ChessCreator (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
My name is John Wm. Wicks. I'm a computer/web programmer in the Sacramento, Ca area. You can contact me through SourceForge http://www.sf.net at no_spam!j_wicks@users.sourceforge.net
I'm currently going back to college to get a Bachelors Degree in CSIS at Sacramento City College and I hope to transfer to Sacramento State University in 2009.
User:Jwwicks (Talk) 11:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
