Testwiki:Reading room/Archives/2007/April

Wikibooks:Top active

I plan on redesigning this old little "project" of ours that has stagnated for some time. The previous content in the pages is incredibly outdated and I'd like to remove it all and replace it with my new instructions and results. Most of the formatting will stay the same, but I'd like to hear what everyone would like to see for statistics. I guess the first question would be, do we want a nice interface for this at all? The information is available in other places. If we don't want it, I'd like to propose (again) to delete all these pages since they're quite outdated and an eyesore. If not, I plan on having these sections which will be completed on a monthly basis:

• Top active authors (most edits made in past month)
• Top active books (most edits made in past month)
• General site statistics

Tell me what you'd like and I'll see if I can abstract it. -withinfocus 13:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought that was stopped because the method used for tracking this was no longer available? If it can be revived, I think that would be a nice idea, and a nice thing to link to from the Main Page.

One concern I have about it though is that a lot of the old books that appeared there have since been deleted, Which makes a bit of a mess on Special:Wantedpages. Would anyone object if I switched those links to the deletion logs for those pages, and made a note that they were deleted? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Like this, for example.--SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I plan on deleting all those old pages (the Top active pages) upon creating the new system. Would that not take care of this issue? -withinfocus 15:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick question, how are you planning on reviving this project? Are you going to be watching the RC list, or are you going to be analyzing a database dump? Do you have the necessary software for this?

I think it's a really good idea, and it will definately help to have something that says "this is where our effort is going", so we can identify active portions of our community, and advertise their efforts. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've found a relatively simple way which is to analyze CSV files created by the Wikistats tool. I could of course run the Wikistats tool myself and then use its output, but it looks far easier to use the auto-created CSV files and someone could pick this up after me without much problem should I disappear in the future. Our output for our top active pages would be more customized and much nicer on the eyes. I find the Wikistats tool to be too much data usually and hard to decipher, so we can make our own display of it. -withinfocus 15:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm putting this on hold for a little bit since I'll be busy with some other stuff outside of Wikibooks. -withinfocus 19:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a note. I don't think "Jan 20, 2007" should be considered as "available" information, that is pretty inaccurate too IMO. (Of course, now that i can't possibly guess what was at Wikibooks:Top active, i can't compare the two sets of info, but still...) Good luck with this anyway. -- Jokes Free4Me 18:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the maintainer of the Wikimedia-wide stats system seems to be slacking. Maybe he quit, I didn't look into it that much. The stuff that used to be here was two or so years old and had little to no value since many of the books worked on back then have been deleted or abandoned, as well as the contributors working on them leaving the project. We'll see where this project page goes ... -withinfocus 22:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Editing Template

When you click "edit this page," and it arrives at an uncreated page, Wikibooks displays the following:

Wikibooks does not have a page by this name.
    * If you're here by mistake, just click your browser's back button.
    * If you're a Wikipedian, see Wikibooks for Wikipedians for a primer on how things work here (it's a little different).
    * If you're an instructor and plan on using Wikibooks for a class project, see Wikibooks:Guidelines for class projects.
    * If you're basing your work on materials from Wikipedia, please use WB:RFI to bring the material over in compliance with the GFDL.
    * If you're starting a new book, remember to add it to a bookshelf and to Template:New. 

    * To experiment, please use the sandbox.
    * To prevent duplicate work, check if a subject is already available by searching for this title in other pages.
    * To ask a question, visit the Study help desk, the Staff lounge or our IRC channels.
    * To create this page, maintain a neutral point of view and type in the box below. When you are done, add an edit summary and click save page.
    * Remember to follow our naming conventions when creating a new page. For example to create a chapter on Baseball inside a book called Sports use Sports/Baseball for the page name. 

How and where would I go about proposing a change to this page? I think that perhaps a link to the Wiki syntax (Help:Editing) should be added at least, and perhaps some other stuff taken out. Thanks. --Remi 21:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a "MediaWiki" page, and can only be changed by an administrator. What kinds of changes do you think need to be made? If you post changes that you would like to make, we can talk about it and hopefully upload those changes. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, you can go to Special:Allmessages, search for a short subset of text with your browser find button (I tried "Wikibooks does not have a page by this name.") and find the specific message that it is (it is MediaWiki:Newarticletext). Then go to the talk page and add Template:Tl and type your suggestions. --Iamunknown 22:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Licencing issues

I'm not sure if this is bad news or not, but apparently the Free Software Foundation (who hold the GFDL license) are being aquired by Time-Warner. The issue is being discussed on wikipedia if you want more details, but apparently one option being discussed is that anyone who wants to release anything under the GFDL will need to register themselves with the company (apparently there are liability concerns). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm really worried about this and have registered my concern over on Wikipedia. Xania ^talk 17:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I did too (though honestly the conversation should really be on meta rather than Wikipedia, because it affects all the other projects too). I'm wondering however if there's going to be a "grandfather clause", since obviously all contributions made up to this point were made by people they haven't registered yet (IP edits in particular would be impossible to track down in most cases). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 17:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Most troubling, and so close on the heals of the announcement that Wikiversity is under new management. Has anyone heard if the Wikimedia Foundation is going to change the license notice to encourage use of the Creative Commons share-a-like license like Wikinews uses? --darklama 18:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, from what I understand, the CC licenses allow using CC licensed stuff in GFDL documents, but not the other way around, so we'd have a hard time preserving what we already have if we tried to move the project to CC. OTOH, I'd really like to see if I could relicense the gardening book under this license, but I'm not sure whether it would be compatible. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

With AOL splitting off Time-Warner, it might make publishing GFDL text on the internet impossible. I have a program that could turn textbook pages into a video slide show, that we can burn onto DVD. We should come up with a title for the DVDs, such as "Wikibooks: The Movie", "Wikibooks: The Revenge", "Wikibooks: First Blood", or something like that. We might want to get an MPAA rating for the videos, so they can be played in movie theaters. This is so complicated, i'm going to start converting some of my books to video. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well... we could just delete everything and start over with a CC license. --Az1568 ^(Talk) 22:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Don't forget to add Template:Tl to the front page and explain why Wikibooks needs to be deleted on Wikibooks:Votes for deletion#Wikibooks, so everyone can vote to delete Wikibooks. --darklama 23:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. we can't delete anything yet, because we need to convert these pages to video first. Also, i think we can monogram some of our books onto napkins. I've sent an email to christopher walken asking him if he will read some of our books for the movie addition. I sent out an invitation to Keanu Reaves to play the part of Jimbo, but he declined. some people just arent interested in making motion pictures of free textbooks. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, napkin designs are probably copyrighted, so we'll need to stick to the plain napkins if we decide (with full consensus of the community, of course) to go the napkin route. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 03:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

IMHO most wikibook titles and covers are not really inspirational

Sorry for being contraversial, but I have been thinking that perhaps the way Wikibooks are named reflects Wikipedia a little too much. For example, when was the last time anyone bought a book simply entitled "Math" or "Flute"? Basically I think that the naming might be not attracting enough people to read the books. I have been working on the Persian language wikibook, but at the moment it seems to me too dry and boring to use "Persian" as a title. I think French sets a good example with its heading, "Réalisez! French...just one book away," and its aesthetically pleasing font cover. On the other hand, if I were to try and publish a Persian langage course book called "Persian" with a blank page as a cover, it would definitely be left languishing on the shelf. Apart from not attracting readers, I think it could lead random visitors to not distinguish between Wikibooks and Wikipedia, and therefore not see the merits of Wikibooks and that they are books and not articles. In my opinion more people would be interested in the books here if there were more examples of book covers and interesting titles such as "Wikijunior Big Book of Fun Science Experiments", "Réalisez!" or "Writing: A Guide To Urban Calligraphy", especially featured on the front page. What does everyone else think? :-D Poppy 16:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Linking to a Catagory page

How do I list and link my http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Honda_Nighthawk_Owners_Repair_and_Maintenance_Guide#Overview in the Catgory page http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Category:Motorbikes thanks Rob

All I had to do was add the text [[Category:Motorbikes]] to the bottom of the Honda Nighthawk Owners Repair and Maintenance Guide page. Once your book gets large enough we can also create an entire category just for its pages. Hope this helps. -withinfocus 17:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Authors and attribution

I'd really like to have a serious discussion about authors and attributions, particularly in regard to print versions of individual modules but also in regard to entire books.

The printing of individual modules is both more and less complicated, since presumably all you'd need to do is include the top 5 contributors to each module. Edit count is probably the easiest way to come up with the "top 5", though presumably a bot could figure out how to sort by characters added. Modules that use CC-licensed images would also need to attribute those (which is yet another reason not to use CC images in GFDL documents).

I'm having trouble putting this into prose today (too many burners going at once), but I think we need the following features, to be provided either by bot, changes to the css and js, or even bugzilla requests. All of the below should appear somehow on the bottom of a printed page:

1. The top 5 (or even top 10!) contributors, listed by username (preferably by "real identity", but we'd need some way to connect usernames with real identities through some sort of machine-readable database)
2. The contributors of any images used (same as above, but also taking into account the license under which images have been released). If this could be done automagically somehow using the mediawiki software to make a "footnote" (i.e., automatically include an attribution under the <references/> header), that would be a lot easier.

Anyway, I'd like to get this a bit more concise, and just figure out a way how to get this to appear on printouts, rather than just relying on the "retrieved from <url>, version last modified on <date>" to cite contributors, since that's not really a citation if the person receiving the printout doesn't have internet access. I'd also like to know what to ask for if I go making requests from the toolserver people (or even bugzilla) --SB_Johnny | ^talk 18:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to be a troll, but to participate in a serious discussion, I will give my input on this since it is parallels other discussions I have been having on the subject.

I personally and know some others also support this understanding, think that a module of Wikibook is covered by the general licensing one enters when adding content to the site, as for considering all book part and covered by the same license under an agreegated work I particularly don't think it is correct, the simple base for this is that the notice on the commit page was not always there and GFDL requires an express written license from the "author", and on each book we have a work that is covered by it's own licenses, more I have imported other works under the GFDL to Wikibooks, can we considerer that I have the right to commit the original author to the site wide licensing and so "dilute" the work into modules that can be copied without particular attribution on site ? I think not.

So, my opinion on the subject is that all modules (pages that are not inside a book and its license) are indeed covered by a site wide license and the agreement is expressed by committing content to the site, on the other hand books have their own license and the GFDL makes special imposition on that particular book, author pages and other minor points some can defend that it is all an aggregation of GFDL works, but lets look to other twin projects of ours some are using now incompatible licenses can works under a incompatible license be aggregated under a GFDL license ? Someone has to test this, as an author my problem with this concept is only the "dilution" that exists or the fee way pages can then be moved from work to work without any respect or attribution to the original creators and erodes the need to make references to authors at all.

Another point I have made is that authorship can't be imposed or claimed for you (it can be accessed), it must be a claiming of rights and an acceptance of responsibility toward the work you have done, a bot or another human can verify if the claim is valid but shouldn't be used to automate claims that is a right of the author.

A request to have this subject addressed have already been posted to bugzilla here (Bugzilla:2993) and is also a subject to be addressed here [neta:Summer_of_Code_2007#Authorship_determination].

As for the use or "real identity" I have a problem, I don't have knowledge on how the US law treats anonymous authors to my knowledge must other countries need that information for legal reasons and it is needed as a way to legal proceeding can be not only addressed to the publisher but to the author, in the Wikibooks case we have Wikimedia as the publisher and Wikimedia has the possibility to verify the authors identities so no express statement of identity is required or particularly useful and would even infringe on the personal information restriction, anyway, besides legal proceedings the information is needed to establish the limitations of the copyright over the work if the author is not identified the limitations start to count from the date the works was published. --Panic 20:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh Panic, I don't think you're being a troll! One of the (many) things we share in common is a concern about the lack of a policy or accepted method for making attributions, and to be honest I've been waiting for you to be "available" because I think your input on this is important (since you, like me, think about it). You sure put a lot on the table though... keep in mind that I'm really just being self-serving here when I say that I want a system to address "module-by-module" printouts (as would be appropriate for the Cookbook and A Wikimanual of Gardening, and perhaps other books).

I'm really in scatterbrain mode today (aside from the usual distractions, I'm also doing a major reconfiguration of a pet project on Wikiversity), but I do want to make it clear that this sort of conversation is a sort where we need a thinker like Panic, because most of us don't think about this sort of thing. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the "module-by-module" printouts is that due to the use of the GFDL a copy of the license must be included (or at least be offered for printing, what the user decides to do is outside of our control) and if no one has claimed authorship of that page (or if it is part of a book without authors) the attribution is to Wikibooks (or the bookname/location since Wikibooks on the copyright information makes that attribution voluntary), and Wikibooks expressly distances itself from the content it publishes.

I don't understand why most of you that live on the US (with a very aggressive capitalist structure and an overactive legal system) find that thinking and being aware of this implications to be so bizarre, most people when at University if they publish or create something as result of a class/project know that the work done will revert to the University, the same if you are working for a second party (unless a contractual restriction exists), I doubt most people that work on source code have so much trouble understanding this sort of implications but it may depend on the environment you work on... --Panic 23:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, just replying to the above: (1) module-by module printouts are perfectly fine, as long as a copy of the GFDL is provided with any aggregation, and (2) I suspect that most of "those of us from the US" want to contribute under a free license because we don't want our contributions to be part of that system. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 00:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an important discussion topic, I agree. I would like to draw attention to Wikitravel, which lists authors at the bottom of every page. Such a mediawiki extension clearly exists, and it would simply be a matter of getting the techs to enable it for our website.

Single page printouts for personal private use likely don't need to be accompanied by a copy of the GFDL. In these situations use of such a work likely qualifies under "fair use" or "educational fair use". The problem arises when you print out a book with intent to copy and distribute those copies. If copies are made for non-personal use, or if they are copied and distributed, they do need to be accompanied by not only a copy of the GFDL, but also a copyright notice stating that the work is released under the GFDL.

Unfortunately, there is no way that you can avoid including a copy of the license. However, the GFDL states that authors only need to be stated explicitly on the cover of the book if the authors don't release you from the requirement. In other words, We only need to list authors who explicitly want to be listed, and we can implement this by simply saying that people may choose to list themselves as authors if an author's page (or author's section) is provided. If no such page is provided, and if people haven't listed themselves on the book somewhere, then we can assume that they have released future users of the book from having to list them as authors.

We could take a pro-active step forward and state on the edit pages that "all contributions are released under the GFDL, and the author waives the right to be listed as an author of the book". Doing this would solve the problem for all future contributions, but all authors pages that are in existence before the change must remain unchanged.

It's all alot to think about, and we shouldnt rush to any conclusions. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how things goes on the US copyright law on this but authorship can be attested but not attributed by others, in some cases states can substitute the author, this goes by logic, several authors intentionally don't sign their works or paintings or use false names or even aren't the real authors (ghostwriters), and in most places copyright can only be enforced by the rights owners.

Another point is that all services Wikibooks offers or makes available to print GFDL licensed works must include by default the GFDL text as part of the print out (as WK puts it "there is no way that you can avoid including a copy of the license"), we are not entitled to make suppositions on how the copy will be used, it is the responsibility of the user to do the right thing and make the correct decisions, if not he will be breaking the license agreement.

Just took a look at Wikitravel, again I make note that it doesn't refer to "authors", it states in each page "This page was last modified 23:00, 5 April 2007 by Anonymous user(s) of Wikitravel. Based on work by" list of "editors" and the site uses Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0. (the list is preserved on the print version, but doesn't seem to grade in special way the edit actions, or state a limiting number), another relevant information seems to be the on site images also seem to share the license (no information is provided at least on the few images I've examined, some great pictures there).

An extension that would list or better yet make available a list of the top contributors to a page would indeed be useful and fantastic if it would work also for a groups of pages, but we have to remember also that not all work that exist on Wikibooks was started here, i myself have added other GFDL works to Wikibooks, these authors may not have been credited (if no author page existed) and are not part of the history log, and not all contributions to the history log may have rights to be claimed (size, and value), I see this not as a simple matter at all.

The proactive approach seem move valid, even if there are several problems with it, for instance the other day I've added a phrase with a reference to the original publication, this is a valid quote but fails to the letter the requirements of the edit notification "You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!", another concept is that by limiting the GFDL we are creating another license, it is beyond me all the implications this would have... (there is yet the case against considering all pages including books an aggregation of works under a single license, this is not made clear on the notification) --Panic 03:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Wikitravel method is certainly a major improvement over nothing. I really think treating the modules as documents (and a printout as an aggregation) makes a lot more sense though, since it allows for freedom to make many books out of one (for the Garden book, e.g., you could use different arrangements of the module for books on organic gardening, market gardening, herb gardening, native plant gardening (you'd need a different one for every region), gardens in sun, gardens in shade, garden books by hardiness zone, etc.). They're called modules for a reason, after all... I've been thinking a lot about modularity lately, and wonder if we prehaps haven't been taking advantage of modularity as much as we could.

To make it work even better, it would be nice if it could also have a separate section for attributing images used on the page, and for transwikis identify Wikipedians as Wikipedians (it would need to be smart enough to recognize the transwiki notification in the edit comment ("266 versions from w:Article"). Included pages and templates might be a problem too... how do we identify those? Best of all would be if it could also keep a database for anyone who wants to be attributed by real name rather than moniker, but that would probably crash the servers :P. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 18:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that treating individual book modules as being "documents" does make the most sense for our project, even if it makes the least logical sense. We do use the exact same software as wikipedia, and the only difference between a collection of wikipedia articles and wikibooks textbooks is an arbitrary order and hierarchy that we impose on the material. It's easier to say "we write textbooks" then it is to say "we write a series of independant modules that are intended to be read in a particular order as a textbook", although the latter really does seem to be the most truthful when you really look at the underlying MediaWiki software.

Your interest in modularity has been something that i've also been highly interested in, although it's such an abstract topic (and so superfluous when you consider the other problems our project has) that it hasn't gathered much other interest or attention. If you look at the Control Systems Book that i've been working on, there are multiple sub versions or "child versions" that use the pages in a different order to teach the subject in slightly different ways. each sub version has it's own TOC, it's own print version and (eventually) it's own PDF as well. The C++ book is expermenting with (suffering from) the same exact idea, where multiple suggested reading orders have been proposed, each with their own table of contents. It's not necessarily a new idea, but considering the problems being faced by the C++ book right now, it certainly is one that could use some further community attention.

As for the real name business, that's a different can of worms entirely. If an author wants to be attributed for their work, it should be their own responsibility to write their name in an appropriate authors page. In this way, a person can choose to be listed by their real name, and people can choose to post any relevant contact information if they so choose. Remember, we only need to list people as authors if they don't release us from that stipulation of the contract. We can assume, this being a wiki, that anybody who doesnt write their own names in the authors section have implicitly released us from this requirement. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess my concern was for wikipedians who might not even know about a transwikied version of a book... maybe we should come up with templates to use on article talk pages to make sure as many as possible are alerted.

The modularity stuff is a whole nother ball of wax, of course, but would be nice to discuss it a bit. I'd like to use it a lot more in the garden book, but it's hard to go back and fix things once they've been set up already. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• reset

I have identified a problem we have in active discussions of this nature, probably due to the aversion every one has when dealing with laws and intellectual property (I to don't particularly like the subject but I as anyone else has to live within the rules society in general enforces and validates), it is well known that lawyers are (especially in the US) regarded sometimes with disdain, I have see some funny remarks on this subject, this all culminates on the way accusations of w:WikiLawyering ( w:Wikipedia_talk:WikiLawyering ) every time some legal aspect of what we do is put on the table for discussion, ultimately laws are needed to defend ones rights and to provide a structure were we all can live and work together, and those that have the knowhow and experience and specific formation to deal with it are lawyers, this is why we have and use policies and guidelines on Wikibooks and ultimately leads one to defend a particular social order above others.
I'm not a lawyer, on that regard I can only claim to know in general the subject and probably a bit above the average due to have some formation on copyright law especially directed to personal data, electronic signatures and software and contracts none based on US law (but some core subjects are more or less the same) the US to my knowledge hasn't signed all the international treaties and have some particular laws like the controversial DMCA (that is also shared with other countries like Australia), more, even in the US the law in this regard is not standard, some states have limitations or different interpretations of the federal guidelines on the subject, this is due to how law is "created" on the US, not all countries use the same system. (btw there is a copy of the US Copyright Law on Wikibooks.)
I would like to list several points that seem not to have consensus:

1. What law should we fallow ? (the International law, the US law, the states law where the server resides or the national laws of contributors, the copyright notice on wikibooks seems to indicate that we use the law were the wikibooks server resides and Wikimedia is the publisher.)
2. What distinguishes authors from contributors and how we define an editor as a contributor? (the information on the US Copyright Law gives some lights on that regard but talking with several Wikibookians some are even opposed to that concept, and as with all laws understanding may not be clear to all, as stated above a request to have this subject addressed have already been posted to bugzilla here (Bugzilla:2993) and is also a subject to be addressed here Authorship_determination, an additional note is that it falls to authors to protect the license and the work even if FSF can provide assistance the rights granted to the FSF are regarding the freely distribution of the content under the GFDL not to enforce copyrights. )
3. Is Wikibooks an aggregation of works? (this is contested even in regards to Wikipedia, personally I think this can't be supported on Wikibooks based on the fact that not all works have originated on the "service" and used the commit clause and that in it self is not clear to what work or license one is committing the text, one can argue that the page resides or not inside a closed work with its own license even Jimbo has pointed out refering to a post from Richard Stallman about fairuse Additionally, RMS doesn't seem to think we need to rely at all on the aggregation argument, and finds that aspect of things confusing.
4. What is required for Author attribution? (real names, age, legal address etc... it seems to me overkill to have this sort of personal data available to the public, Wikimedia has or should have the ability to verify and determine the "real person" behind the username if any dispute arises it falls to Wikimedia to provide the needed information)
5. Are Author pages required? (they are not requires nor an obligation but contributor that need or have rights over a work should be able to add the information, this should be only done as stated on the GFDL since it is a requirement of the license to have that express declaration from copyright holders)
6. What are cover pages as referred on the GFDL on the Wikibooks context?

If I have forgotten any topic feel free to add... (I will research a bit more and add relevant links to the points) --Panic 23:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

1. I dont think that anything we are talking about now are dependant on jurisdiction. The GFDL is the same no matter what specific jurisdiction we are in, and it makes no difference to this particular discussion what jurisdiction we consider. The GFDL represents the copyright under which wikibooks are released, and we must satisfy that contract first and foremost.
2. The GFDL makes no distinction between an author and a contributor, this has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions. Section 4 of the GFDL discusses only "modifications", and does not distinguish between the size or the scope of those modifications. Any person who makes any modification to the "document" must follow the rules in section 4. It's my interpretation that any attempt to distinguish between authors and contributors, or an attempt to prevent a contributor from being listed as an author is a violation of the GFDL. With that said, let us never speak of this matter again.
3. Whether we view a page as a "document" or a complete book as a "document" with respect to the GFDL makes little difference because they are under the same license, and can be treated the same way. The former interpretation is more convenient for us, and it causes no problems. Even if we do view a book as being a single document and not an aggregation, section 1 of the GFDL states that a modified version may represent "the Document or a portion of it". This means that we can take pages out of a book, and treat them as independant documents anyway, so long as they are accompanied by the text of the GFDL. My point again is that it makes no difference how we look at it, but it's more convenient for us to view pages as individual documents and books as aggregations.
4. Nothing is "Required". If an author wants to be attributed, they can supply their name, age, place of birth, and current residence. Authors do not need to supply this information, and in such cases they cannot defend their claims of copyright.
5. Author pages are not required. Under section 4(b) in the GFDL, an author may release future users from listing authors. If we take the stance that authors are listed in the history pages already, it is up to the authors themselves to add themselves to a list if they want to be added. If an author does not add himself to the list, then the author will not be attributed. We should make a policy about this, or amend this to Wikibooks:Copyrights.
6. A "cover page" is a page with the book title, a listing of authors (unless the authors release us from this requirement), and a notice that is similar to the following:

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".

With that notice, we dont need to include the invariant sections, such as the history pages, with the printed versions. I hope this answers some of the questions. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

1. I agree with you that our foremost concern must be the GFDL, but the GFDL only has validity on the context of a copyright law, were author or rightholder have exclusive right to do, authorize and grant rights to others or license them (in this case, under the GFDL), since the copyright law isn't uniform there may be limitations or presets that must be respected and may have implication on the other points this is something that has yet to be made clear.
2. GFDL doesn't address contributors, if you wish to simplify lets define authors as rightholder, not all editors are rightholder and they may be considered contributors, this is the point were we have some conflicting interpretations and this goes directly to the copyright law we are using since rights are not equal or equally claimed under a general copyright law and we have not a clear clue to what we should use to resolve this (this in regards to the above point).
3. Ok lets consider the optimum way and consider Wikibooks an aggregation of works, how do you satisfy the GFDL requirements (taking in consideration what has been said, but consider for now only that there may be works not "initiated" on Wikibooks and have for instance author pages, how would this be resolved?)
4. We seem to agree here, but by not making it public the rightholder don't lose any rights they can make the claim at any time (this depends also on the copyright law and if we consider every edit a modification of the work, since the work is "published" after each edit).
5. Agree, but not just add, they should be able to remove themselves (I also make a note that in case an rightholder doesn't "sign" the work there may be consequences to were the rights of his contributions fall back, in my national law all contributions not claimed fall to the other existing rightholders or even the publisher at the time of publication, this also has implications on the duration of the rights that can be claimed), a good place to start this would be Wikibooks:Ownership.
6. I don't think we should make a requirement for the rightholder to be stated on the cover (providing a link to the authors page seems to be sufficient and the attribution to the GFDL a required presence there, many books at this time lack the direct attribution to the GFDL on the authors page), I would support a solution similar to Wikitravel for all editors to be listed at the bottom of the cover page and if some limitations (size, number) could be found include that information on the print version as well.

Invariant sections aren't a problem since they are discarded on the Wikibooks license, just for my information has any work been VfD because it was added to Wikibooks but failed to comply with our GFDL restriction on invariant sections ? --Panic 01:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Don't call wolf, if you find a problem with local copyright law you can tell us, and if you can't find a problem then we don't need to talk about it.
2. GFDL doesnt address "contributors" because it treats all people as "authors". introducing the term "license holder" just complicates the issue but doesnt change the point.
3. The GFDL requirements of a page are the same as the requirements for a book. The text must be prefaced with a notice like the one i posted above, and it must be accompanied by the text of the GFDL. Technically, if you want to split hairs here, an "authors page" is not recognized by the GFDL: authors must be listed on the "title page" of the work. An individual module doesnt have a title page. Perhaps we could create a generic title page that could be used for all pages in these situations. Read section 4(b) of the GFDL.
4. The rights holder can only assert their copyright if they supply their real name and the necessary information. Wikibooks cannot force people to do this, authors must list their information if they want legal credit for their work. Either way, there is nothing we can do about it.
5. Authors can remove themselves from the list just as easily as they can add themselves to it. Plenty of anonymous people edit our books, and similarly registered authors can choose not to make their identities known.
6. I prefer a solution where we ask authors not to list themselves at all. We could make such a stipulation part of our copyrights policy. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

How to put a book in a shelf

I just created a new book (Carbon Nanotube Cookbook). I would like to be in a bookshelf and visible for other people. The help text suggest to just put it in the shelf I want (Physics -> Nanophysics) but doesn't tell me how. There is no edit link on the category page. How to proceed? --Lorenz 08:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I can see how this can be confusing, categories and bookshelves aren't the same thing, even though they do have similar purposes I suppose, something can have more than one category but should probably only be on one bookshelf (which signifies a much broader category). I have added the book to the desired shelf but for your reference, there is a link to "bookshelves" on the sidebar on the left, if you click on that you'll get a (very large) list of all the bookshelves on the project. Physics is on the right side under "natural sciences", click on that then edit the page and add the link where you want it (I put it under "micro and nanotechnology" since that subheader already existed). Thank you for your contributions! Mattb112885 (talk) 12:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

How has Wikimedia Changed your Life?

This message is being crossposted around village pumps and mailing lists - apologies if you receive it more than once!
Have any of the Wikimedia projects had an effect on you in real life, or do you know of someone, or some group of people, who use our projects in real life? If so, we want to hear from you at m:Success Stories - How has Wikimedia Changed your Life?. The hope is that this page can become somewhere to which we can point members of the press so that they can immediately get an idea of the usefulness of our projects. Please, take a look, and add your stories! Martinp23 16:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ratings disaster!!

For the first time Wikibooks is showing a ratings decline! See:

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikibooks.org%2Fwiki%2F

The temporary dip at Christmas is expected but the decline that set in in February is surprising. I believe the decline is related to the new main page. This is oriented to contributors and leaves the reader out in the cold. I would strongly advise either a return to the old main page or a new, reader oriented page such as:

http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page/test&oldid=825986

I can think of a dozen other reasons why our ratings would have dropped since christmas, although i do agree that work needs to continue on the main page. I do not agree that the old main page needs to be reinstated because i found that page to be the least helpful of all. We do need to attract more readers, but we can do that by improving the current main page, not by regressing back to an inferior one. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 12:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What other reasons would you put forward? It is important to pin down why the ratings have slipped. RobinH 12:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I do agree more work needs to be done on the main page, such as putting featured books into action. I also agree with Whiteknight in restoring the previous front page would not be helpful, since Books of the Month and Collaborations of the Month have both been discontinued in favor of Featured Books. I would also have to agree with the regressions as being inferior, I've never liked how the long list of books were displayed. I've changed it again and tried another possible arrangement for the featured books, listing only the ones which have support from Wikibooks:Featured_books/Nominations as well as the Wikijunior book of the quarter in it, in an attempt to move forward. --darklama 14:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not simply feature books that are fairly complete? There are not that many. The books at http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page/test&oldid=825986 are all reasonable. Why restrict access unnecessarily? Give the readers something to read now'. RobinH 16:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont feel like this is an issue worth getting excited about, and it certainly isn't justification to demand site-wide alterations. there are a number of reasons why our hit count has been going down, the most important of which is that many of our most active members have been decreasing their participation lately. Editing a page typically requires 3 page loads: one to see the page, one to edit the page, and one to save the page and view the results. In august 2006 I personally had over 2900 edits, which accounts for at least 8700 page hits. Last month, I only managed to make about 400 edits. That means, that counting my activity alone, Wikibooks has lost 7500 page hits per month. User:Jguk averaged over 1000 edits a month for 2 years before he became inactive around february.

Furthermore, i've looked at the graphs on the alexa website and I would hardly use those as justification for alarm, and I certainly would not use the word "disaster". If you want to change the main page suggest a change, but dont try and frighten people into it. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The edits per month for January, February and March are consistent or even rising but this is the period when the Alexa ranking has been falling. It is our readership that is most important and there is certainly a suggestion that this has declined. RobinH 09:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Alexa rankings are based on surfing activity of people who have the Alexa toolbar installed (and only those people). The absence or presence of a single frequent user running the toolbar would make a huge difference in Alexa rankings for a site like this one. IMO, better indication of site activity is the [Wikimedia en.wikibooks stats], which show a pattern of steady growth over the last year. It's true that they do not tell us information about page loads, or visitors, but as long as new authors continues to grow, that's a healthy sign. --xixtas ^talk 02:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It is the readership that is all important and it is curious that the new main page which offers nothing exciting for readers has presided over the period of falling Alexa page views. Certainly if I were a reader and were to see the Wikibooks front page for the first time there would be nothing to inspire me. The change I would suggest is either to use a Main Page such as: http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page/test&oldid=825986 or revert to the previous main page before the current clinical version. RobinH 09:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Main Page

Whether or not there is a decline in ratings the main page is still a problem. Here are some comments about main pages in general, taken from the discussion section of the page:

As a newcomer, I find the Main Page not very helpful. It's not easy to see what Wikibooks has to offer, and were it not for my preconceptions from Wikipedia, I wouldn't know what to do with it.

One of the things not easy to find is what completed books there are, and how much assumed knowledge each book has. I'll try, if I may (I don't wish to over-impose myself as a newcomer and hope my comments are taken as being constructive), to make an initial mock-up of what the Main Page could look like to encourage further comment, Jguk 08:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that maybe you should consider making the main page less like Wikipedia and a little easier to navigate the bookshelves. The ideas are great, but the books themselves are difficult to navigate, and so you really have to know how to use one of the other Wiki sites in order to navigate, which can make it quite difficult for the new user to understand. Just a thought . Anon.

IMO it would be a good idea to have a main page specificly for readers with link to the current front page. The idea is that a person should be able to start reading without knowing a thing about wikibooks. I think of a small introduction followed by a organised portion of completed books, follow by the less completed books in seperated sections. just my 2 cents --Patrik 14:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Include links to the 15-35 most complete boks, in a section that might replace the highlighted books section
• Include a link to a page with just "good" books, instead of "all" books
• Replace the browse section by a link to a new page called "find a book"
• Include link to a page of downloadable PDFs

--Karl Wick 22:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet all these comments are being ignored. People are not taking the time to comment because they want to wind up admins, they are doing it because they believe we are not putting our best foot forward. The main page does not answer the needs of readers. It is designed for admins and contributors. If you look at any commercial ebook site they lay out their books up front, they dont present the browsing reader with a library catalogue! RobinH 12:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

All those comments were directed at the old page before its current form, which didn't happen until February 2007 and they were listened to at the time. The current version is the result of listening to problems with that version. People said it was too big and jumbled up to navigate, complained that too many incomplete books on the main page was scaring readers and contributors away, that it focused too much on readers or too much on contributors, and thats just the things I can recall right now. Quite a few of the commercial ebook sites you provided links to, do have a catalog listing categories of books on their front page. The current version is better then the alternatives you've suggested so far, why not put some effort into working on some other suggestions? You could also try reading Talk:Main Page/test, to see whats been said about the test page and what people want for the main page. --darklama 14:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No, all except one were directed at the version before that which was almost the same as the version instituted in February.

This version: http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Main_Page_content&oldid=556442

was introduced in August 2006 specifically to answer the concern that there was no direct access to nearly completed books. This concern has been completed overridden in the new front page. The one comment after august 2006, by Patrik, was that "The idea is that a person should be able to start reading without knowing a thing about wikibooks." ie: the change had not gone far enough! RobinH 19:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the comments on Main Page/test, only Whiteknight adds more, saying: "I like that idea alot! every department should contain, right on the bookshelf, listings of the best books. This could include little blurbs like cover images and summaries. If we had a standardized system for displaying these blurbs, it would be a trivial matter for a bot to read them, and create templates for inclusion on the main page. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)"

Whiteknight is pointing out that highly visible summaries of the best books should be available. As far as I can see the current front page does not do this. RobinH 19:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, what's the connection between "winding up admins" and commenting on a page design? I don't think any of the admins are acting wound up about it, to be honest.

Having a prominent link to a list of "ready-to-use" textbooks might be a good addition, of course, but I don't think returning to the "scads of tiny typeface" is a good way to move on it.

I don't have alexa on my browser... if I did I might single-handedly bring us back up to where we were (well over 1,000 edits in March alone, and add the edit window, preview, and saved result page and that would make 4,000!), and as Whiteknight pointed out, the actual pageviews have been steadily increasing. I agree that the current page might be a little biased now towards contributors, but not by much, and a bit of tweaking could bring it into line. However, the survival and growth of wikibooks as a wiki really depends on people contributing to more books, because we can't get more readers if we don't add more good content for them to read. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I said they are NOT doing it to wind up admins or for any facetious purpose, these people have the best interests of Wikibooks at heart and are all saying that nearly completed books should be prominently displayed. Yes, I agree, returning to a small typeface is a bad idea. Instead we should present the books that are ready in a clear and bold fashion. Contributions will increase if people can see that Wikibooks works and if they have some real examples of how books can be completed up front. RobinH 19:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I doubt the decline has anything to do with the main page but it could be improved but is certainly a huge improvement upon the previous main page. I don't think that many "readers" find us via the main page. People find Wikibooks either through links from Wikipedia (add more links to related articles on Wikipedia) and via search engines when they're looking for a particular topic. Only people who have no idea what they are looking for (or have a lot of time on their hands) would get to us via the main page. I've run the Alexa toolbar for many years but I'm still not entirely sure how they accumulate their ratings. Considering that a large bulk of our page views must come from highly active Wikibookians I can name one specific recent incident which may have resulted in less visits by some regular Wikibookians. Xania ^talk 01:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not have a main page that is largely dedicated to readers with a clear link to a page dedicated to contributors? See Main Page/test. RobinH 08:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Main Page/test2 is not dedicated to contributors, its balanced for both readers and contributors. Both pages provide basically the same info, just that test2 is more pleasing on the eye. Nobody so far is saying a list of some books shouldn't be available on the front page. People have been mostly focusing on their disagreement with your reasoning of why Wikibooks might be on a decline in activity. Last I am aware of people were saying a small list of books should be displayed on the main page cycling through a bigger list generated from what featured books are listed on each bookshelf. However not much work has gone into it so far, because there has been bigger fish to fry and people probably just forgot about it. --darklama 12:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Most people were saying that there should be a list of most of our completed books on the main page:

"* Include links to the 15-35 most complete boks, ", "I think of a small introduction followed by a organised portion of completed books, follow by the less completed books in seperated sections.", "As a newcomer, I find the Main Page not very helpful. It's not easy to see what Wikibooks has to offer". RobinH 13:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The comment of mine that was cited above (about the book blurbs on the bookshelves) is still a relevant one. If people want to put more books on the main page, we first need to identify books that belong there, and we need to prepare advertisements.

I've created the Template:Tl template, which does precisely this. It presents a cover image, a link, and a short description of a book to serve as an advertisement. For examples of this template in use, you can see the ones I have prepared at the Engineering Bookshelf. If everybody would take the time today to create one such template like this on a bookshelf and advertise one good book, it would be a trivial matter to harvest those advertisements and move them to the main page.

Depending on the number of blurbs we have prepared, we could put all our good books on the main page, or we could put a rotating subset of them on the main page. This would serve the dual purpose of attracting readers and inspiring new contributors. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea Whiteknight. At present probably all the good books should go on the main page.

Only one problem, the bookshelves are all protected. RobinH 14:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think they're only protected from anonymous and/or very new accounts, presumably to prevent vandalisim of templates that appear on multiple pages (actually, if I remember correctly the concern was that they appeared on the main page, which they don't now). Any objection to unprotecting them for editing, but doing a hard lock against moving them?--SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The bookshelves, at least the few that I just looked at, are only protected against editing by anonymous users. I dont think that's really a policy that should be changed. If people want to promote a particular book, they should probably register an account, and if they dont want an account they can do all the other kinds of editing work that we need around here. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I love the new Main Page. I tried to make the same point on this page but no-one replied to my comment. Poppy 04:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

User:SB Johnny nominated for bureaucratship

Whiteknight (talk) (projects) has nominated Template:User for bureaucratship, the voting is running at Nominations_for_bureaucratship, feel free to participate, for more info take a look at Wikibooks:Administrators. --Panic 02:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

root redirects

Should root redirects be used? in wish circumstances? should they point to books or book pages? should there be any limits ? I can't find a consistent process to address this issues (and in past decission were taken in both ways).
I have marked a page for {{delete}} (a root redirect that was a result of a wrong move), anyway another user disagreed with the redirect and with some valid points objected to the deletion. posts here --Panic 06:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Under which wikiproject would I post a critical essay?

Like one that might be found in a scholarly journal? It doesn't seem to quite fit anywhere, as wiki books seems mostly to rest upon factual interpretations and not critical ones.

What is the subject of the essay? --Panic 18:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Subject of the essay not withstanding, you would likely find some success either at Wikiversity or at Academia wikicity. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

WB:WIW Vote

The new proposal for WB:WIW is up for a vote. The text of the proposal is at: Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks/Unstable

The vote is occuring at: Wikibooks:Policies_and_guidelines/Vote/What_is_Wikibooks

All wikibookians are encouraged to read the new proposal and vote on it. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Synchrotron radiation software Fit2d

Fit2d is a computer program that is used by many users of synchrotron radiations sources to process data mainly from X-Ray Diffraction experiments. Users come from all over the world from many fields of science and technology. A 300 page rather technical manual is available, but as most manual go they are not the fastest way to learn how to use the program or figure out what the program is actually doing to your data. I think a good wikibook that helps users with that would be advantageous to many in the scientific community.

Question: where do I best put it?

Quatt 13:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. You are likely going to want to put it on the computer software bookshelf, although the physics bookshelf is not out of the question either. You might even try cross-listing it on both shelves to start out with, and maybe pick one or the other later. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

how to make links

I see at least 5 different pages in the "help" namespace discussing how to make links -- Help:Link, Help:Piped link, Help:URL, Help:How_does_one_edit_a_page#More_on_linking, etc. Is there a better way to handle this? (Should I go to the MediaWiki wiki and fight the redundancy at its source first?) --DavidCary 15:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It does seem a bit redundant, doesnt it? Sorry i didnt respond sooner, i must not have seen this message. We should definately work on merging these pages, or deleting the duplicates if they are not needed. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I took care of some of that yesterday. --darklama 22:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

nl.wikibooks dual-licensing

NL.wikibooks posted an announcement recently that they would be dual-licensing all new contributions under the GFDL and the CC-BY-SA-2.5 license. Old pages would be marked as "GFDL Only" unless all previous authors explicitly agreed to re-release their contributions under both licenses. All new pages would be released under both licenses.

I am not necessarily suggesting that our project should jump onto this bandwagon, but it certainly is something that we should likely consider. Some people recently have been criticizing the GFDL because it appears to be too restrictive for some purposes, etc. It is, however, something to consider. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Just one question: is there anywhere where we can read about the major differences between the two licenses? I wouldn't want to agree or disagree with it until I see such documentation (as I'm not a lawyer I probably wouldn't be able to notice by reading the licenses directly what the major disparities are). I'm assuming this wasn't an april fools joke. Regards. Mattb112885 (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The text of the GFDL is available HERE. The CC-BY-SA-3.0 license is available HERE. I dont think we need to make a decision now, but this is a good opportunity to discuss the implications of licensing. Keep in mind that many of our images are already released under CC licenses. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Cc-by-sa-3.0 is, according to some, not a pretty license. See commons:Commons talk:Licensing for more details. --Iamunknown 23:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Prettiness aside, the CC licenses are not the only free licenses that we should be looking at. Use of the GFDL was basically an inherited license, and not one that wikibookians selected because it was particularly good for textbooks. I would say that GFDL is not good for textbooks. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the FSF the CC license is not compatible with the GFDL, so would it even be possible to dual-license it under non-compatible licenses? I don't know how this works, but doing something like that doesn't make much sense to me. What do you think is wrong with using GFDL for textbooks? Mattb112885 (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think GFDL is appropriate for textbooks. Just add three-or-so pages of text to the end, it doesn't cost that much. --Iamunknown 23:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to remember to look for the link later, but apparently the CC people think it's fine to use images under CC documents in a GFDL document, but I don't know if text is compatible. Using a GFDL licenced image in a CC document would not be OK. (Using Public Domain images in either sort of document is fine, and doesn't make the document public domain because it contains a PD image... licenses sometimes work differently depending on which direction you use them).--SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Just curious, you commented on the fact that "prettiness" is moot (which, I agree, it is), but not on the discussion at Commons. Have you read it? I'd suggest reading it; there are real concerns about the latest batch of CC-3.0 licenses that are yet unresolved. --Iamunknown 00:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps i'm using a different definition of the term "prettiness", as being an aesthetic quality. I have read much of the commons discussion, i am reading the remainder. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

(reset tabs:) The more I learn about the CC licenses, the less I like them... to the point where I've recently stopped dual-licensing the images I upload. The folks at CC are playing more loosely all the time, especially when it comes to derivative works. I don't mind if my images or contributions help someone make a few bucks, but I do want to be assured that what's made of my contributions is still free (and if they make an improvement, I want to feel free to improve their version too).

The GFDL is a pain in the tuckus sometimes, but FSF is very conservative about maintaining the "viral" quality of the license, and CC really isn't as concerned as they once promised to be. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for adding WikiTeX support to Wikibooks

I'd like to propose adding the WikiTeX extension to the repertoire of tools available to authors on Wikibooks. This extension supports creating a variety of LaTeX output formats from directly editable text sources. The topic areas in my mind most likely to see direct advantage are as follows:

• Music: Currently the state of notation editing is in a sorry state of affairs. Should a person notice a minor error in an image they either must recreate the notation from scratch or manipulate the original image via photoshop or similar program.

• Mathematics: LaTeX has numerous mathematics extension, and in my opinion any books on mathematics is likely to be written by an individual familiar with LaTeX or similar notation style.

• Generalized graphing (via. Graphvis extensions to LaTeX) This most likely applies to books on computer science or other algorithm intensive topic. However the graphvis product is highly versatile. This means people will have few software imposed limitations.

• Language Studies. The current WikiTeX modules include the IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet). Being a foreign script buff, I've often run across the IPA when reading up on yet another "funky alphabet".

Items I can see as potential concern are as follows:

• Disk space usage. If images are stored after module submission to save on CPU resources, then I can easily see disk space becoming an issue.

• CPU usage. From what skimming I've done it appears that Lilypond -- the music generation back-end used by LaTeX -- can be CPU intensive.

• Readability. Many of the data that I looked at on the sample page, may not be very accessible, in a readability sense, to the non-technical audiences who might like to author content using these extensions.

-- Jason C Daniels 02:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

We already have a math rendering engine with the <math>...</math> tags, so I dont think we need to add a new engine to wikibooks. Books on music and chemistry, i think, stand to gain the most from this extension and I would be perfectly happy if we only installed the lilypond extension and possibly the XyMTeX one. Some of the other extensions, while nice, are not strictly needed around here. I think we should put in a request about this on bugzilla, and see if the developers are up to it. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Latex sounds like it is very commonly used so that would be a plus. There's lots of books on it. On the bad side, someone will need to implement it and keep it patched. I'm a no-one but I support it assuming it can be implemented. Harriska2 14:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a known extension to mediawiki that covers this, the wikimedia developers are likely aware of the extension but have never activated it on any WMF project that I know of. Wikipedia had tried in the past to have the extension installed, but that discussion didnt reach any kind of consensus. Other non-WMF wikis have used this extension, however, so i assume it is working and properly maintenanced. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Whiteknight, Thanks for the feedback on the math extensions. Being a newbie, I'm a bit unfamiliar with the "vanilla" wiki offerings. As well I was just picking a few items that I personally saw as definite possibilities for WikiTeX. (Who knows maybe there's things that LaTeX does that the current math extensions don't handle.. that's just speculation) But in any case, what I'm gathering from this conversations is that, independant of implementation the following are perceived desires for the authors on WikiBooks:

• Some form of inline wiki-ish music typesetting.
• Some form of chemistry related markup.
• Generalized graphing capabilities.

As for implementation specific items. TeX is viewed favorably and will likely be a familiar way for people to input data. WikiTeX with specific extensions meets all of these desires. But, we need to convince the powers that be to install and maintain the software. As well, reaching consensus seems to be the biggest perceived challenge if one were to draw on Wikimedias foray at getting this same extension enabled. Does that sound like an accurate summary? -- Jason C Daniels 21:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Accurate indeed! I should have some time tonight, i will go over to bugzilla and put in a request for this extension. Also, i will be on IRC later tonight and I will try to ask the developers directly whether this can happen or not. I dont know if i will get any straight answers, the developers are very busy people. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, some bad news. The developers say that lilypond introduces "non-trivial security concerns". Apparently there is already a bugzilla request to have it installed on a number of projects, with several hundred votes. I dont think that wikibooks is going to get it right now. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Since lilypond is used indirectly, it is still technically possible to install WikiTex with associated other apps (each would need to be evaluated for security risks, of course) to provide the modules of interest. (i.e. Remaining are chem, and generalized graphing) As well if the real concern is latex and not so much lilypond, there is a Graphviz specific extension. I've installed it, and it seems to work fine on my 800MHz web/mysql/file server. (A bit slow to generate a graph, but the box is underpowered, underrammed...etc) So with all that in mind, Whiteknight, would you be willing to pick the developers brains to see if they have similar concerns with graphviz? And once I get the right modules installed locally here, I'll get the names of the one(s) used for chemistry ...etc. WikiTeX seems to have a lot of potential modules, though some of which seem to be unavailable from the stock Ubuntu sources. -- Jason C Daniels 22:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

HELP! Some pages not loading right this morning.

Hello,

I have been reading the blender noob to pro tutorial for the last couple of days. This morning the pages are not loading properly! the link to the page I am accessing is:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Blender_3D:_Noob_to_Pro/Detailing_Your_Simple_Person_1

[Blender_3D:_Noob_to_Pro/Detailing_Your_Simple_Person_1]

I see the normal layout (navigation sidebar and topbar) however the content is (mostly) missing, and the footer of the content area is covering up any content that is on the page. I tried forcing a refresh several times, and I even closed my browser and came back. No luck.

My guess is that a service on the webserver or database needs to be restarted.

Thanks,

Greg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.213.124.37 (talk • contribs) 2007-04-11T23:06:09.

G'day, I just took a look in Firefox 2.0 and IE 7.0, both seem fine. Perhaps it was a transitory problem that has now been resolved. If you still have a problem, I'd suggest that it is local to you somehow - e.g. ISP or PC. If the problem persists after you clear your browser cache, close your browser, then restart it, then please upload a screen capture of what you are seeing and we can examine the problem further. Webaware ^talk 14:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Reviving "...of the week"?

I'm wondering if maybe we shouldn't revive the "policy of the week" thing, but using a more formal and complicated approach. I think it would be good for us if we had 3 "...of the week" things: Discussion of the Week, Vote of the Week, and Community Project of the Week. I think it would also be good to use the sitenotice feature to bring this to the attention of both new and old Wikibookians... it would also give "jaded Wikipedians" an easy way to find things to do here while they get over writer's block.

Discussion of the Week could be a new policy or guideline, or even something more vague, such as whether we need a policy or guideline.

Vote of the Week would be for proposed policies or guidelines that have evolved to the point where only minor edits are being made. We could also perhaps dedicate the first (second, third, last, whatever) week of the month to RFAs, and only allow voting on RFAs during that one week. Or maybe even have every other week for VfD, with the weeks between alternating between RfA and policy voting. (The point is to have everyone's attention focused on the same page.)

Community Project of the Week could be for just doing maintenance chores. Correcting naming policy, unwikifying silly links, etc. Or even doing chores in one book or another where many hands are needed to make the work light.

Maybe also a Votes for Next Week's Agenda... the discussion, vote, or project that gets the most votes wins!

I know this all might sound silly, but the sitenotice might be a better venue than the Main Page for getting people excited about the project. Writing books is a huge commitment, and giving people a way to constructively contribute to books (and see what books are like) can help them get more comfortable, and see that they can just do what they have time to do, rather than taking on the whole world by themselves. Working on a Wiki-Book can be a lonely experience, but anyone who comes here wanting to do good things should be given an outlet... there are so many "little" things that need doing, and (I suspect) plenty of people willing to do them. The sitenotice can advertise to any and all that there's work to do here, and that they can help, even if they're not sure yet whether they want to take on the responsibility of writing a book. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 21:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

A problem with these types of things is that we just dont have enough interested people who are willing to maintain interest in these projects. I know that I am a terrible offender because I tend to start projects and then lose interest. In my defense I tend to lose interest in things of which I am the only participant, so we can chalk that up to a lack of interest among other community members. It certainly is a great idea, i just dont know that we can support it. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 03:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to say that, while I approve of all of those projects, do them sometimes on my own and wish such a set up would work, I am unsure it would work. What I would like to see getting going is the Wikibooks:Community Portal; I currently lack sufficient JavaScript coding skill, but this summer I fully intend to create a script which will scrap the server for a random set of tasks to add to the Template:Opentask, such that users who just feel like doing something can. But then I might encounter the same disinterest. --Iamunknown 10:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%, the community portal is a great place to focus our efforts. I dont know how effective javascript is going to be at the tasks you are talking about, but it would be easy for a bot to do (and i can write bots). --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Goodbook and Main Page

As many people have probably already seen, the main page has been updated again to include more book advertisements. I would encourage all book authors to prepare a Template:Tl template for your book, especially if your book is a featured book. This template can be rotated onto the main page eventually, but it can also be permanently displayed on the bookshelf, and you can also post it on your book TOC page. Also, if the authors of the books write these blurbs themselves, other people won't have to rewrite them when we try to put them on the main page. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I may be being dense, but I don't understand where to create the goodbook template. --xixtas ^talk 09:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Me too. Is it like Infobox? If it isn't, that might not be a bad style to emulate. -withinfocus 12:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I propose that Goodbook templates be created as subpages of the Template:Tl template, for example, Template:Tl -- Kowey 08:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Another thought: is there any way to have the thumbnail link to the book itself and not to the image page? It's just so tempting when you see one of these showcases to click on the picture, thinking that you will get the book being advertised. It may not be a good practice in general to have such links, but for the purpose of building a goodbook showcase, it seems like it would be really useful -- Kowey 14:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Try Template:Tl. The images for the bookshelf list use it. --hagindaz 22:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm having some trouble with non-square images (or rather, wide images), because they get the link underline underneath them, in addition to a blank white space, presumably from the divs that superimpose the link. Ideally, we would have something which calculates the height of the divs in proportion to the width, details details, but maybe this is not the kind of thing we want to implement in the template language. Hmm. Maybe there's a simple way out. -- Kowey 07:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Argh, sorry if I'm making a mess. I'm trying to figure out how to (i) eliminate redundancy in the goodbook templates (ii) keep things transparent so that any wikibookian can edit the blurbs without becoming a mediawiki expert (iii) keep things parameterisable so that you can include goodbook templates on bookshelves and add borders, etc (iv) keep things simple so that writing a template for your book does not involve too many arcane commands. So far I keep running into tradeoffs. Poke at it one way and you lose another aspect. Eliminate redundancy and either lose simplicity or parameterisability.

I guess what I'm looking for now is some kind of inheritance mechanism, where for example, the Template:Tl 'passes along' any other parameters to the Template:Tl, such as box, bgcolor, etc. Or barring that, some kind of quoting mechanism, where the goodbook template includes some template text which is not expanded in the template itself but in any other template that uses it. Hmmph! I promise I'm not making things complicated on purpose! -- Kowey 09:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

How about making a few things automatic? For example, an automatic PDF link using {{#ifexist)) (see, for example, Template:Tl) or an automatic cover if Image:{{{title}}} cover.jpg exists, and either require covers and PDFs to follow this format for simplicity or allow other locations as optional parameters. Or perhaps not using the box only if {{PAGENAME}} is Main Page or Wikibooks:Featured books/Templates, or only using it on bookshelf pages? What do you mean by "quoting mechanism?" <includeonly>? Perhaps you might might find something helpful on m:ParserFunctions. --hagindaz 19:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, that might be a nice way to simplify some uses of the template. We could then have the PDFs and the covers working just by convention.

I'm not sure if I really wanted to say "quoting mechanism" or maybe "escaping mechanism", or something else. The basic idea is that you have a template OUTER which includes a template INNER, it might be nice if template INNER had some code that could literally be placed into OUTER and be interpreted as part of OUTER. The idea I had in mind was that the Goodbook/Foo templates should have a edit=1 parameter that enables an 'edit this blurb' link; but that the code for making that work should be handled by the inner (Goodbook) template. Now could you have the inner template check for the 'edit' parameter, but then you would have to do extra work to propagate the parameter from Goodbook/Foo to Goodbook... which makes it harder for authors to write their own Goodbook/Foo templates. Likewise, I would like the Goodbook/Foo templates to have a 'box' parameter, whose code is completely handled by Goodbook. We could pass the parameters down, doing something like {{#if|{{{box}}}|box={{{box}}}}}... but ugh! Does this make any sense? -- Kowey 19:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If I'm understanding you correctly, the simplest way to accomplish that would be to add for example "|param={{{1|}}}" to Goodbook/Foo, which would pass {{Goodbook/Foo|anything here, if anything}} to Template:Tl as "param" for Goodbook to handle using #switch or #if. {{#if|{{{box}}}|box={{{box}}}}} can be simplified to box={{{box|}}} which, while not ideal, is less confusing and more workable syntactically. --hagindaz 20:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that's interesting. But isn't setting a parameter to empty string different from leaving it undefined? -- Kowey 04:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it is for named parameters. As a workaround use #switch to look for a particular string ("1" or "true") on Template:Tl. --hagindaz 04:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right! I had not thought about solving it that way. My version of it was to do {{#ifeq:{{foo|}}||desired result}}, that is, only using {{{foo}}} if it was non-blank. So we conflate blank with undefined. I think Template:Tl could be an example of how people should make Goodbook templates. The box={{{box|}}} is simple enough, and non-technical users can just copy from the model anyway. Thanks for your help! -- Kowey 05:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:User

Could someone take a look at the pages created by this IP. Nothing wrong with them but they should be part of something rather than standalone & frankly I'm not sure what they should be part of. I'm short of time today - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Wikijunior Human Body? --xixtas ^talk 08:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I moved them all under the newly created Human Digestive System and left a note to the contributor. (I also encouraged him/her to choose another name). -- Jomegat 13:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I found this guy last night and sent him a message, but it was late and i went to bed before cleanup. All those pages appear to have been made from red links in the Wikijunior Human Body book, and I went through and simply deleted those red links (looks like a bad transwiki to me). I also sent this user a message, but i dont think he listened. Thanks for finishing the job. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops. My bad. -xixtas ^talk 23:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

More Good Books on the Main Page

I would like to thank Darklama for the technical improvements to the main page. It is certainly much better than it was. Why not reduce the width of the left hand column to 30% and make the "featured books" 2 column to allow more featured books on the main page? I have put an example with a single featured books column at Main Page/test2. There is room for 2 cols on the right and the "Goodbook" template could be less generous with padding. RobinH 08:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to say that I like it to. My suggestion is to reduce the intervals of time by which the books rotate; one second seems a bit aggressive on the server's cache, perhaps rotate once per hour? --Iamunknown 10:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

More frequent rotate and more books would do it for me. Five minute rotation might be feasible. RobinH 11:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

My concern is if the main page will even re-cache that quickly. --Iamunknown 12:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If it supposedly switches every second, the main page will really be dependent on the cache speed of the server, and the main page will appear to switch randomly. We can certainly reduce the amount of time too, if you think that will balance it out more. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

A 30% column or three columns would be too much for some resolutions. How about moving the sister projects links to the left column, for example as on nl:Hoofdpagina? --hagindaz 13:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That's another thing worth considering, not all people have fantasic resolutions. My one computer is only 600×800, and the 2-column thing looks a little messy unless i have the page maximized. unfortunately, mediawiki doesnt supply a {{SCREENRESOLUTION}} magic word, so we can't make the page change for different resolutions. We could provide a "low res" version of the page, but that's just another problem. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the best way to deal with the differences in screen resolutions is to simply rearrange the contents, so that the about wikibooks and bookshelf listing are at the top together, followed by the listing of books, so it can take up the entire 2 columns without having to deal with the cap mess that can happen when the featured books list is too long or too short. --darklama 14:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I would be in favour of this. People who want to browse the best books would then get a long listing. Perhaps the intro could have a prominent link to the best books lower down. RobinH 18:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to update every hour, not every second, that should be better on the server. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The Good Books should be listed above the fold (without scrolling). They add a lot of visual interest to the front page. I think we should do lists of 5-7 books and rotate them frequently. --xixtas ^talk 02:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Just fill the main page with the good books (no scrolling or minimum scrolling). The boring text about Wikibooks history, blah blah can be removed or linked to by a 'About Wikibooks' link. The good/featured books are the best part about the main page. Xania ^talk 13:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree we should eliminate that entirely but perhaps make it a small banner across the top to conserve space for other things. We SHOULD definitely welcome our new users on the main page I think, since it's the first thing many will see. Im not sure what we'd do with the navigation scheme but a few things in that template seem outdated anyways (example: if someone clicks on dewey decimal they'll get only a small number of the books on the project, same with library of congress) so we should probably update the links in it whether we move things around or not. Mattb112885 (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikibooks statistics

There was a concern a posted a little while ago that wikibooks was in some kind of decline, or that our project was shrinking. These concerns were based on the alexa ratings graph, which showed a general negative trend starting around January of this year. For several reasons the alexa graphs need to be taken with a pinch of salt, but what we can do is look at the statistics that are compiled automatically by the wikimedia toolserver. The last statistics were ocmpiled mid-march, so they are about a month behind, but they show a much more promising picture:

• http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikibooks/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm

  List of diagrams showing statistics by month. Grey bars indicate projected month-end results. Notice that new user accounts are up by an amount consistent with previous months, new "authors" are up (author = person with 10 or more edits), new "very active authors" are up significantly (very active = 100 edits or more), new pages are up, page size is up, new pages created per day is up significantly.

• http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikibooks/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm

  This is alot of the same information as above, but in table form. This also has some information on pages most commonly edited, and the statistics of some individual editors.

• http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikibooks/EN/PlotsPngWikipediansContributors.htm

  Chart showing number of "authors". The red line is for en.wikibooks, and you can see it is climbing very quickly.

• http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikibooks/EN/PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.htm

  Chart showing number of authors who make an average of 5 or more edits in a week. The general trend of this chart is increasing (although there are two clear dips in mid january and mid march).

• http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikibooks/EN/PlotsPngDatabaseEdits.htm

  Page shows number of edits per day (light red) and average number of edits per day (bright red). Notice we had a spike last june, a crash in january, and a steady incline ever since.

• http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikibooks/EN/Wikibooks_EN.htm

  (page is very large) This is a description of our largest wikibooks, by total amount of text. Notice that we have at least 100 books with more then 170kbytes of text.

This is only a small fraction of the data available on the stats server, i suggest people go look around and see all the information available. I hope this eases some fears that people are having. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately those aren't completely accurate either, I'm afraid. http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikibooks/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm shows some very skewed statistics for A Wikimanual of Gardening because of my excessive use of the import tool :). However, it might not have any effect on the "trends", since the tool they are using apparently readjusts to include historical wikipedia edits too (for example, we have logs of edits to A Wikimanual of Gardening/Digitalis in July 2001, and as far as I know we didn't even have Wikibooks in July 2001), so my guess is that as far as the trends are concerned it's logging those contributions in the past as well as the present, so any "trend" is more likely a local phenomenon. Import is a great tool, but it does screw up the stats... for example, A Wikimanual of Gardening/Digitalis had 169 revisions when I imported it. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 17:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, no other book has made as large a use of the import tool as the gardening book has, and i would say that compared to the project at large, the additional edits accured by importing those pages does not have a gigantic effect on the overall picture. I did think it was a little odd that WMOG was listed as having over 2400 distinct "authors"... --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

lol... I make from 3-10 imports a week, sometimes with over 1k previous edits. The funny thing is that (depending on how you look at it) there are over 2400 distinct contributors to that book, it's just that most of the edits were made on wikipedia, not on wikibooks.

A question about that though (sorry to hijack): have you found anything there that lists the top contributors for a particular book (on all subpages)? I'd like to start a talkpagespam campaign on wikipedia, especially now that I can help with account renaming if necessary. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 17:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

These stats are good. The good news is that the red line is nicely exponential - english Wikibooks is on the up qnd is in a sustained growth phase like Wikipedia achieved (unlike some of the other languages). It is a shame that we have no readership figures. Does anyone read our books or is this an authors club? RobinH 17:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right about the readership question, there really is no way to determine who is reading what, or if anybody is reading anything at all. Unfortunately for us, that alexa graph is the only indication at all, and I dont consider it to be too accurate. The developers have been dead-set against installing hit counters, so i guess we will never know.

On the flip side, i think it's a safe bet that people don't create an account here unless they are on the site reading things in the first place. Since our numbers of new accounts continues to get bigger, i think we can take that as an indirect measure of the number of readers we have. Even if we take that, and see that readership is up, that doesnt mean we get to rest on our laurels. We always need to be improving things, and attracting more and more people. A little pride in our progress is not unjustified, i think. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Historical pages

Wikibooks has accumulated a number of pages that haven't been updated for ages still linked to from Wikibooks:Community Portal, Help and project pages, such as Wikibooks:Wikibook Press, collaborations of the month, and Help:Textbook planning, among many others. Perhaps we should delink and add these pages to a new Category:Historical project pages? Does this seem like a good idea? --hagindaz 09:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. We really need to go through some of those "dusty corners" in any case, since a lot of stuff in the Help namespace in particular was copied from old Wikipedia pages ages ago, and never really "altered to fit". --SB_Johnny | ^talk 09:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. There is some feeling amoung a few editors that i've spoken to that some of this old material might even need to be deleted, but on the grounds of historical value, i think that they should be kept and properly categorized as obsolete. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikibooks:Blocking policy Vote

The new proposal for Wikibooks:Blocking policy is up for a vote.

The vote is occuring at: Wikibooks:Policies and guidelines/Vote/Blocking policy

All wikibookians are encouraged to read the new proposal and vote on it. -withinfocus 15:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

help with navigation system

And also moving stuff around. I want a box on each page of my book that has the chapters listed in order, with the current chapter "blown up" so you can see the sections within that chapter. Just a little box in the top right corner. Also, I made.. basically a new table of contents but it links to its own copy of the pages. Since I'm the only person editing the book and I agree with myself that this is a good idea. (but i don't know how to do it)... I basically want to delete the old book and replace it with the reorganized copy. Its here: First_Aid/Table_of_Contents. Also, I don't think I followed the naming conventions properly, so if you feel like correcting it, that's awesome too. I fell kinda guilty asking for people to do my work for me, but I don't really know how to do it myself. I'd probably make your servers explode or something if I tried. Thanks to anyone who helps!! Mike.lifeguard 02:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

We've installed the servers with explosion protection, so you are fine! A navigation scheme like what you are talking about might be a little complicated (if not impossible) to make, but there are some options. For example, check out the navigation on the Human Physiology book, which lists all the chapters at the top. Other books do it in different ways too, so browse around and see what you like. When you find something that you like, it will be easy to copy. If you can't find anything that you like, then we can try to make something custom. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Book links to French.pdf

Spanish Book links to French.pdf

Thanks for pointing that out. Should be fixed (it does not seem to have a pdf of its own, so I removed the pdf line) -- Kowey 20:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That was probably my fault, I made both templates at the same time and I must have copy+pasted more then I thought i did. Thanks for fixing the mistake. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

SVG image errors

This morning there have been some errors with SVG images not rendering. User:Herbythyme mentioned that the same problem was happening at commons, and he's gone over there to investigate it. I don't have IRC while i'm on campus (which is all day, today), so i can't talk to the developers to see what's up. If it's a software glitch hopefully it gets fixed ASAP. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a posting about it on Meta too so we are not alone --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And apparently fixed --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)