Testwiki:Reading room/Archives/2006/September

Implications of releasing an Open Content License book into GFDL for use in Wikibooks

This question comes from a discussion on Sensei's Library.

A user there is open to the idea of releasing a book he wrote to Wikibooks, but was having doubts about licencing issues.

The book in question is "unkx80.netfirms.com/weiqi/howtoplaygo/". The author has stated that it was released under Open Content License, the license used by Sensei's Library (see http://senseis.xmp.net/?SLCopyright).

After some discussion, he stated: "However, I would really prefer to release my work under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial license, because I made not a single cent out of my own work." (see the first link) Would that be possible? Are there restrictions to dual-licensing? If so, what are they?

Since I would like to add more Go knowledge to Wikimedia projects, I'm posting this here. Hopefully I'm not asking in the wrong place, nor is this question already answered elsewhere. I will check this page from time to time, but I would appreciate it if someone left me a message at my Wikipedia user talk page, or replied to his doubts at the first link. Phelanpt 85.139.186.244 02:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have, quite a while ago, released my How To Play Go work under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License. I think I am not likely to release it under the GFDL. unkx80 (author of How To Play Go) 12:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikibooks rival ?

There's a competition out there you know http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-08/uog-gtp083106.php

Kpjas 08:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like "competition" for wikiversity... If I understand the project correctly, they plan on writing the texts here on wikibooks :). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

BOTM and COTM

I have updated the BOTM and COTM winners for September, but I warn people that the text of the entries is very bad. People who are associated with these books (or people with a better grasp of these topics then I have) are encouraged to edit the text of these templates. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikibooks Logo Vote

There is currently a movement to change the wikibooks logo on meta:

There are several good candidates, including an option to keep the current logo. Also, there is somequestion about the current motto that is on the logo image ("Think Free, Learn Free"), and whether it should be altered or even omitted entirely.

I would recommend that all wikibookians go over to meta, and voice your opinions. Voting is scheduled to begin on this issue on Sept 7th. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Gaming manual as a textbook

I'm throwing down the gauntlet here on this issue again. I am sick an tired of a bunch of content being removed simply because it is of a particular theme. In particular, the removal of the gaming guides was IMHO totally out of line, but in this case I would like to prove both Jimbo and the rest of the anti-gaming guide people that they are not only wrong, but flat out wrong about the removal of content simply because of the topic, not because of the content.

I'm willing to consider a number of options, but what I'd like to do is write a real honest-to-goodness textbook that would be of the quality that it could be used for a university class, but that the topic of the textbook is a video game. Specifically I'd like to do Doom if for no reason other than Jimbo has specifically marked it for deletion and claimed that it could never be made into a textbook. I'd love to prove him wrong on this point in particular.

You can easily prove me wrong. Show me a University course where the objective is to learn to play Doom, and where the students work from a textbook. If not, then what is the point?--Jimbo Wales 21:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

My former employer, Columbia College Chicago, has a new game design major. While no course on Doom per se is taught, part of the new curriculum is a course on game engines and writing and designing virtual gaming environments. It seems like it wouldn't be much of a stretch to use a textbook that is survey of say the original M&M, Doom, and WoW to describe the art and design of these virtual environments. As long as the rigor exists in the treatise, it could very well be used at the course. Of course, one could include historicity and the nature of actually WRITING a game guide as a chapter. Plus, I can't imagine Columbia College is the only higher ed that has a curriculum in this topic .02USD jtvisona 05/28/06

I believe what you are saying is that textbooks suitable for students can be written about games. I would agree with that. Indeed, going by Jimbo's amendment to What is Wikibooks [1], so would he. What we are doing, however, is to systematically remove game walkthroughs (ie books about games which clearly do not fall within the definition of "textbook"), preferably after having found a new home for them elsewhere on the web, Jguk 07:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not intended to be a video game walkthrough (which should have been the point of the debate well before the removal of the gaming guides), but rather an in depth scholarly review of this game, and to point out the historical significance that this game has within the computer gaming industry. The historical roots of this game, including Castle Wolfenstein, Commander Keen, and other earlier ID software games, as well as other computer games would be included in this book as well. How Doom has affected the development of other first-person shoot 'em up games would also be a significant point in this book as well.

All other Wikibooks and in general Wikimedia policies should be followed when developing this textbook, which the end goal is to reach a standard that if this is deleted, that wikibooks itself should be simply shut down as a failed project.

I don't know if there are any video game textbook supporters left on Wikibooks, but if there is anybody interested in taking on this project, please let me know. I think a real textbook can be written on this topic. Others may disagree, but this is also to see if there is any room left on Wikibooks to even permit the writing of such a real textbook. My opinion is that just because of the subject matter that it shouldn't be deleted out of hand. --Rob Horning 12:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Video games are going to be an extremely disturbing phenomenon in the next decade or two as they become enmeshed with real life. When online cash can be withdrawn from ATMs as real cash we are talking about something serious occurring. Wikibooks may well be the "cutting edge" publishing medium that gets out of video games just as they start to take over the world.

I do not play these games myself but it is obvious that they are the test bench for the future virtual reality working and trading worlds. There are currently 6 million on-line gamers involved in games that have real world cash interfaces and this type of cash represents over $800,000,000 dollars of real world money (See current edition of New Scientist).

Don't get me wrong, I really hate the idea of people going to work by sticking on a VR goggle-set but sadly it looks like the future. It is probably already a reasonable business idea to set up as a shop-keeper or interior designer in an on-line game. RobinH 13:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

But not all games deal with internet cash. In fact, most of the games that deal with internet cash are strictly casino games like Texas Hold' Em or BlackJack, except online. Thats like using Porn movies to say that the movie industry is poor, and Hentai and Porn Books to say that the book industry is also unsuitable for textbook materials. --Dragontamer 19:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

What I was saying is that games that involve cash but which are not casino games or pure porn are a new development that is likely to take off in a big way - see Business week story. These games are a test bed for VR commerce and a VR economy. We should not ditch games just when games are about to "happen". RobinH 19:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Lol. I misread your post :-/ Agreed. --Dragontamer 19:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry Robert, I'm still here kicking for Video Games on Wikibooks. My first question is what stance should we take on Doom? The real obvious one is to take the Doom Source code and then do an analysis from there. The primary advantage is that yes, this fits the classical definition of textbook, but it probably wouldn't save the video game bookshelf.

Another perspective I see we can do is to see Doom as an art of itself. Using Game Design textbooks like Chris Crawford on Game Design, we could use his vocabulary of what a game is, and then analyse the game akin to a book or movie. Perhaps the level design and how mazes are as they are in Doom, the pros and the cons. Etc. Etc. From this perspective, it would be like the Muggles'_Guide_to_Harry_Potter but for doom instead. --Dragontamer 19:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Robert, as long as it's not just a walkthrough, I'd be fine with it. I have been a big supporter of the Textbook Rule, but if the topic of a textbook is a video game, I'd be more than willing to help. Let's get cracking. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'd have no problem at all with a textbook on Doom along the lines that Robert suggests. Wikibooks is for textbooks. I believe we all agree that books similar to those used in existing classes in a number of learning institutions are within our scope. Additionally, I believe we all think that Wikibooks' scope is wider than that - although we do disagree on how much wider it is than that and how to define accurately what we mean by a textbook that can't be used for a current class in a learning instition.

To my mind a lot of what a textbook is is in the aim and style and the use to which a textbook can be put. It would be foolish to say that there can be a textbook on every conceivable topic, yet at the same time it is possible to write interesting and informative textbooks that do not correspond to classes in schools, universities or adult education centres. Robert's proposed book on Doom, for me, appears to meet the right criteria. I would stress though that our current book on Doom does not.

I would, however, ask Robert, for his own sake, to think whether he really wishes to pursue his idea - as I'm sure we are all aware, writing a book takes up a surprisingly large amount of time. However, if Robert will put in this effort in essence just to prove a point (and at the risk of Jimbo ordering the book off Wikibooks anyway) then I will not in any way seek to hinder him, Jguk 16:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not following your logic, Robert. How is a "scholarly review" a game manual? The book Doom can't be turned into a textbook without rewriting all of the content, which is what you intend to do. Correct me if I'm wrong but Jimbo has never said that a textbook can't be written on this topic. In his WB:WIW revision, he said quite the opposite. I think what you have to ask yourself is whether a book would be usable in a classroom on any aspect of game design, like an annotated text would be in a literature classroom. I also don't know what to popularity of video games has to do with this. There are even colleges devoted to video game design, but not one has a "How to finish Doom" or "Doom Manual" class. --haginძaz 16:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

So make it a rewrite... even if it has to be from scratch. Monopoly had this happen and has become a much better book as a result. The opinion of Jimbo was that Doom could never be used as a textbook because of the subject matter. Yes, he did say a textbook could never be written about this topic. This was mentioned specifically as an example. My proposal here is to rewrite, perhaps even from a clean sweep of the current Doom Wikibook being thrown out, to turn this into a textbook that could be usable in a classroom. Major sections would include game play, economy (weapons and ammo), algorithms, and historical impact of the game both in terms of roots and what games have been developed from this one game.

Based on what I am percieving from the people trying to remove video games, they are trying to delete content because of subject matter alone, and not content. The discussion has become so heated that the issue of wheither any university-level courses were taught on the subject, with incredulity occuring when some actual courses were pointed out.

In addition to all of this discussion, until Jimbo came in here and really pushed for textbooks, Wikibooks was about books, not textbooks. Essentially, this was for content that would normally be considered acceptable on Wikipedia, but for its length and the need to break it up into multiple sections. Some additional flexability was granted for Wikibooks to do non-encyclopedia type works. I will admit that the first Wikibook is the Organic Chemistry, and that was a textbook. Other content is on Wikibooks however, including content added by WMF board members that is clearly not a textbook in nature.

I have been approached now by two different people who are openly trying to encourage me to fork Wikibooks with actual server space to do so. I think this is an unfortunate situation, and I would rather that forking doesn't occur. I still havn't decided if my effort is going to be used to work on those forks and abandoning this project altogether or if there is something worth saving here. I do believe that far too much content has been removed from Wikibooks, especially when much of that content was added on good faith that it belonged here.... even surviving VfDs earlier. While there was and is still cruft on Wikibooks, taking out two major bookshelves (Video Games and How-tos) is not a way to win friends and grow this project. Especially when there is no place to move it within the context of Wikimedia projects. Had this been done with Wikiversity (I guess they are next with the axe now) another fairly significant community would have been destroyed as well, with some potentially outstanding ideas lost permanently. --Rob Horning 19:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't you agree that the content you will be using to create a Doom book would work better as part of larger textbooks, such as as examples? In my opinion, yes, it would be a textbook teaching concepts taught in classrooms, but just not a very good one. I don't think it occurred to Jimbo that someone would bother teaching game design using only Doom, as better examples exist.

Has any attempt been made to ask the board or Jimbo himself whether he has the right to dicate policy? I would like to hear someone outside of Wikibooks say that this community has the right to decide upon Wikibooks' scope. If that happens, an active discussion should ensue and I'll give my opinion on the matter. --haginძaz 20:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Well said Robert. As for critical study of Doom; I cannot think of a more revolutionary game than Doom. In fact, the word "Doom Clone" described First Person Shooter genre for *years* after Doom was released. It would be great as a case study. --Dragontamer 03:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I cannot speak for the others, but my input in this matter has always been from the perspective of a gamer. I originally came to Wikibooks because of the Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas guide, where a large portion of my contributions were and likely still are. And once it was suggested that they be moved I was fine with that, as to me it makes sense to move to a more focussed, gamer-friendly wiki. Indeed I've talked to many outside of the wiki environment who were surprised that a site called "Wikibooks" had videogame strategy at all!

I bear gaming topics no ill will. If someone starts "A Tempest in a Coffee Pot? Jack Thompson Vs. the Gaming World" I'll be right in there expanding it and linking to interviews and the like. But if someone starts "The Definitive Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories Solutions Manual" I'll take it to Vfd soon after. Serious Wikibooks can and will one day be written regarding videogames, but the current game guides simply don't fit that category. And is moving them off Wikibooks all that dissimilar from your tabula rasa propsal? Garrett^Talk 04:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Again and again, this argument comes up. And again and again, people fail to come up with a good reason for why Video Games should be removed. Unless I'm missing something here, but I don't see any good reason for video game guides to go away, aside from stir up trouble in the community.

My strongest protest to this move is that it of all things, slaps long time editors in the face, and kicks them out of the wikibooks community. Whether or not this is for the "better" of wikibooks, we will have to live with the fact that we got a bunch of now former editors of wikibooks, who are very disgruntled.

As Robert said, this move has made some people to go as far as make forks of Wikibooks. Isn't this a tiny little tipoff that just maybe something is off here? 2 people asking for forks means there are a *whole* lot more than just 2 people pissed. The only reason there is to this nonsense is that "Jimbo Says". If it isn't obvious to anyone yet, Jimbo seems to be more busy at Wikipedia than here, to put it mildly. As I've said before, there have been admin requests that were denyed for having fewer than 270 edits, and having 6 month breaks. As much as I don't wanna downplay Jimbo here... I just wanna point out that "Jimbo Says" is not a good enough reason for all this. --Dragontamer 06:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm wasn't making any point, merely refreshing what I've said in previous debates before jumping into this one in an attempt to avoid any further confusion in an already complex debate. Bah.

I'm not one to go too much against the flow of what the Foundation says, which is why I've largely accepted what Jimbo said. In the end the Foundation owns the servers, however we collectively have supplied both funding and content, thus making users by and large feel that we have some say in how we run things. Jimbo has always encouraged us to make our own policy decisions, however he has stepped in occasionally when those decisions didn't go the way he felt the Foundation stood (e.g. Getting a Girl and other such modules).

But recently he's become more and more vocal, and less and less present to clarify his rationale. The videogame policy change is the climax; even to those supporting the move it's a stunning change of events. Is this the Foundation speaking, or is it only Jimbo? And to what extent do the Foundation board members back Jimbo's statements as being ex cathedra, so to speak? And, also, to what extent do we the community (who are arguably responsible for Wikibooks' content and in turn its success) get a say in matters?

I'm all for continuing a happy medium, but things are getting out of hand. This is why I have put my transwikiing efforts on hold. I need to know where we stand. If we're to allow game guides, sure, I can use the log to undelete what I've moved and everybody will live happily ever after. If we're not, fine, I can continue work. But I really feel it's time we heard from the board itself, and not just Jimbo. I want to see closure to this issue. I really don't care which decision is reached, as long as it's both official and final. Garrett^Talk 07:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I put a note on Jimbo's WP page.

Also, just to be clear, I am not asking people to fork WikiBooks content to my wiki. My wiki in the public domain, and so is not a suitable place to move the content to unless you are the copyright holder. Except for the Pokédex, which as a collection of facts is not covered by the GFDL, I have just finished copying them all. All I did was to letRob Horning (who supported my admin request for simple.wikibooks before) that there are other options. The choices as I see them are to help out one (or more) of these other wiki's, or to use your energy to try and fight Jimbo with no guarantee of success and little to no progress on these books while doing so. Gerard Foley 23:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we just all petition the Wikimedia Foundation for an entirely brand new domain where video game guides and other how-to books could reside (Wikigames or Wikiguides, or some other creative name), leaving Wikibooks for just textbooks (and perhaps while we're at it move Wikiversity too?). Or keep them here and form a Wikitext for only textbooks. We already have a lot of content that could populate both, and it would all be contained under the Wikimedia umbrella. Anyone wanna take this to meta with me? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 01:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll help out with that. I have the same user-name at Meta, so send me a message there, and I will help petition. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 01:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I see that is an issue, is why split a community already so small and fragmented? We aren't even at the "critical point". So much work is needed to start up a new book; editors rarely search outside their pet projects. Newcommers are fustrated as they stumble upon stubs and stubs. The newbies who do find a project they are willing to work for quickly find their contents deleted, sometimes with no explanation, or any clue to where it has gone.

Frankly speaking; I think a forking of wikibooks in any way would cause this project to crumble, unless it is a "fresh start" and everyone is actually willing to "do it right" this time (if you know what I mean).

And after the fiasco with wikiversity, I'm not... encouraged... to take anything to meta anymore. Though if enough people join the cause, I may change my mind :-/. How many months have those wikiversity people been trying?

In closing, I'd like to ask; why not change the Wikibooks policy to include video games, howtos, guides, and other instructional resources? A new domain name would be a difficult goal to aim for, and it seems that changing policy to include what already is on Wikibooks is a *much* easier idea than:

1. Petitioning for a new Domain Name
2. Winning that petition
3. Writing a proposal to Wikimedia board
4. Correcting that proposal over a period of several months
5. Transwiki everything over
6. Restart policy from scratch

Chaning the policy only involves telling Jimbo Wales and/or the board that we've changed our mission to what we actually do.--Dragontamer 01:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

We only need a new domain if we want video games guides at a WikiMedia project. Why is this so important? There are already plenty of places willing to accept this content:

• http://strategywiki.net/wiki/Main_Page For video game guides, uses the GFDL.
• http://www.gmcfoley.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page My own site, Public Domain, but will accept basically anything Wikipedia does. It’s new, so it’s a fresh start.
• WikiCities I don't know the URL, but I'm sure they have a wiki which will take all this content.
  • That would be Gameinfo. Garrett^Talk 04:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If Jimbo doesn't want this content, let's take it elsewhere! Gerard Foley 02:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

But if we can, why not try and keep this under the Wikimedia umbrella? I know forming a new domain under WM can be tough, but I think if enough users still want to work on them, we should at least try to find a WM place for them. If the proposal is rejected, then go to outside sources. My opinion. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hm. As interesting as the idea of a separate project is it would have some growing problems. Most importantly Wikibooks has been the videogaming recipient for several years now; no matter how loudly any policy changes are stated on Wikipedia there will still be content dumped here due to habit. And so a good portion of transwikiing work will be spent moving such stuff off Wikibooks and into "Wikiguides", and then the userbase there will in turn have to move it around within their own system or else just plain delete it. If the Foundation are going to keep videogame guides in the family why not just leave them here? And as for the likelihood of the Foundation accepting the proposal, I really can't say how videogame content on its own, even if bolstered by non-gaming howtos, can fit the Foundation's "educational mission". Garrett^Talk 04:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is Jimbo was very clear about this, normally he just [2] likes to wonder], but on this issue he was black and white. Video game guides do not belong here. Period. Gerard Foley 13:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

As much as wikitruth has some valid points... I wouldn't go as far as to say I believe it 100%. Opinions on people are wide spread, and I'd rather not judge Jimbo on something other sites say about him. But anyway; please, explain why Video game guides don't belong here, and second, why we can't change policy to include them. --Dragontamer 12:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Rob, FYI, the game w:Final Fantasy X was the subject of a quite thorough post-grad Phylosophy thesis recently. You should read the Abstract and Introduction, the thesis author mentions a lot of reasons why games can be considered the Shakespeare of our times. It is a pity games are beeing evicted from here. Thank heavens we found a home for the Final Fantasy stuff! Renmiri 07:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• • http://64. 233.179.104/search?q=cache:0PJiLhZ1RVkJ:www.upnaway.com.au/~waldemar/Research/PhD%2520(Submitted%2520to%2520Library).doc+final+fantasy+Anima+Jung+Seymour&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3 Meaning and Emotion in Squaresoft’s Final Fantasy X — Graduation thesis by Glen R. Spoors, Edith Cowan University - Australia

Dragontamer, if you want to know why Video game guides don't belong here? Because Jimbo says so! Why can't we change policy to include them? Because Jimbo wants them gone. I have a list of books I was going to keep an eye on my user page, a quick look and you can see I was a supporter of video game books. I started some of them myself. IMO it just isn't worth fighting for them here when other wiki's will welcome them with open arms! Gerard Foley 19:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You could also read this post I made [3] Gerard Foley 19:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Page break for editing purposes

So then we convince Jimbo/Wikimedia board to say it is better for guides to stay here. Lord Voldemort wants to create a new wiki for it. You want to create a new wiki for it. I want them to stay; or to move them to a new wiki for it. Renmiri thinks they deserve to stay. All in all; I see so much support for this stuff, not only from typical editors, but from at least 2 Wikibooks admins. If Jimbo really doesn't want them here, well then, he'll have to live with his decision of (IMO) killing off the wikibooks project. Too many contributors are leaving because of this decision (video game contributors or not), and maybe we all can reverse this decision. And the advantage is now on our side to say why things belong. Damage is already being done to the Wikibooks reputation because of this decision, and instead of me hypothesising about it, I can actually point it out. Your fork is a near perfect example. The activity levels of admins is another one; it may be too soon for me to point this out, but coincidence or not; Special:Contributions/Robert_Horning and Special:Contributions/Kernigh activity level dropped a *lot* right after his little announcement (from 10+ contributions a day to 2+ days a contribution). I'm sure they're still here, reading, waiting to see what will happen soon on wikibooks before offering their time and energy on this project again. I know other people have gone "missing", but I can't name them off the top of my head.

It is much easier to keep things here than to make a new wiki; on wikimedia or not. Though, if Jimbo says goodbye one more time, I guess we'll have no choice but to leave. But we aren't losing any "time" here on this issue, and I argue that there is no "wasted effort". Making a wiki is too large an undertaking for me to just say "Alright, I'm leaving". We got policy to make, and early policy to make as well. We'll have to come up and lay down the lines precisely, with no "gray" areas. The community will have to grow, we'll have to fight vandals, set up a hierarchy, etc. etc.

Thats all done here in Wikibooks now. The only thing to do is convince people (more or less, Jimbo) that we want this kind of content somewhere, and that Wikibooks is better off overall if we stay.

I suggest to Lord Voldemort: instead of that proposal for a new wiki; why not propose we change policy to stay here? I'm willing to support that 100%.

Crazy Idea, i know, but thats why I'm here :-p To offer crazy ideas.--Dragontamer 19:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say, "Hey let's create a whole new wiki" if that wasn't where Jimbo/Board were leading us (and always have been, for that matter). The Wikimedia Foundation has in its bylaws, that WB is "a collection of e-book resources aimed specifically toward students (such as textbooks and annotated public domain books) named Wikibooks".[4] So somehow I don't think changing our Wikibooks policy is good enough. I simply see everything (Jimbo's statements, the bylaws, the educational goal, etc.) and think it's obvious that game-guides are not to be included. That's why I suggested an alternate domain. I just don't know anymore. Instead of asking, "What's so wrong about having video game guides here", ask yourself "How great would it be if there was a website dedicated to the distribution of free textbooks to every person in the world?" --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where video game guides conflicts with that at all. Maybe I'm oblivious, but from what I'm seeing (that is, major users who have stopped contributing, people moving out of Wikibooks and into forks, other pissed off users who probably aren't going to come back), removal of these guides has essentially killed that goal, or at least caused a major setback to Wikibooks in general. --Dragontamer 21:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to try to fight for them to stay at Wikibooks, then go ahead and good luck with it! Just don't expect me to help, I'm too busy writing these guides, and my CSS guide also is coming on nicely also IMO :)! I 100% won’t be coming back to Wikibooks either way. I have invested too much time & money into by wiki to abandon it now. I mean the $10 offer for 200 words will cost me $200 alone, which comes out of my own pocket! Plus there’s hosting costs, back-ups, getting advertising, trying to get a new host so I can fix the ugly url's etc.. No, I'm gone for good. The only thing I'll be doing is helping to move anything which is free of copyright over to my wiki (such as the 24 hours I spent copying the Pokédex). Yes, this decision will probably only help kill Wikibooks, but perhaps the damage has already been done? Gerard Foley 20:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand 100%. Good luck on your wiki project! No hard feelings from me (you deserve none at all) --Dragontamer 21:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If wikibooks were my project, I would have set it up differently, but at the same time there is a certain amount of value in having an open-textbook resource aimed directly at students. I don't think that this will kill wikibooks, but it will slow us down a little bit. Good luck on your projects, and I know that we here at wikibooks are going to need alot of luck as well. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 23:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Renmiri - me - is just a n00b at Wikibooks and pretty new at Wikipedia too, so my lamenting that game guides are being evicted doesn't have the benefit of all the knowledge of WikiMedia history, bylaws, etc... But precisely because I am a newbie is that I wanted to give you my perspective: Game guides are, IMHO, where the Wikibook administrators of 2015 will cut their teeth in. From what I have seen in game sites and in Wikipedia / Wikibooks, this is where 13-16 year old - or even younger - will start thinking about cooperation and content management. I'm willing to bet that the first textbook a high school kid reads voluntarily will be a game walktrough. Even for the older newbies like me and others, the game guides provide a less stresful way to get into Wikimedia editing. A Wikipedia page about heart surgery, ancient history or all the others I have browsed those past few years looked pretty intimidating. Yet a page about a game made me confortable enough to click on that scary edit tab and I fixed a couple of things. Three months later me and other n00bs had injected so much life into that particular game series of pages that 10 pages were cited as Good Article and one got confirmed as Featured Article. And our newly found boldness for editing started spreading around to other topics and to Wikibooks. In my view, it may be necessary to evict game guides for the many reasons cited above, but Wikibooks is losing an excellent opportunty for training and nurturing new book editors and book readers. Get them while they are young, and on a hobby like games and those readers and editors might be yours forever ;-) Renmiri 01:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I come exactly from your background Renmiri. My first major edits were on Maple Story, a video game. --Dragontamer 01:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

My first wiki-edits were on the Chrono-Trigger artical at wikipedia. I strongly believe that there should be a place for game manuals for precisely the reasons that have been mentioned. I even voted back in the day to keep the game manuals here. However, it seems that the focus of wikibooks has changed (or at least re-focused on it's original goals), and I don't think that there is a big reason to fight that. Wikibooks will be hurt the most by a lack of focus. If we want to put everything and anything here, we should just rename it "wikieverything". Unfortunately, the line has been drawn at game guides. But look at what we have now: dedicated editors who are going to take their game guides to a new, more appropriate venue, and a highly-focused instructional resource in wikibooks. Our situation is certainly bittersweet, but if it has to happen, we might as well see the silver lining. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 02:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikibooks has always accepted manuals, howtos, gameguides, and so forth. We knew where the line was drawn, and we know exactly why Wikibooks isn't a "Wikieverything". Even before the Jokebook incident, we were already pushing Wikiversity to leave, deleting other non"wikibook" material, and everyone knew exactly why it didn't fit policy. The line was already drawn, and now it is redrawn again. Now, even very instructional material like Wikibooks:Votes_for_undeletion#FAQ_for_alt.internet.wireless and arguably textbooks like that *very* informative MJ book are at risk.

And with a line drawn somewhere inbetween Chess and Video Games... I see nothing but confusion ahead for wikibooks if it continues down this path. No metric, aside from "Jimbo Says" decides the line between Chess and Video Games. And I doubt there would be any defined line between them.

And without defined lines; there will be no justification for really any action at wikibooks. Policy right now is shot; the "Accredited institution" metric is probably the only one that is being used at any rate, and even then, that metric is shot. The only thing left here is for us to argue opinion vs opinion; with no solid policy to say why something could survive a VfD now.

That is what is causing the fustration right now. And with the line now drawn at such a blurry place (Chess/Go vs other games), I dunno what to say. What about Omok/Gomoku? 6 in a row? Connect 4? There is no policy to say what lies exactly inbetween the lines here.

The problem is far deeper than just Video Games on wikibooks. But I feel allowing Video Games on Wikibooks will cure nearly all of this policy debate up. Unless you have a policy that cleanly cuts Video Games away from Puzzles and Chess, or include them all (or none), Wikibooks will stagnate. --Dragontamer 02:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Revived from archives Minun 19:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Im copying the ones that didn't get transwikied to my own Wiki a list can be found here, cheers Minun 19:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This certainly was an interesting discussion, but I dont know specifically what you want changed? You want wikibooks to allow video-game walkthroughs and strategy guides? There never has been a restriction that says textbooks about videogames or videogame design are not allowed, the only thing that has been restricted are the strategy guides, walkthroughs, and instruction manuals. Anybody is more then welcome to create a book that talks about Doom from a scholarly perspective: an "annotated text" on the storyline and narrative, a case-study of the Doom graphics engine, etc. These things are and always have been allowed. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe they should be kept too, so im on your side, but its just that Jimbo Wales plans to delete them (or at least someone said so) Minun 19:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No, Jimbo never said he was going to delete all videogame books. He did say however that the strategy guides and videogame walkthroughs should be deleted. Books that consider the topic of videogames from a scholarly point of view are fine. Jimbo meerly said that he doubted that Doom would ever fit the necessary criteria to be kept, and I agree with him on that point: Our Doom book is only a walkthrough and a strategy guide, nothing more. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Out-of-copyright math textbook

I found a copy of an old calculus textbook that is out of copyright and is in excellent condition; the content looks pretty solid as well. How do people feel about copying such a book in their entirety into Wikibooks? There are a lot of formulae in the book that would be easier for me to code using the <math> tags than to, say, try to put it in TeX form for upload to Project Gutenberg. Note that there is some redundancy with the calculus book I found in the math wikibooks section. Thanks. — RJHall 20:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If you think it should be uploaded somewhere, I would try wikisource. If you are not dead-set on uploading the book verbatim, then perhaps you could use the text of that book, and the formulas from it to expand and improve our Calculus book. There is no sense in having two calculus books, when we can merge all the good information into a single book. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikisource sounds reasonable. After it is uploaded there, the content could then be used to expand the calculus book. Thanks for the idea. — RJHall 21:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Once it is uploaded, I would love to go through it and work to help out our calculus book (which is in bad shape). let me know how it goes. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Error in book "Basic Book Design"

Just glanced at this book and found a howler immediately. The use of Times Roman as a body font for a book is the sure mark of the rank amateur, yet the subject book perpetuates this error. Times roman is a narrow face designed for newpaper columns. At the usual meassure of a bound book it allows entirely too many characters per line. See Bringhurst et al.

John Culleton Able Indexers and Typesetters —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wexfordpress (discuss • contribs)

The correct place to mention a problem like this is in the talk pages of the book itself. Also, if the book is wrong and you would like to correct it, this is a wiki, and you are free to make changes yourself. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Requesting Import Function

I have requested that the import function be enabled for transwiki from en.wikipedia to en.wikibooks. There is always a backlog of transwikiable materials over there, and often it either just gets deleted, or sometimes gets transwikied improperly (without pagehistories, etc.).

I've been using the import function at wikiversity, helping move things from here to there, and it's a very graceful tool. I don't see any particular reason why we shouldn't be using it for these types of transwikis as well.

See meta:Talk:Requests_for_permissions#Import_Function_for_English_Wikibooks for more information. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

For the amount of material that moves from there to here, it does make sense to create an easier pipeline for the data. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that this also has the advantage of putting the transwiki process in the hands of the wikibooks staff, since what I'm hoping to get is the import function, as opposed to the export function. The tool can also be configured to automatically add these articles to the Transwiki: pseudonamespace, which will help us keep track of things. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I have started a separate page on this for registering support or opposition, at the suggestion of some posters to foundation-l. Please see Wikibooks:Request_for_enabling_special:import for more details. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Simple English Wikibooks

there is a simple english wikibooks that could really use some work, as it is up for deletion. There are not many books in it, and yet it haqs the potential to be a great to for simple english users. So, come and edit! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.248.188 (discuss • contribs)

I have to disagree, the forking of english-language content between the "regular english" wikibooks, and the "simple english" wikibooks is a bad idea, and I refuse to support it. There are currently books here on "regular english" wikibooks that are specifically listed and written in simple english format. I personally am for the deletion of the "simple.wikibooks" project, and the merger of all that text and data to this server. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Pt2._Act_2._Scene_IV and "what links here"

I just discovered Pt2._Act_2._Scene_IV and lots of similar pages and wanted to find out the book they belog to. (Either it is not a textbooks or the naming convention is not obeyed) But the "what links here" butten disappered.

And ideas or hints?

--Krischik ^T 11:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It's apparently part of King Henry IV Part 2 (links). I'm not sure what it's all about, but I left a note on the IP's talk page. Is there even such a play? (I'm not a Shakespeare expert by any means). There weren't any notes on the talk pages that I could see, perhaps they were meant for commons. I'm hoping to hear back from the user. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Back when Wikibooks was quite new, some users moved over a ton of Shakespearean works. At least a year ago I marked a bunch of Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet pages for deletion, but a lot could still get by. I used [5] to see a lot of old junk here. -withinfocus 16:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

William Shakespeare's Works is the current collaboration of the month, and it would seem a shame to delete information that could potentially be used to benefit that book. I would say we should find all related pages (and i'm sure there are plenty) that we can move into that book's namespace. Pages that can be annotated within a reasonable amount of time can stay. Pages that are not annotated after an acceptable amount of time should be transwikied to wikisource (if the materiall currently doesnt exist on that server), or it should be deleted. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The information that was here was purely a bunch of bad dumps of the plays themselves. Such a thing is for Wikisource and should be deleted here. The pages are 1-2 years old with no edits in many cases and are quite past a reasonable timeframe for improvement. -withinfocus 02:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what these pages are, but the only reason I am advocating leniency is because of the current COTM. If this page hasn't been incorporated into that book within this month, then it should be deleted. I'm just saying that we should give it a chance considering the current COTM. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it really has anything to do with the collaboration... annotations and analyses belong here, PD texts really don't. I'm pretty sure the dump over the weekend was all brought over from gutenburg or somewhere similar, and should really just be put on wikisource and linked to from whatever materials are developed on wikibooks. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

pagemove deletions...

I've run across several cases lately where pagemoves were being done "copy-and paste" because the destination page had a stub on it. Most of these page moves have been attempted in order to bring various books into compliance with the naming convention.

I suggested the following to a user who was doing this because he was frustrated by the stubs:

1. Blank the destination page

2. Add Template:Tl to the page, and also have it redirect to the page that you intend to move (so that you can fix any links in the meantime while waiting for the deletion).

3. Don't worry... I make it a point to empty the speedy deletion category daily, so it won't be long before the deed is done.

I'm wondering if the css could be altered on the page that "shoots down" a pagemove because of a pre-existing page at the destination name to suggest something along these lines.

(And yes, Category:Candidates for speedy deletion is empty!) --SB_Johnny | ^talk 18:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Fighting Game Moves

Can an admin please start deleting this book so I can start updating the links to in on Wikipedia. Thanks, Gerard Foley 13:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to note that if you want something deleted, please simply use the Template:Tl template instead. Admins routinely do monitor the speedy deletion category, and if there is a question if it should be deleted it can be moved to a VfD discussion instead. Routine junk and stuff that has already been supposedly deleted by VfD but left over pages are still found on Wikibooks can be marked for deletion by any Wikibooks user, and that is something that helps the whole project. Indeed, if you have spent quite a bit of time marking pages for deletion like this, it is highly likely that you will become an admin, particularly if you show that you are using good judgement on what pages you are marking for deletion. I can name several admins here on Wikibooks who got started doing exactly this kind of cleanup work as ordinary registered users. --Rob Horning 15:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should explain this a bit more. I copied the Fighting Game Moves book over to WikiKnowledge, then I turned the main page into an external redirect, then I tagged the subpages with the delete template. I didn't tag the subpages' subpages as there is little point is editing 100+ pages that are going to be deleted. Next I waited, waited and waited until today I came here. I want to make a start on updating the links to the book which appear on Wikipedia but I want to wait for the book to actually be deleted from here before I start. I have noticed some admins seem to have left the Wikibooks project after the whole "video game guide" thing which might explain why these things are taking longer than usual. Thanks, Gerard Foley 15:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm deleting all the pages except the root right now. -withinfocus 19:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

All done. Now only the root page exists with a proper link to WikiKnowledge. The page has also been protected. -withinfocus 20:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I'll get started on updating the Wikipedia links. Gerard Foley 21:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for beating a dead horse, but I really don't understand why you waited. Once everything had been copied into http://wikiknowledge.net/wiki/ , what blocked you from immediately updating the links? --DavidCary 05:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

interprojects

The books should be more interactive, this is a wiki. Why not take profit of wikipedia and wiktionary just linking the useful words? Now wikiversity is created, we should improve and make non conventional textbooks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.95.66 (discuss • contribs)

How can I download a wikibook?

Hi, I love wikibooks but I need to be able to refer to them on my laptop in places where I study and there is no Internet. However, I am having a hard time figuring out how to save a wikibook. I tried wget, but saw the robots.txt disallowed it. I downloaded the XML for all the wikibooks and set up my own version of wikimedia on a local copy of apache to run it, but this didn't have the pictures, and the math equations were expressed as things between <math> tags that didn't make sense instead of the little images for equations here on the main site. Any ideas? -—Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.211.25.9 (discuss • contribs)

Some wikibooks are translated into pdf files... unfortunately I'm not sure how this is done. Just curious: which book is it? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 00:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Depending on your browser, you can usually download and save the HTML of the page, and then load that HTML file into your browser when you are offline. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, but still no images, equations included.--SB_Johnny | ^talk 09:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Modern browsers, such as Mozilla, allow you to save a webpage with all of relating images. Sblive 23:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm impressed you went to all that effort. The math equations are rendered by Texvc and TeX. But if you just want to refer to a wikibook offline, I agree with Sblive: the easiest way is use a modern browser such as Mozilla or Firefox to save "complete" web pages, including all images, mathematical and otherwise. (You want the "complete" option, not the "HTML only" option). --DavidCary 05:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Images without copyright status

We've got a serious problem with these, see, for example, Special:Uncategorizedimages. All the images on that list (1,000 in all, though there are certainly more as the list stops at "d") have no copyright status listed. If anyone would be willing to help go through and check them (and add the appropriate templates), that would be a helpful.

To prevent this backlog from being made worse, we should also keep an eye on the [upload logs]. Many of the old images that lack copyright status were added by users who are no longer active, and will end up being deleted! --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we really need a bot for this. There are a lot of unlinked images as well, that might be appearing on external sites. Anyone know how to make one? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 20:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

There is almost certainly a bot for this already; you may have better luck asking on WP for someone to come over and help. Kellen ^T 21:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

A friend from wikiversity has one (he's also an admin on the french wikipedia). Now listed on the RFA page as a bot request. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Algebra

The current state of the Algebra section on the math bookshelf is lousy. Several books are all listed as being on this same topic, but there is no order and no organization to these books. Currently, the books that are on this subject include:

• Algebra I - A Verbose Approach
• OLPC - Algebra 1 in Simple English
• Algebra
• Intermediate Algebra
• Linear algebra
• Abstract algebra
• Conic Sections
• Discrete mathematics
• Pure Mathematics 1

Also, between these books, there is a large amount of cross-linking, mutual dependency, and forked material. To make this matter worse, some of these books, like Algebra, contain all sorts of chapters on unrelated material! Algebra contains information on probability, information theory, Logic, mathematical proofs, and trigonometry! none of these subjects really fit into the definition of "Algebra".

I would like to propose a complete rewrite of these books. Some of the books will be merged, and others will be rewritten. I would like to end up with the following listing:

• OLPC - Algebra 1 in Simple English (unchanged)
• Algebra (incorporating Intermediate Algebra, Algebra I - A Verbose Approach, Conic Sections)
• Linear Algebra
• Abstract Algebra (incorporating Discrete Mathematics, Pure Mathematics 1)

Where the last three books form a single progression of material, with little or no overlap, no forking, and no cross-linking of chapters. Material in these books that don't fit into this progression will be moved to more appropriate locations on the math and sciences bookshelves. My complete proposal for this project can be found HERE on my user page. If there are no major complaints, I would like to start this project soonish, because these books need this work really bad. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Asking for a hand at wikiversity might get some collaborators involved: v:School:Mathematics. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I dont want to worry about finding other contributors, i'm industrious enough (and bored enough, and stupid enough) to do all the work myself. Basically, I just really want to get community approval before I start a project this large. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the organization of these books is not good. Best of luck to you. I'd help with those but my LaTeX is not good at all. Mattb112885 02:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have posted warning messages on all the affected book, and I intend to perform this merger/restructuring within the upcoming week. I will post more information on the project, as I make progress on it. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikibooks:Textbooks

I would like all active editors and wikibookians to come take a look at this page. Wikibooks currently suffers in many of our policy matters because we say that wikibooks is only for "textbooks", but we don't have a hard-and-fast definition of what a "textbook" is. I think that it is highly important that we as a community try to come up with some kind of definition for precisely what a textbook is, and how one is identified. Such a defintion could potentially clear up a number of issues, including several VfD disputes, the entire matter about the "videogame guides", and other issues as well.

On the textbook-L mailing list, Jimbo said someting recently about wikibooks being only for "textbooks", and I sent him back a reply saying that we currently do not have a precise definition of that word. If we as a community do not create a satisfactory definition for "textbook", it is possible that one could be mandated to us from Jimbo or the foundation. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Good move. I hope this can help clarify the difference between Wikiversity and Wikibooks. Some Wikibooks, particularly in languages, are currently based around lesson plans - I'm now thinking that "lessons" should probably be moved to Wikiversity. The textbooks at Wikibooks can be less restricted in terms of how much information goes in each page, as we don't have to worry about the amount of material that can be taught in one lesson. Textbooks are something a teacher can select from, or that a student can dip into as needed; a lesson suggests a pre-decided set of material for most or all of the students to work through at the same time.

Or have I got it wrong? (Note, I'm not criticizing lesson pages, especially since I've seen some fantastic lessons developed recently by Junesun - it's just that lessons are different from textbooks, and now that Wikiversity is launched, they each have their own place.)

See also the Wikiversity project pages Adding content and What is Wikiversity? for some discussion on the demarcation, which I added there to try and clear things up. --Singkong2005 08:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you give examples of language books having such structure? --Derbeth ^talk 10:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, don't most language textbooks have that structure (e.g., Chapter one, introducing yourself, Chapter 2: asking directions, etc.)? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Many do, though some are more like textbook chapters, and some are more like just lessons (e.g. Dutch). Indonesian starts off with lessons, then has "Tools for learning" at the end (That heading was basically an attempt by me to group the material that hadn't been put into lesson form.)

See also Help:Bite-sized language lessons (and courses based on this approach, such as Modern Greek and Korean/RWP - it's a superb approach, IMO, which deserves to be fostered, but it's very much about making lessons rather than textbooks in a broader sense. We need to decide if it goes here or at Wikiversity. If we want it here, then there's a conflict between the scopes of the two projects. --Singkong2005 05:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Any textbook, I think, should be arranged in a manner so that a classroom can learn from it in an organized and linear fashion. A "textbook" that doesnt complement a class is useless. One of the primary reasons why I voted against the wikiversity project proposal in the first place was because of this exact problem: How do we differentiate classroom textbooks from classroom lesson plans that are text-based? But, that's hardly the issue here. The issue is that we need to define "textbook" simply to fill a glaring hole in wikibooks policy. Without such a definition, we are blinded on certain matters, and are essentially making some decisions by a flip of the coin. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 12:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a textbook has to complement a specific course - textbooks are often used for dipping into. Courses in school or university don't necessarily follow a textbook, or use one textbook, and others (or chapters from others) may be put on the reading list.

It may be that we aren't exactly trying to define the English word textbook, but rather what sort of book we want to develop here. A book which is written to be easily read, to lead the student through in a logical sequence of lessons, is quite a different thing from a textbook which is filled out and examines a subject in great depth. Both are good, but we need to distinguish them. Given that Wikiversity is focused on lessons, it seems logical to me that we should avoid overlapping any more than we can avoid.

Anyway, I didn't mean to take over this discussion, but it's clearly one of the things that has to be considered for this policy.--Singkong2005 05:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about taking over this discussion, any input is good input! Regardless of the exact way we define the word, we need to distinguish what is and is not acceptable here, and we also need to define precisely how wikibooks "textbooks" are different from wikipedia "articles", or wikisource "books", or wikinews "stories", or whatever. This is an opportunity for us to define ourselves, and I think we need to take it. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Just adding my two cents here since I'm already adding a comment below. I agree with Singkong that restricting Wikibooks to classroom use is too narrow. I think we should rather fix our scope on anything worth learning (which isn't covered by other projects). This of course isn't any more easily defined than "textbook" ;-) ... we have a lot of work ahead of us with documents such as WB:WIW (though I think Wikibooks:Inclusion criteria/Proposal may be a better approach). --Swift 02:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the proposal adds little to what is already covered by WB:WIW. True, WB is said to be only for textbooks and, no, we don't define the term anywhere, but I think we are far better off defining what a Wikibook is. See my comment on Wikibooks talk:Textbooks. --Swift 02:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Policy of the Week: Wikibooks:Be nice

I am starting an initiative that had been discussed earlier, but had never until now been implemented. This initiative is going to be called "Policy of the Week", and this is how it's going to work:

1. We pick a policy that is proposed, and should be decided one way or the other.
2. We discuss that policy for 1 week, making changes, reaching consensus if possible
3. After 1 week, depending on the current state of the discussion, the proposed policy is enforced, rejected, or no decision is made and the policy is kept as a proposal. If the policy is kept as a proposal, it gets bumped to the bottom of the list of policies, and we will return to it after we have discussed other outstanding proposals (unless the policy is decided before that time).

The policy of the week for this week is: Wikibooks:Be nice. We should have a decision on it by sunday sept 17th. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

"Policy of the week" sounds like a good idea. Instead of always picking a "proposed policy", perhaps we could occasionally pick an older "official policy" and focus attention on how to better explain it to newbies. (And re-open discussion on whether it is still necessary). --DavidCary 05:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that whole-heartedly. I think that people should be involved with the administration of this site, much more involved then people typically are. There are a few nagging proposals that I personally would like to see decided, and when that is done, we can certainly focus our attention on other policies that need work. For the record, there was no consensus on this policy during the week, so it is still a proposal. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

New Wikibooks Logo: Voting Open

The voting on the new wikibooks logos has started:

meta:Wikibooks/logo

All wikibookians should come and voice support for the different logos. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Voting on the logos is going to close on Sept 21. Currently, my favorite entry (#8) is winning with over 30 votes, but there is plenty of time for things to swing in a different direction. Everybody should go to meta and vote! --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The second round of voting is open. We should have actual wikibookians voting in this instead of just meta-nerds. See meta:Wikibooks/logo Kellen ^T 12:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles in cookbook namespace

Hi. I'm from Indonesian Wikibooks. How does en.wikibooks treat articles in cookbook namespace? Does en.wikibooks add the numberofarticles each time user create new cookbook article? Thanks Borgx 02:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the articles in the Cookbook namespace are currently counted, but this is because mediawiki assumes all "real" content will be in the main namespace. Kellen ^T 07:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I see. FYI, just in case you want to treat those articles as content pages and have mediawiki count it as valid articles, there is now a way to do that (see bugzilla:3212), unfortunatelly there still an opened bug corelated with that. (see bugzilla:7292). Borgx 23:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Policy of the Week: Wikibooks:Title pages

This week, I would like to turn my attention to the Wikibooks:Title pages proposal. This one is so simple, it is more like a style guideline then an official policy, so I would like to propose to make this one into an official "guideline", instead of a "policy". We can discuss this at:

Wikibooks talk:Title pages

If consensus can be reached on the matter by next sunday, I would like to make this an official guideline. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Good job overseeing the beaurocratic tasks, WK! Sorry I went AWOL on you guys, but I'm just reajusting after driving over half the continent of North America and settling temporarily down in Wisconsin.

I changed the template to reflect the guideline (as opposed to policy) proposal and commented on the possibility of expanding on the scope of the guideline. --Swift 02:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a heads-up, currently there is a suggestion on the table to reject this policy, and instead merge the important points of it into the Manual of Style. If nobody objects to this, i will be willing to perform the merger myself by the end of the week. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

As of tonight, (sunday, 24 Sept), there is some consensus to reject this policy, and merge it into the Manual of Style. I am going to perform these actions now. People who dissent with this action can discuss it on the relevant talk pages. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing some original research

I have just found two books that are source books for new role-playing games invented on Wikibooks: Oni d20 and JAGS-2. They are obviously original research and not suitable for Wikibooks. I wanted to contact their authors and ask them to find another place for these books, but unfortunately none of them has active mail address. Does anybody know any wiki where these books can be moved? --Derbeth ^talk 08:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Applied Science level of science required

Can anyone comment on how much depth of science is required for this course. The specification is not very clear and I only have one specimen paper to look at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.45.255 (discuss • contribs) .

Link? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd guess this is A-level Applied Science - the only wikibook with Applied Science in the name. --Singkong2005 14:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"A-level" applies to British education standards, high-school, I think. SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Please help improve this template...

I made the template Template:Tl to mark up pages for books that describe techniques that should never be tried without the presence and guidance of an experienced mentor (I'm going to use it for a book on arborculture, which among other things describes the proper way to cut trees with a chainsaw when one is 100' up in the tree and needs to make sure the branch doesn't fall on the roof of the house that it's currently hanging over), but I imagine it could be useful for other books as well. I don't like the template in it's current form, but it gets the point across:

--SB_Johnny | ^talk 01:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

There already is a similar template in use as Template:Tl, but it's not exactly the same thing. I do like this one, however. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

RFC on WB:PAG cleanup

After a (brief) discussion on the talk page, I've restructured and partly rewritten Wikibooks:Policies and guidelines and am now requesting comments on the work. See before and after. --Swift 07:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Bug in Maths Rendering engine

There is a bug in the maths rendering engine when converting to html if you $6.022x10^{23}$ there is a - added afterwards. Keytotime 13:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/7367 --Swift 16:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Confusion over The Completed Books

I am confused over how books are chosen for the Completed books link section on the main page. Several, if not most, of those books do not seem very complete. They are filled with red links and include stubs in areas that could be expanded. Could someone please clarify this for me? Thanks.

It's pretty arbitrary, i think. If you find books in that list that do not belong, you can remove them. If you find books which are not listed but should be, you can add them in. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Watchlist not updating

The watchlist puzzles me, and it seems a bit arbitrary whether edits in watched pages actually show up in the list and show up consistently. I have seen edits in watched pages that never made it to the watchlist and entries in the watchlist that disappear from it (eg. edit 10:32, 26 September 2006 146.136.11.87 in microtechnology) - but can still be found in the history page of the modules that had been edited. Sadly the list seems to mainly show my own changes, where I would be much more interested in other peoples edits... I have seen the problem for some months. KristianMolhave 19:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this your own personal Special:Watchlist, or the Special:Recentchanges list? The two lists behave differently. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

My personal KristianMolhave 22:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Your personal watchlist operates with a slightly different set of rules then the Special:Recentchanges list does. For starters, your watchlist only shows the most recent edit on each page. Therefore, if there are multiple edits to page X, you will only see the most recent edit in your watchlist.

For this reason, if an edit is made, and then another edit is made, the first edit will seem to disappear. Also, if you make sure to faithfully and quickly respond to all comments in your watchlist, your name will appear the most frequently in your own watchlist. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

AhAhh -and I'm testing it with this edit :-) KristianMolhave 14:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Language Instruction Audio (Pimsleur Methods)

The wikibooks are great efforts to provide instructional tools in learning foreign language. It would be great if there is a dedicated accompanying audio instruction.

Recently I've been using Pimsleur methods to learn spanish, and I find it very good. If anyone is an expert in liguistic and language instructional methods, and is interested in doing Pimsleur audio on Indonesian language, I'd be delighted to help to read out the phrases, since I'm an indonesian native speaker. However, I can't be the one who organize and edit the audio because I don't have experience in language teaching methods. Besides, I think "pimsleur method" itself is not copyrighted (am I correct) although there are pimsleur branded instructional recordings released by Simon and Schuster. Hence I'd think it's possible to replicate the method and record our own instructional recordings in order to make language instruction more accessible (currently the Simon and Schuster Pimsleur is really expensive!).

Chaerani 01:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikistudy?

Is wikistudy like wikijunior, but for older?--Tigru 12:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

2 new templates for new page patrol

I created two templates and a category for use in new page patrolling.

• Template:Tl ("Query empty page"): for pages that have little or no content, but might be notes for later additions of content.
• Template:Tl ("Query duplicate page"): For pages that are duplicates of other wikibooks pages.

Mostly created them because it allows tracking through the category system, when Template:Tl and Template:Tl don't seem appropriate. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you explain a little more about how someone would use these templates? I don't understand the point of "Template:Tl". Why would I ever use it instead of Template:Tl ? I don't understand "Template:Tl" either. Why would I ever use it instead of Template:Tl ? --DavidCary 05:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)