text:
Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/2005/October

Forking of Wikipedia content
I've been following the Votes_for_deletion page and there was one Wikibook that I actually fell in love with that has been deleted. The reference (before deletion) was Nikola Tesla. I did object to its deletion, and may still file a protest in Votes for undeletion. I'm here in the staff lounge to address the larger issue.

I understand the basic idea of Wikibooks, and have contributed to several here. I do think that many people contributing here don't totally understand the differences between Wikibooks and Wikipedia, and often contribute "articles" rather than "book modules". Simply writing something here at Wikibooks is not a substitute for writing a Wikipedia article instead.

In the case of the above mentioned book, however, it was quite a bit more. The content of the Wikipedia article about Nikola Tesla has been growing quite a bit, and due to the content length, an effort was made to move some of that content over to Wikibooks. There was an editorial dispute in part due to the length of the article, and I don't want to go into the details here. On the positive side, when the move was made to Wikibooks, it was chopped into several chapters, with an excellent title page and even a good appendix section. In short, it was a well adapted beginning of a Wikibook, IMHO. It was also better organized and adapted into a book-like format than most Wikibooks that are considered "typical" here at this project.

I think the staunch objection to forks of Wikipedia articles is a bit overstated, and that there are legitimate reasons that content from Wikipedia articles could be used to be the kernel of a new Wikibook, where added content that would not fit a Wikipedia article due to length or other editing issues at Wikipedia. Certainly there should be no objection to using material from Wikipedia to create a new Wikibook.

The added issue of biographies here at Wikibooks is also unreasonable. I don't see any legitimate reason why a good biography shouldn't be a Wikibook, and there are numerous "educational" reasons why learning about the lives of various famous people could and should be included here.

My question to the Wikibooks community is: When should a "fork" of Wikipedia content be considered legitimate for the creation of a new Wikibook? Can Wikipedia content be used to create a stub for a new Wikibook? Rob Horning 7 July 2005 14:05 (UTC)

 * Basically the idea is that a Wikibooks page shouldn't just be the Wikipedia article with fifteen extra paragraphs, as it is not only immediately redundant (unless greatly expanded beyond that) but will also get quickly out-of-date as editors focus their attention on Wikipedia. It needs to be as fat and detailed as possible (without unnecessary "cruft" of course), while Wikipedia aims to be as brief and detailed as possible. You need to establish the fork as something on its own while going into depth far beyond what an encyclopedia could possibly cope with.
 * Also you must ensure that the scope and perspective are not different from WP's version. For example say I take an oversized edit to the Controversy section of the Abortion article and pad it out tenfold for an Abortion-focused Wikibook. The problem is, if I don't write about the other topics as well, even if briefly, it would make it seem as if abortion being wrong and evil was the only way of thinking! If you see what I mean.
 * The main problem with biographies is no doubt that they will inevitably end up being based on the dreaded Original Research. Also most biographies state the author's opinion, whereas the Wiki ideal is to present other biographers' opinions.
 * I'd say you can use a WP article as a stub as long as you do something with it. If it just sits here for a few months after you've lost the urge to expand it, that's not good. My suggestion, and indeed what I'm doing as we... um... "read", is to work on a new Wikibook entirely offsite until such time as it goes far beyond what the WP article currently covers or will ever cover. If I lose the urge to work on it and it remains a crappy stub, I'll just file it away somewhere and maybe work on it later. If I keep going, I'll eventually post it here.
 * That's the problem. If I took a section from WP and posted it here right now and then made slow progress on book-ising it, someone's bound to take one look and decide to kill it off.
 * Anyway, hope that answers all your questions. Gee, almost lunchtime, I hope I just made sense... :) Master Thief Garrett 7 July 2005 23:50 (UTC)

 * It occurs to me that you will always get duplicated content between Wikipedia and Wikibooks. I suspect most of the books on this site have corresponding articles on Wikipedia, and you may still get the forking-problem, in the sense that both will contain information not present in the other. The fundamental problem here is that by defining Wikibooks and Wikipedia to be authoritative places for information on the same range of topics, there is an inherent ambiguity as to where the text on the subject should correctly go.

 * Surely the more sensible approach would be to first write a Wikipedia article, then should the article expand to the size suitable for a book, the whole lot is transferred over here, and use interwiki linking from Wikipedia (i.e completely remove ALL content from Wikipedia). After a while, Wikipedia would die off, and Wikibooks would be left with a fully comprehensive bookshelf. And if you have that, why do you even need an encyclopedia?

 * In reality, some entries on Wikipedia would never grow large enough to warrant a whole book on the subject, in the same way that some Wiktionary entries will never warrant a Wikipedia article.

 * If it seems a bit harsh to remove the Wikipedia entry to make a book, then perhaps the content should be copied to Wikibooks, and then summarized in the Wikipedia article, making it very clear where the book is, and that all future content should go there, not on Wikipedia itself.

 * Main problem is that all the wikis are trying to achieve the same thing at the conceptual level, and could all be merged. They're all hosted from the same database servers, using the same apache servers and the same squid proxies, so why are they all separate systems? I guess it would be an administrative nightmare, but I could imagine the "one big wiki" approach to work quite well. Perhaps the set of PHP scripts isn't quite up to the challenge. I really don't know.

 * Aya 8 July 2005 02:34 (UTC)

 * The point I was trying to make, particularly with the Nikola Tesla Wikibook I mentioned, was that it was approaching the size that editors were culling information from the Wikipedia article to try and make it smaller. The amount of content certainly was not an issue in this case, and indeed was a part of the editorial dispute at Wikipedia.  Yes, there was a NPOV issue, but that was not the primary reason for deleting this Wikibook.

 * The only reason given for deleting this content here on Wikibooks was strictly because it was a fork of Wikipedia content. That seemed as though it was sufficient grounds to kill the entire Wikibook.  I will be the first to admit that it was slightly sparse for a Wikibook, but not significantly so.  For a Wikipedia entry it was more than comprehensive, and indeed a featured article because of how comprehensive it had become.

 * In addition, the argument that you shouldn't post content here on Wikibooks until you have the whole book written is also unjustified. Most Wikibooks start out as stubs that are substantially shorter than even the Wikipedia articles they supposedly are related to.  The whole point of using a Wiki here is to collaboratively build content.  Yes, if you let a Wikibook sit and languish its content will go stale, and there are numerous examples of that here as well.  Based on this standard, more than a 1/3rd of all the Wikibooks should be deleted right now, including some that I occasionally contribute to.

 * As far as keeping a Wikibook up to date with content on Wikipedia, I think that over time (and enough eyeballs) that will happen. This is mainly an issue for how much will Wikibooks as a project mature over time and how many people will be participating here.

 * Again, in this situation, there was hardly any time between when it was posted on Wikibooks and when it was deleted. This certainly was not a Wikibook that languish for months on end waiting for somebody else to add content to it.  Indeed, this whole episode is befitting the life story of Nikola Tesla as somebody who just doesn't get any respect and is considered a fringe lunatic.

 * Wikibooks is not Wikipedia. It is a totally separante project with a different community of users.  That some cross-pollination between Wikipedia and Wikibooks does occur, it is not necessarily completely identical even on the user level.  There is no reason at all to delete Wikipedia content simply because a Wikibook has been created, nor am I advocating that approach.  I'm simply suggesting that it would be reasonable and prudent to permit in some cases a legitimate forking of Wikipedia content to become a more comprehensive Wikibook on a subject.  I am also strongly suggesting that a bias against biographies is unjustified in general, and that as a textbook it has a legitimate use in education.  It can be written in a NPOV fashion, as befits a Wikimedia project, or at least have biases that any historical subject would have.

 * There is also a strange viewpoint that Wikipedia "owns" Wikibooks. While I admit the user community at Wikipedia is larger and the editorial policies at Wikipedia more firmly established, there is no reason why Wikibooks always has to follow their lead.  The goals and aims of Wikibooks is quite a bit different, and even the medium in a sense is different.  Wikibooks is a lot more laid-back, where decisions take weeks or months to totally mull over.  Even the staff talk here is not culled nearly as often as it is for Wikipedia Watercooler discussions.  The #1 problem I see with people used to the rules at Wikipedia that come to Wikibooks is that they tend to write Wikibook modules like they would a Wikipedia article.

 * Finally, when deleting content the rule on the Deletion policy page should be followed: "5. When in doubt, don't delete."  I don't think this policy was followed too closely in this case, and there are many other pages that should have been deleted instead.  There is enough outright vandalism and problems from new users creating unusable stubs to clean up that killing a valid Wikibook like this biography of Nikola Tesla was, IMHO, unjustified.

 * Rob Horning 8 July 2005 10:52 (UTC)

 * It's getting late so I'll maybe respond to all that tomorrow. Basically I think you should request the undeletion of this Wikibook, referring to your explanations here, and hopefully get some notice for your interpretation of forking. You must remember that Wikibooks is very small compared to WP, there are only a few sysops "ruling the roost", so there's likely less likelihood of one spotting and/or correcting another's decision. Master Thief Garrett 8 July 2005 11:46 (UTC)

 * I understand what you're saying, my previous reply was actually a justification for why I think you're right. I don't think anyone's just gonna start a book about Tesla on here, but a Wikipedia article is a good starting point for a book. If people want to cull parts of the article on Wikipedia, then I think it's perfectly justified to fork it to Wikibooks to avoid losing content. I guess it depends if they want to cull substantial parts of it, or just summarize the existing content without losing information. Either way, it seems as if a policy to delete forks of Wikipedia articles placed on Wikibooks will mean that no subject which has an article on Wikipedia could ever have a book on Wikibooks. This is just daft. I think the solution here is to get the book undeleted, and make it VERY clear in the Wikipedia article that the article is considered complete, and all subsequent info should go to the book. Let me know if you file an undelete request. I will support it. Aya 8 July 2005 14:33 (UTC)

 * I'm with you, Aya. As long as there is a clear connection between a wikibook module and the related wikipedia articles/projects -- for instance, with a little sidebar or footnote from the module to suitable articles and vice versa -- the 'forking' condition should not be a problem.  The original issue with forking, as I understand it, is that a wikibook should not be created as a way to have an 'alternate version' of a wikipedia article. Sj 06:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Finally. Someone understands what I'm talking about. To those who didn't "get it", I might suggest reading some texts on the philosophy of language and related meaning. - Aya 12:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Many users here do not understand that the main objective of Wikibooks is to provide instructional material. It doesn't matter whether you have a single page or a book that encompasses 1000 modules - the point is that if it does not intend to teach the reader, then it doesn't belong in Wikibooks. End of story. A lot of Wikipedians do not understand it, nor do Wiktionarians (we have had forks of their content before) and guys on Meta. Also consider that, as of the time I write this, we only have 25 sysops and 2 bureaucrats for just under 9000 users (of which say 1000 is active on en, let's say). The numbers game clearly shows that action takes a long time to accomplish. Also, for Rob, perhaps you should talk to User:Gentgeen, who deleted the modules (Wikibookians never say article as an article is not instructional material...) and see his insights as to why he believed there was a consensus. As for biographies, the VFD consensus seems to indicate biographies are alone not considered to be instructional material, although they can be part of one (I have a textbook on abstract algebra where short paragraph-long bios are sidebars). KelvSYC 04:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh I see. So a guide to cheap Japanese toys like Pokemon is more educational that a biography of a famous scientist (ideal for those studying Physics)? On which planet is this the case? - Aya 12:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * There are actually only 1500 users who have ever made over 10 edits, across all languages. Only 450 made more than 5 edits in June; of those, 200 were editing the English wikibooks. Considering this, 21 admins doesn't seem out of proportion; that's 1 admin for ever 10 people actively editing this month.  Sj 06:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The comparable stats for Wikipedia : 57,000 users with over 10 edits, 19,000 with over 5 edits in May; 9000 of those editing the English Wikipedia. 464 active administrators.  That's twice as many editors per administrator.  Sj

Point taken on the user ratios. Still, you cited 464 active admins in Wikipedia. How many admins are being active admins in Wikibooks (rather, how many are considered to be active)? 10 admins? 5? Just me? Or do you consider all 25 active? KelvSYC 06:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Personally, I don't consider any of them particularly active, at least in the sense of their administrative duties. The speedy deletions are not being speedily deleted, the VfD contains information beyond its scope, and requests for page protections are going un-noticed. There's some talk on Meta at the moment about a new deletion system which would mostly remove the need for admins anyway. The concept of admins is flawed, since wiki is too ephemeral for these systems to work. See also User:Aya/Wikibooks/A critique of Wikibooks. Back to the original point, this request has been added to Votes for undeletion. I would suggest that is the proper place to discuss the book in question. As for this discussion: as long as the policy is as vague and self-contradictory as it currently stands, this debate will go on forever. - Aya 12:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something. I think I'm thinking of the reverse of Wikipedia forking in that I have a concern that there are cases where much effort could be saved by "citing" and linking to Wikipedia articles. Is there a problem with doing so as I see a number of cases here where texts could be improved and expanded quickly and easily by linking to a Wikipedia article.

If this is a topic that is being or has been discussed elsewhere, please let me know. Thanks. erraunt 20:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I think the Wikipedia is a great source to start chapter- and section-stubs. But primarily a book's module and an encyclopedia article serve two different purposes. A book's purpose is to teach one specific thing very well. That means extra background information is covered in previous chapters, and only certain details are given. An encyclopedia article's purpose is to teach many topics. That means the article has a high degree of linkage and little or no emphasis for "what is already known" verus "what isn't already known." I think the two complement each other well. You can browse many subjects on the Wikipedia to determine a specific subject you'd like to know in depth (so you read the book), or you can read a wikibook and then learn about all of the related subjects in the wikipedia.

 * In that light, I think it's more appropriate for books to include "further reading" sections that include Wikipedia links. I don't think it's generally useful to include links as a primary means to writing a book. Instead, what is said at the link should be said in the book itself! A lot of the information can be removed (i.e., that which is not important) and it resolves the questions "if I follow this link, do I need to follow what it links to too?" and "do I need to follow this link, or can I understand the book without it?" by making them moot. It also allows people to print out the books and have them be completely independent. --MShonle 05:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your thoughts on this. Yes, I've been getting that impression: better to move things into a book to make it complete rather than link.

So I'll do that with the things I've been planning to contribute too (if I can ever find the administrator to double check my plans).

As an asside, I'm of two minds, and my thinking is based on pragmatism. There are some subjects, like history, or the book I started on Blacksmithing where moving articles into a Wikibook makes a lot of sense as the information is fairly static and there is good reason for readers to make hard copies on occasion. However, with other topics I could see where using links extensively would make more sense, where the material was subject to frequent revision. Some of that could be taken care of with a "for further information" section. As an example, if I were working on a more technical book, where several of the components might have revision cycles measured in weeks or months, my inclination would be to build modules around a link or links to the pertinent information and in the module give the context and concepts necessary to interpret the more volatile information found at the link.

I'll admit one of the reasons why linking is attractive is the 32kb limit. There are times it seems like one is back in the '80s writing a book on Wordstar and running into the 64kb maximum file size. You have to link anyway, so the inclination is to link to something already there. FWIW. erraunt 18:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Eventually books can and should be broken up into chapters, and even subchapters, if the content gets too long. But using transclusion you can make an uberpage where if you visit it you can see all of the modules as a single page (this is great for printing or for saving as HTML to be imported into OpenOffice). Editing the uberpage would just show what is effectively a list of links to the modules, but instead of being a link the content at the link is "transcluded" in place. An example can be found here. Click on the top "edit this page" tab to see how it was done.

 * As for technical books, I think the primary reason someone would read it is to learn the subject. In those cases, it's much more important to teach the basics and then fundamentals first before discussing the latest fad. The goal should be that after the material is understood, the reader could then go and read the documentation for, say, the latest library changes and understand how to use it. But providing high-quality links is hard too: the content at links can change, and you need to be aware if some concept is no longer discussed, or a more difficult concept is discussed where background would be neccessary. Personally I think a heavily-linked organization is great for some kinds of information, but it is very poor for learning, which instead of heavy-linking more requires a very linear explaination. (Some textbooks are only somewhat linear, in that they include chapters that aren't required, or allow some chapters to be read in any order, but even then the prereqs are spelled out.) Perhaps if there was an equivalent of footnotes it would be better to include links there, because then it's clearer the link is only tangental (and if it wasn't tangental, then it should be part of the book itself, or part of another book that's required reading first). --MShonle 20:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

A proposal to unite the C++ books?
I posted this on the forking policy discussion page but got no replies, so I'll post here. If this has been suggested already then pardon me for proposing it again.

My idea is to have the two books to share a front page asking the user whether or not he/she wants to have a C++ textbook broken down into parts or learn from one single page (or however you want to phrase it, it's all up to you). Two links could then be posted on the page, one to a subsection that has the contents of the textbook now known as "C Plus Plus" and one to a subsection has the contents of the book now known as "C -/- -/-" (making the current textbooks subsections to a single book is key here). This way, development can continue into two separate directions, the book can be found using one search term, the end user has more choice, and most of all, you can heal the fork.

I look forward to hearing your opinions on this. --64.231.220.14 00:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Page naming aside, that solution is basically what we've got already. I would rather see a true merge done. Until someone can give me a single and undisputable convincing reason why you can't have them as one book and make the "all on one page" view using transclusions, I'm afraid I will still stand by my belief that they ought to be completely merged sooner than later, even forcibly if it must come to that. GarrettTalk 01:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

 * There doesn't need to be a separate page to ask the reader if they want a single page or a set of buckets. Simply do what the Computer Science:Data Structures book does and provide the list of chapters, but include a link to an all chapters view too. Take a look at the source to see how the transclusions are done. Why was this forked in the first place? MShonle 03:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

 * From what I've been able to gather (it's discussed in like ten places) the one author wanted to write a single page uber tome and the other wanted shorter descriptions on individual pages. Or something like that. They were just unable to reach an agreement on the organisation of the book so he suddenly forked it off so he could do things his way. GarrettTalk 11:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

 * But isnt the idea of chapter-sized modules the de facto wikibooks standard? I thought the idea of a single-topic "uber-page" was more of a wikipedia concept, and less of a wikibooks concept. Uber-pages take long to load, and are more difficult to navigate. Also, i can't think of a single reason why we would need 2 books on C++. I vote that we begin a process of forced-merge on these articals, working to create a more "wikibooks friendly" chapter format.--Whiteknight 13:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Babel
I think that we should use the improved language templates from Wikipedia:Babel. Currently at Wikibooks three levels are used (from 1-basic to 3-fluent), but including a specific tag for native speakers is a good idea. Also, I've just created the babel templates (see Wikipedia:Babel): If somebody speaks more than four languages feel free to add additional templates. --surueña 15:58, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Template:Babel-1
 * Template:Babel-2
 * Template:Babel-3
 * Template:Babel-4
 * I think it would be a good idea to have a separate page for babel, where we can discuss it, and where we can list the templates that are usable with it. Wikipedia has alot of little babel templates for different languages, but also for different computer languages, web browsers, etc... The babel format could be used to express a very large amount of information about a user, and we should probably have a centralized resource for babel. --Whiteknight 14:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Game manual @ Wikibooks?
I'm currently working on a game manual for the computer simulation Live for Speed. I've set up my own LFS Manual Wiki but I'm thinking about publishing the whole manual at Wikibooks to open it to a wider audience. So my question is, whether a game manual is suited for Wikibooks or not? --Florian Jesse

 * In the past, such manuals have been accepted on Wikibooks, but I get the impression that this may change shortly. Try http://gameinfo.wikicities.com/ - Aya T E C 15:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Out of curiosity.... who is complaining about game books on Wikibooks? While they are not textbooks in a normal sense, shy of creating a whole new Wikimedia project I don't see any other place to put them either.  There is a half-started attempt to create a Wikimedia project for game books, but I don't see it going anywhere at the moment, particularly with the flack that seems to be coming about Wikiversity.  See Proposals for new projects for the few details about the idea.  --Rob Horning 00:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi Rob. I'm not complaining how game books perse, but I think wikicities would be a better location for them. Here's why: (1) the books are very popular and generate a lot of hits, hosting them on WC will generate more revenue for them, which indirectly helps WB. (2) while they are how-tos on computer software, they aren't exactly a guide on how to use Open Office, so the "textbook" interpretation of it is really stretching it. (3) It would probably give WC a good boost in the arm, by increasing the number of attractive and interesting things on it. So, we don't need a whole new wikimedia project for it, WC is fine (which technically isn't part of wikimedia as a understand it, though the software and some of the people are the same). MShonle 00:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm personally very conflicted on the idea of having game manuals on wikibooks. On one hand, a game manual would definately benefit from the "book environment" of wikibooks, as opposed to the "anything goes" attitude at WC. Having items about popular culture here would also increase WB readership and participation. However, Game manuals are certainly not textbooks. They are only instructive to the players of that particular game, and will not teach greater lessons, in the way that other "classic instructional" wikibooks will. --Whiteknight 15:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Please delete moved material (admins).
Hello. The Mishnah texts have been moved to English Wikisource.

Admins - the current Mishnah page has links to exact lists of all related pages. All of these have been copied and all of them can be deleted.

If its OK, the best thing would be to leave the current Mishnah page as a redirect to Wikisource.Dovi 08:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Interwiki redirects are bad. The user clicks what looks like an internal link, yet ends up on another project.  They're also hard to find later. Gentgeen 08:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Not that important. Main thing is that the pages be deleted.Dovi 10:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Note that the canonical way to get pages deleted is to add the  tag to the top of them. See Deletion policy for details. - Aya T E C 18:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Table of Contents
Is it possible to have a section heading which does not appear in the table of contents. If not then I guess I have to maintain the TOC manually?

I ask because in the calculus book there are a lot of examples, and the TOC gets too long.

Thanks Juliusross 15:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

 * There's no way to exclude headers from the TOC as yet, so you'll have to turn it off completely and make your own. Just type  somewhere on the page to remove it. GarrettTalk 00:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

No no no, for god sake just use HTML. Bold the header, and make it header 4 or header 3 " " "< b >" after the header write "< /b >" (by the way, write all of those without the spaces i put in) - it won't appear in the table of contents, and it WILL be bold and larger. Turning the table of contents off makes your books very hard to use. Fresheneesz

Request for comment
I've posted this request here as I haven't located a Wikibooks RfC page. Apologies if I've managed to miss it somehow.

I have for a while now been engaged in a discussion - well, it feels more like an exchange - with Metric1000 as regards the nature of the About gravity, mass, and weight module in the Wikijunior Solar System book. I think the time has been ripe for comments, suggestions and advice from other people, so would appreciate it if people would pay it and our discussion a visit to help resolve what I fear may become an impasse. Thank you.

David Kernow 01:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Missing article
Ok -- I'm new here.

To practice, I put comments into a Travel Guide about Costa Rica. I forgot to sign in before I did that, so I can't check my history. Now I can't find any travel guide on Costa Rica. I'm 61 years old and maybe I'm getting senile but I'm not hallucinating. Maybe this was in a different wiki project, but I can't find it there, either. I checked deletions to see if someone tossed it, but no luck.

Ok you experienced people please tell me what I am missing here. I hope it is not my brain.

Thanks

--Frog One 02:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

 * COuld you possibly have been editing wikitravel? They have one for Costa Rica at wikitravel.org/en/Costa_Rica --Gabe Sechan 16:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

 * No, you are not going senile. There is a group of editors here that feel it is inappropriate for travel guides to be on Wikibooks.  I am of a different opinion on the subject, but that is something that should be debated elsewhere for now.  If you can remember the name of the section or travel guide that was deleted, you can put up a request with the Votes for undeletion section.  The text you wrote is still in the database, but has been removed due to some cleanup.  I can even undelete it if necessary.

 * Please, continue to contribute to Wikibooks, and I'm glad that you have gone the extra effort to try and find out what happened. We are all mere mortals and sometimes get carried away deleting stuff that perhaps should be kept.  There are quite a few pages here on Wikibooks that havn't seen activity in years, and sometimes those get deleted when they don't seem to be "important" or don't seem to have much content.  In order to delete content, you must be an "administrator" here, which really only implies that it is somebody who has made some significant contributions over some time and can be trusted to help out the community.  Otherwise, it is just opinion over what should be kept and what is removed.

 * As I said, we do make mistakes, and I apologize on behalf of this community if you feel this content was deleted by mistake. If you are pretty certain that it was on Wikibooks, I'll try to dig around and see if I can find the content.  --Rob Horning 17:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Book Count for Wikibooks
I have increasingly seen a number of newspaper/magazine/blog articles about Wikibooks that seem to have mistaken the module count for the number of Wikibooks that we have here. Numbers like 12,000 Wikibooks are thrown around when in fact I think we would be hard pressed to count more than about 100 books that are more than stubs. And only a couple dozen books are even close to a "publishable" state.

For the sake of accuracy for media articles of this nature, as well as an indicator of the effectiveness of this project, I would like to see some "metric" that could be developed to count the number of actual Wikibooks we have on this project. Counting the number of books on Main Page is one way to do it, but even that seems to not be accurate. Another issue to consider is how would we be able to automate that calculation? That certainly would be an interesting statistic to keep updated on the main page as well. I'm not proposing MediaWiki software changes here, although that could also be a possibility. --Rob Horning 07:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, if people are using those % finished images, you could have a perl script read the bookshelves, and count the number with each image after them. That would give you a rough count of how many and what stage.  Pseudocode looks like this:

read list of bookshelves from a config file foreach bookshelf read in the bookshelf text from cur table foreach line in text check if there is a link to a wikibooks book if so, check if there is an image link after it. record book name and image in a hash table. For quick counts, add it to some running totals we now have a list of all books and their image percent. Script needs to report this somehow- mail an admin or post it on the front page maybe?

That might be good enough for a rough estimate.--Gabe Sechan 09:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, if people were using the Naming policy, the statistics would show a correct list. Currently, there are over 290 Books larger than 10 Kb and more than one chapter, but it is clear there are false books in the list and other books are not been counted because they don't follow any naming convention, e.g. Linux Guide (I regard this book as broken) or followed the bookshelf convention, e.g. Programming:C Plus Plus and consequently were counted as pages, not books. ManuelGR 01:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

 * True - the stats will find any book which follows the naming convention and if you don't follow: tuff luck. I too would say that the stats are the way to go --Krischik T 15:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Internet Server Directory and Wikibooks of lists
I was thinking of making this a VfD discussion, and it may end up becoming that shortly, but I wanted to put this into a forum that was less threatening to start with. This Wikibook, Internet Server Directory, is a list of links to servers for various resources on the internet. This Wikibook is making me eat my words I wrote on Wikibooks talk:What is Wikibooks but I'm willing to suggest I spoke in haste.

The real question I'm placing before Wikibooks contributors and the community at large is this: Is it appropriate to have a repository of links or a bunch of lists on Wikibooks?

I think a module that has a bunch of links at the end for "further reading" is very useful. For example, Wikijunior Solar System has a bunch of links at the end of the main page for gathering content and to use for bibliographic references. Where I have a problem with this is when the sole purpose of the Wikibook is just to make a collection of links or a list of topics. I know Wikipedia has been kicking those type of articles off of Wikipedia and they have been going elsewhere on the Wikimedia projects, so I guess Wikibooks is the next target to try.

Should What is Wikibooks be changed to stop lists and Wikibooks that are just links to other places? This Wikibook about Internet servers is now forcing the issue and will require us to decide one way or the other. --Rob Horning 23:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

 * There is, of course, a fine line to be drawn here. For instance the book on free software (which looks quite good) is based around a collection of links.  The value of the book, of course, is the organisation.  In the case of the server directory it seems the organisation is sparse but then again the book is quite new.  Just my 2 cents Juliusross 03:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

 * This is not a book, nor does it appear to aspire to become one. Unless the author can explain that its purpose is something other than as a web directory, we will have to delete it. GarrettTalk 13:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Is this legal?
Emulation:All_Mame_Roms is it? 81.218.224.11 14:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm having some strong doubts on this. Discussing how to burn ROMs for games is not strictly illegal, nor is talking about bit torrent archives. Where it crosses the line is to provide a list of commercial software that is under propritary licenses and suggesting that you can copy that software freely as well. That is where this turns into advocacy that commits a crime that can land you in prison. I would not personally want to be the "author" of this Wikibook, nor touch it so far as that goes as it could result in legal liability, particularly if it can be proven that somebody followed these steps.

I'm moving this to a VfD discussion right now. --Rob Horning 16:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

How do I ...?
How do I put an inset or a box with show/hide options onto a new page?

Tom Croke Frog One 21:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

 * You mean you want to create something that can be opened and closed like the Table of Contents? That's Javascript-powered so it might not be possible to make your own, but I can look into it if you like. GarrettTalk 00:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

licking elbows
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Useless_Information

"It is impossible to lick your elbow." i can! and i know someone else that also can.

Elad

Download books as PDF
Hi there.

I (that's Manuel Strehl from the German WB) proposed in the German WB a possibility for allowing people to download complete books in PDF format and wanted it to come up to discussion in a broader scope.

Proposal
Use XSL-FO and Apache's Open Source FOP to produce PDFs out of Wikibook's raw data. Provide a link for visitors to allow them to download the complete book they're currently reading.

Following procedure:
 * Read the MySQL data of the current page, add the data of all pages of the same book.
 * parse it into a XSL-FO file (this isn't very different from parsing into XHTML) in the order they appear online
 * create a PDF out of the XSL-FO using Apache's FOP
 * this is achievable by clicking on a link provided on each page of the current book.

Disadvantages:
 * one-time effort to create the PHP file and a standard XSL-FO file
 * server strain

Advantages:
 * create the PDF automatically out of the raw MySQL data
 * complete wikibooks for download

If you want to contact me, please visit my German Wikipedia discussion page

--Manuel, 22:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Looks like a good idea. Certainly something like it needs to be done.  How do you get the pages in the right order?  Some of the books are not structured as linear narratives and many (most?) have three or more hierarchical levels of sections and sub-sections.  In the Programming:Visual Basic Classic book I have tried to add a navigation template to each page which links them all in printed page order but it is only a local convention.  I would discuss this on your German talk page but my German is next to non-existent so it would be a rather painful process for all concerned. --kwhitefoot 12:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Herewith thou get thy special permission to write english text to my german discussion page ;-) To the problems: Actually I have no idea. There are some books in linear order that would be easily transformed. Others won't, that's true. There could be a user interface to allow one to sort them himself, but this is no really good solution. Actually, this is one of the points that must be discussed.

Other Question: Is there any other page where a similar discussion is open? At the German WB I just initialized a page for this purpose, for the discussion was led on three different pages. --Manuel, 20:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

 * We have a Textbook planning page, but few users are now there.

 * Apparently FOP uses Java, but I have no idea whether this server runs Java. Wikibooks might be Linux-Apache-MySQL-PHP, but I am not sure. Any placement of Java on any non-x86 Linux or BSD machine is difficult; I know not what this server is.

 * Assuming server can run FOP, a problem is the determination of whether a module belongs to a book. For example, Guide to UNIX links to several parts of itself, but it also has several links to other Wikibooks. A solution is to always use slash convention (Guide to UNIX/Introduction) or colon convention (de:Linux-Kompendium) as recommended in the proposed naming policy, but many books (Linux Guide) use neither. Also, what is the order of the chapters? The Guide to UNIX page suggests that Guide to UNIX/Explanations is before Guide to UNIX/Commands, but the software might follow the Commands link in the first paragraph, or the one in the introduction, and put Commands early instead of the back of the book! --Kernigh 22:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


text:
Talk:The Computer Revolution: A Timeline/The Hardware Revolution

spin off a Hardware revolution:
 * the history of CPU chipmakers; the death of alternatives to x86 (death of SPARC, death of ARM, death of AlphaPC)
 * Microsoft's vicious predatory practices and criminal activities
 * history of graphics, the explosion of 3D graphics cards and the demise of SGI (predicted by the President of SGI if my source is correct)
 * IDE vs SCSI (anyone else remember how Scuzzy used to be only 30% more expensive instead of 300% more expensive but provided MUCH improved performance?), EIDE, ATA-66 or whatever it's called now, Firewire vs USB, USB 2.0
 * optical mice, early optical mice with the shiny mats
 * wheelrats
 * trackballs - deadrats
 * tablets and styluses
 * printers - daisywheel, dotmatrix, laser, bubblejet
 * photo printers
 * LCD screens
 * video projectors
 * electronic paper
 * voice recognition (Dragon NaturallySpeaking)
 * Dvorak keymap
 * ergonomics considerations first raised
 * Kinesys keyboard (as an example of how things COULD be but aren't)
 * energy saving features
 * popular UPS
 * rise and death of the CD-ROM
 * RAID
 * wireless networking
 * iMacs and tripped out cases
 * the 1984 commercial!
 * ubiquitous cheap mics and cameras
 * cheap high quality sound
 * CCDs and digital cameras
 * embedded CPUs in cars, fridges and washing machines
 * cell phones and PDAs
 * mp3 players

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Talk:Online OsiriX Documentation/OsiriX Specifications

Image fusion for PET/CT
I am working on implementing image fusion for PET-CT images. I am wondering if OsiriX uses ITK for fusing PET and CT images. It would be nice to know some details. Thanks a lot

Cocoa is not open source
I see Cocoa listed as an open source component, but Cocoa is not open source.


text:
User talk:72.36.234.42

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikibooks. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

title: User talk:72.36.234.42


text:
User talk:128.197.50.80

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikibooks. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

title: User talk:128.197.50.80


text:
User talk:209.7.38.8

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikibooks.

title: User talk:209.7.38.8


text:
User talk:217.22.180.188

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikibooks. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

title: User talk:217.22.180.188


text:
User talk:203.40.199.93

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikibooks. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

title: User talk:203.40.199.93


text: User talk:65.45.166.57

title: User talk:65.45.166.57


text:
Talk:AQA Information and Communication Technology/ICT1/10.1 Knowledge, Information and Data

Data is a quantiative representation of a characterestic. Say for example if we wish to measure the sizes of files than we understand that we have to chosee a scalar and a unit. The scalar and unit measures of size are 19000 bytes, 20000 bytes. It could also be 1000LOC, 2000LOC. They are both measures but in context they are different. If I want to know the file size for storage purposes, then I must know the size in bytes. If however I want to review a document then i must know the number of standard lines. Fortunately we do have some simple calculations Size of an Empty word document 19456 bytes. Size of a document with one line of standard text :19456 b Size of a document with 4 std lines of text      : 19456 b Size of a document with 5 std lines of text       : 19968 b So if we go on experimenting this way we understand that file size changes by 512 bytes. If we investigate further we will find that file size is a multiple of 512 bytes. The point I am trying to make here is that for data to be relevant its absoluteness and relativeness are both important.


text:
User:Juliusross/sandbox

 Parts of this page have been taken from Wikipedia: the free encyclopedia.

title: User:Juliusross/sandbox


text:
Radiation Oncology/Bile duct/Malignant Biliary Obstruction

Surgery

 * Hiroshima Japan PMID 12827480 -- Analysis of longterm survivors with expandable metallic stent inserted for malignant biliary stenosis. (2003 Kawamoto H, J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2003;10(1):95-100.)
 * Retrospective. 111 patients treated with self-expandable metallic stents
 * 24 patients (22%) survived >1 year. Dx bile duct CA or pancreatic CA. Complication duodenal obstruction
 * Conclusion : "Many patients with bile duct carcinoma and pancreas carcinoma survived for more than 1 year and adjuvant therapy should be performed to improve the survival of those patients."

 * Copenhagen Denmark PMID 2475392 -- Randomised trial of endoscopic endoprosthesis versus operative bypass in malignant obstructive jaundice. (1989 Andersen JR, Gut. 1989 Aug;30(8):1132-5.)
 * Randomized. 50 patients, 25 endoprosthesis vs. 25 bypass surgery
 * No difference in survival
 * Conclusion : "We conclude, that palliation of obstructive jaundice in malignant bile duct obstruction with endoscopically introduced endoprosthesis is as effective as operative bypass."

 * PMID 2579449 -- Treatment of proximal biliary tract carcinoma: an overview of techniques and results. (1985 Ottow RT, Surgery. 1985 Mar;97(3):251-62.)
 * Review of surgical palliative options (surgical bypass, percutaneous drainage, endoscopic stent)
 * 15 series. Mean/median survival: 2-16 months. Average 8.6 months

External Beam

 * Tsukuba Japan PMID 11837580 -- External radiotherapy for decompression of cholangiocellular carcinoma with obstructive jaundice: report of a case. (2001 Nakayama H, Radiat Med. 2001 Nov-Dec;19(6):297-301.
 * Case report of EBRT (60 Gy @ 2Gy/fx, delivered in 4F) use for obstructive jaundice

 * Asahi Japan PMID 7590576 -- External radiotherapy for biliary decompression of hilar cholangiocarcinoma. (1995 Ohnishi H, Hepatogastroenterology. 1995 Jul;42(3):265-8.)
 * Retrospective. 15 patients. EBRT 50-60 Gy with parallel opposing fields
 * Toxicity: 3 patients d/c'd Rx for acute toxicity
 * 1-year OS; 50%
 * Conclusion : "This study suggests that external radiation therapy is an effective treatment for biliary decompression in patients with unresectable hilar cholangiocarcinoma."

Brachytherapy
Randomized
 * Brno, Czech Republic (1994-?) -- stent +/- intraluminal brachytherapy
 * Randomized. 42 patients, obstruction, palliative intent. Arm 1) percutaneous self-expandable stent vs. Arm 2) stent + intraluminal BT Ir-192, mean 30 Gy over 4-5 days. Some also EBRT mean 50 Gy
 * 2007 PMID 17344008 -- "Brachytherapy and percutaneous stenting in the treatment of cholangiocarcinoma: a prospective randomised study." (Valek V, Eur J Radiol. 2007 May;62(2):175-9. Epub 2007 Mar 6.)
 * Outcome: Mean OS 10 months vs. 13 months (SS). Stent patency 8 months vs. 12 months
 * Conclusion: Addition of RT could extend survival of patients with cholangiocarcinoma obstruction

Retrospective
 * Turkey; 2005 PMID 15940068 -- "Intraluminal brachytherapy with metallic stenting in the palliative treatment of malignant obstruction of the bile duct." (Kocak Z, Radiat Med. 2005 May;23(3):200-7.)
 * Retrospective. 8 patients, obstruction jaundice, treated with ILBT (10 Gy x1) followed by metallic stent
 * 6/8 satisfactory control of jaundice; pain relief in 4/5; pruritis relief in 6/7
 * Stent patency: median 5 months (4-14 months)
 * Conclusion: HDR feasible, acceptable toxicity

 * Shanghai; 2004 (2001-2002) PMID 15526374 -- "HDR-192Ir intraluminal brachytherapy in treatment of malignant obstructive jaundice." (Chen Y, World J Gastroenterol. 2004 Dec 1;10(23):3506-10.)
 * Prospective. 34 patients post stent placement, 14 with ILRT and 20 control. Some patients of both groups received TACE
 * Mean stent patency: ILRT 12.6 months vs. control 8.3 months (P<0.05).
 * Mean survival: ILRT 9.4 months vs. control 6.0 months (p=NS). Minimal RT morbidity.
 * Conclusion: HDR safe; it may prolong stent patency and survival

 * Shanghai China PMID 15566681 -- [Clinical value of brachytherapy of malignant biliary obstruction after implanting expandable metallic biliary endoprothesis (EMBE)] - [Article in Chinese] (2004 Zhang FJ, Ai Zheng. 2004 Nov;23(11 Suppl):1567-71.)
 * Prospective randomized. 49 patients with malignant biliary obstruction (17 HCC, 8 liver met, 18 CCA, 6 pancreatic CA) randomized to 1) EMBE, 2) EMBE + BT, 3) EMBE + RFA, 4) EMBE + catheter chemo
 * Reobstruction rate: 46% vs. 25% vs. 22% vs. 27% (p<0.01)
 * 1-year survival: 15% vs. 62% vs. 67% vs. 45% (p<0.01)
 * Conclusion : "EMBE combined with brachytherapy is more effective methods than EMBE in treatment of malignant biliary obstruction."

 * Chiba Japan PMID 15239222 -- Relief of jaundice by external beam radiotherapy and intraluminal brachytherapy in patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: results without stenting. (2004 Ishii H, Hepatogastroenterology. 2004 Jul-Aug;51(58):954-7.)
 * Prospective. 25 patients treated with EBRT (30 or 50 Gy) with BT (24-40 Gy). No stents
 * Toxicity: cholangitis 10 patients (40%), gastroduodenal ulcer 2 (8%)
 * 19 patients (76%) full patency. Tube-free survival median 76 days (7-468). Tube-free to OS ratio median 27% (2-80%). Median survival 9.3 months
 * Conclusion : "Although there were limitations to the long-term relief of jaundice by this combined radiotherapy alone, tube-free status was achieved in some patients without stenting."

 * Yokohama Japan PMID 11455465 -- Adjuvant therapies using biliary stenting for malignant biliary obstruction. (2001 Miura Y, J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2001;8(2):113-7.)
 * Retrospective. 29 patients (hilar 8, GB 11, pancreatic 10), with hyperthermia/RT, CT, or hyperthermia/RT+CT
 * No significant difference in stent patency based on disease
 * No impact of hyperthermia
 * Stent patency: chemoradiation 182 days vs. no adjuvant 68 days (p=0.02)
 * Median survival: chemoradiation 261 days vs. no adjuvant 109 days (p=0.03)
 * Conclusion : "Adjuvant therapies such as radiotherapy and systemic chemotherapy, in combination with stent insertion, resulted in an increase in the patency period of expandable metallic stents and in increased patient survival time."

 * Jefferson PMID 8756921 -- Malignant biliary duct obstruction: long-term experience with Gianturco stents and combined-modality radiation therapy. (1996 Eschelman DJ, Radiology. 1996 Sep;200(3):717-24.)
 * Retrospective. 22 patients (11 CCA, 11 mets) treated with PCBD and BT 25 Gy, followed by stent. 11 patients also EBRT, 13 patients also CT
 * Mean survival: CCA 22.6 months, mets 5.3 months
 * Conclusion : "Radiation therapy including intraluminal Ir-192 appears to extend stent patency and survival in patients with inoperable cholangiocarcinoma treated with Gianturco metal stents compared with patients with other extrahepatic bile duct malignant diseases and patients treated without combined-modality therapy in other studies."

 * Milan Italy 1990-93 PMID 7569076 -- [Transcutaneous radiotherapy combined with low dose intraluminal brachytherapy in the treatment of non-operable neoplastic stenoses of the bile ducts] -    [Article in Italian] (1995 Tana S, Radiol Med (Torino). 1995 Jul-Aug;90(1-2):124-8.)
 * Retrospective. 11 patients (8 CCA, 3 mets) treated with EBRT (40-60 Gy) and BT (6-25 Gy LDR)
 * Drainage: 5 CR, 3 PR, 3 NR; Overall survival: 15 months

 * New York PMID 2842216 -- Treatment of malignant biliary obstruction by endoscopic implantation of iridium 192 using a new double lumen endoprosthesis. (1988 Siegel JH, Gastrointest Endosc. 1988 Jul-Aug;34(4):301-6.)
 * 15 patients (6 CCA, 4 pancreas, 4 ampulla) treated with BT (50 Gy over 48 hrs). No complications.
 * Mean survival 7 months (0 - 27 months)
 * Conclusion : "Because of proven efficacy of endoprostheses, this new technique should be considered when intraluminal irradiation is indicated."

 * Japan PMID 3952640 -- [Intracavitary high dose rate afterloading irradiation of inoperable malignant bile duct obstruction] - [Article in German] (1986 Itami J, Strahlenther Onkol. 1986 Feb;162(2):105-10.)
 * Case report of 7 patients

 * MSKCC PMID 3942986 -- Intraluminal radiation therapy in the management of malignant biliary obstruction. (1986 Molt P, Cancer. 1986 Feb 1;57(3):536-44.)
 * 15 patients, 8 primary disease (EHBD, GB, pancreas) and 7 metastatic disease. 11 patients EBRT 30 Gy + BT, 4 patients BT alone
 * Median survival 4.5 months. No significant treatment toxicity
 * Conclusion : "Analysis of this and other reports indicate the need for prospective controlled trials of the role of this regimen in the management of malignant biliary obstruction before wider application can be recommended."

 * Stanford 1978-83 2579052 -- Malignant obstructive jaundice: treatment with external-beam and intracavitary radiotherapy. (1985 Johnson DW, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1985 Feb;11(2):411-6.)
 * Retrospective. 11 patients treated with external drainage followed by EBRT 40-550 Gy + BT 31-106 Gy
 * Complications: 27% UGIB
 * Mean survival: 16.1 months from surgery, 8.3 months from RT (7-30 months)
 * Conclusion : "High-dose external-beam therapy followed by high-dose Ir192 intracavitary boost is well tolerated and provides significant palliation."

 * King's College Hospital PMID 6315122 -- Treatment of hilar carcinoma by bile drainage combined with internal radiotherapy using 192iridium wire. (1983 Fletcher MS, Br J Surg. 1983 Dec;70(12):733-5.)
 * Retrospective. 19 patients (1 GB), treated with bile drainage + BT
 * Median survival 11 months, 9 patients survival >12 months
 * Conclusion : "The addition of internal radiotherapy may be beneficial to patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma causing biliary obstruction in whom bile drainage can be established.

 * PMID 7059949 -- A new method for treating carcinomatous biliary obstruction with intracatheter radium. (1982 Conroy RM, Cancer. 1982 Apr 1;49(7):1321-7.)
 * Case report 6 patients. Radium needles placed in biliary drainage catheter x3 days


text:
Cookbook talk:Pad Thai

I've seen a lot of simplified versions of pad thai out there. If one wanted to make this more authentic, adding tamirind paste and fish sauce in place of ketchup and vinigar would be a good idea. I think that Tamarind and fish sauce are the key to making pad thai taste like Pad Thai

lots of ideas for changes
this is a great receipe, but there are quite a few weird things in it. i thought i'd list them first to see if anyone has some suggestions before just changing things around.

-sober-
 * 1) 3/4 cup of oil? -- that's gross. 3-4 Tbs. seems plenty.
 * 2) what is "2 Tbs. chopped pepper"? (A: dried, flaked, chopped red pepper. the hot stuff.)
 * 3) any ideas for "assorted vegetables"? (i put in grated carrot, and white onion.)
 * 4) do we need to say "if no one is allergic" in the last step? it's sort of silly -- why not include that in front of all the incredients. if no one is allergic to eggs... if no one is allergic to fish... ;)
 * 5) why is the amount 1/4 cup and 1Tbs for the vinegar and sugar? 1/4 cup is enough, no?
 * 6) anyone have thoughts on the more 'authentic' variations with tamarind?

bold edits
so, i made most of these bold edits. some comments/questions:

 * Anyone know the best way to add an image from wikipedia? (there is a great one on the article for pad thai.)
 * ✅ --MarkTraceur (discuss • contribs) 20:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * the categories at the bottom of the receipe are sort of screwed up. Can each recipe only be in one category?
 * No, you can have multiple categories, it's just best to stick to one or two. --MarkTraceur (discuss • contribs) 20:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * is Pad Thai a "Pasta recipe"? I don't think it belongs with fettacini alfredo and lasagna.
 * Removed it. ✅ --MarkTraceur (discuss • contribs) 20:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

-sober-

 * By the way, please sign your comments next time! :) --MarkTraceur (discuss • contribs) 20:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

title: Cookbook talk:Pad Thai


text:
Cookbook:Adobo Chicken (Philippine)

| Cuisine of the Philippines

Adobo chicken is the most indigenous in the Philippines. It has evolved over the centuries to prepare foods that won't spoil easily in a tropical climate. The vinegar gives it a tangy taste and acts as a preservative. Each region has its own version, but pork and/or chicken are most commonly used. The steps below are the traditional way of making adobo. The soy sauce gives it a savoury taste.

Ingredients

 * 6–8 chicken pieces, preferably legs and wings
 * ⅓ cup (80 ml) vinegar made from coconut juice (as a variant, try balsamic vinegar)
 * ¼ cup (60 ml) soy sauce
 * 4 cloves of garlic, crushed
 * 1–2 bay leaves
 * ½ tsp (2.5 ml) freshly cracked (not ground) black peppercorns

Preparation

 * 1) Put chicken, garlic, peppercorn, soy sauce and vinegar in a pan and bring to a boil.
 * 2) When chicken is cooked, put chicken pieces in a colander and drain. Put aside the pot with soy sauce and vinegar.
 * 3) When chicken pieces are no longer draining, fry them in hot oil at medium heat. Have a cover ready for splatters.
 * 4) Sear the chicken, browning on all sides.
 * 5) Put chicken pieces back in the pot with soy sauce and vinegar and bring to simmer. Add 1–2 pieces of bay leaf.
 * 6) Cook until the sauce has largely evaporated; some take this to an extreme and cook until the sauce has thickened and adhered to the chicken, which begins to make a popping noise due to the high, direct heat.
 * 7) Serve over hot steamed rice. May be eaten with tomato slices in fish sauce, tapsilog, soy sauce, vinegar, hotdog, etc.

title: Cookbook:Adobo Chicken (Philippine)


text:
Radiation Oncology/ASTRO

ASTRO Annual Meetings

 * ASTRO Virtual Posters
 * ASTRO Virtual Meetings

 * 2019: 61st Annual Meeting (Chicago, IL)
 * 2018: 60th Annual Meeting (San Antonio, TX)
 * 2017: 59th Annual Meeting (San Diego, CA)
 * 2016: 58th Annual Meeting (Boston, MA)
 * 2015: 57th Annual Meeting (San Antonio, TX)
 * 2014: 56th Annual Meeting (San Francisco, CA)
 * 2013: 55th Annual Meeting (Atlanta, GA)
 * 2012: 54th Annual Meeting (Boston, MA)
 * 2011: 53rd Annual Meeting (Miami, FL)

 * 2010: 52nd Annual Meeting (San Diego, CA)
 * Virtual Posters

 * 2009: 51st Annual Meeting (Chicago, IL)
 * Virtual Posters
 * IJRBOP Proceedings Supplement
 * 2008: 50th Annual meeting (Boston, MA)
 * Virtual Posters

 * 2007: 49th Annual Meeting (Los Angeles, CA)
 * Virtual Posters

 * 2006: 48th Annual Meeting (Philadelphia, PA) (Nov 5-9)
 * Virtual Posters
 * Webcast
 * Abstracts (requires free registration)

 * 2005: 47th Annual Meeting (Denver, CO)
 * Virtual Posters
 * Webcast

 * 2004: 46th Annual Meeting (Atlanta, GA)
 * Webcast

 * 2003: 45th Annual Meeting (Salt Lake City, UT)
 * Webcast
 * Abstracts - Abstracts 2001-2182. Full abstracts NOT included; author and title only.
 * Press releases

 * 2002: 44th Annual Meeting (New Orleans, LA) (Webpage)
 * Webcast
 * Abstracts - Plenary session, p.26; includes scientific sessions, poster sessions, and poster presentations. Full abstracts NOT included; author and title only.
 * Press releases

No online information for meetings prior to 2002

ASTRO Refresher Courses

 * 2006: Miami, FL (March 24-26)
 * Syllabus

ASTRO Educational Sessions
ASTRO School of Radiation Oncology (Website)
 * 2005 Spring Refresher Program
 * Multidisciplinary Breast Cancer Management Series
 * ASTRO's 2003-2004 Radiobiology Series

2005
 * 2005 IMRT Practicum
 * 2005 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium

2004
 * 2004 IMRT Practicum
 * 2004 Systemic Targeted Radionuclide Therapy (STaRT)

2002
 * IMRT (2002) (Requires ASTRO login)
 * Coronary Artery Radiotherapy (2002)

title: Radiation Oncology/ASTRO


text:
Bicycles/Equipment and Accessories

Parts

 * Frames
 * Wheels
 * Hubs
 * Spokes
 * Rims
 * Brakes
 * Drive chain
 * Cranksets (including chainrings and cranks, but not bottom brackets)
 * Bicycles/Equipment and Accessories/Bottom Brackets
 * Derailleurs
 * Chains
 * Pedals

Accessories
 Fenders Lights Locks Clothing  Winter riding gear  Touring Equipment
Bags

Racks

Panniers

title: Bicycles/Equipment and Accessories


text:
Talk:Wikijunior Solar System/Zodiacal symbols

For a science book we should just mention that people have created zodiac systems. Note that there just about every culture has their own zodiac system. --Gbleem 17:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC) Separate book: Kids and the zodiac. --Gbleem 17:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Radiation Oncology/Prostate

Organization of content
I think the sections External Beam RT and Localized Prostate Cancer have a lot of overlap and are hard to discriminate. Both sections have papers about outcomes after EBRT and both have a section called "Outcome prediction." I'm confused about how to separate the sections and welcome any suggestions that anyone may have. Once we get it sorted out, we should put a description for each of these pages (the others are pretty self-explanatory) on Radiation Oncology/Prostate. — Brim 17:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC) Okay, that sounds good. I will try to move some of the stuff over as well. — Brim 01:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, initially we had most of the information in the EBRT page. But, I think to be consistent with other organs, as well as from clinical utility, we created the Localized PCA/Node Positive/Metastatic disease pages. I was in the process of moving the relevant info from the EBRT page, when I got sidetracked with my current research project in cholangio. I think it's probably more relevant to have Localized PCA page, which then contains sections on surgery, EBRT, and BT (and similarly for the other disease stages). The EBRT page could hold technique specific information relevant to all disease stages. I should be finished with my cholangio/liver work over the next couple of weeks; I can return to prostate and try to organize it some more then. Tdvorak 05:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Radiation Oncology/Prostate


text:
Radiation Oncology/Adaptive radiotherapy

Adaptive radiotherapy includes gating, tumor tracking, etc. RT treatment planning has traditionally been a static process - whereby a plan is generated based on a single snapshot of the patient's anatomy and delivered over a number of weeks. However, IGRT approaches will most likely transform this static process into a dynamic one, whereby plans are altered throughout the treatment course or perhaps even throughout the treatment fraction.

4-D RT

 * PMID 15817360, 2005 — "Four-dimensional image-based treatment planning: Target volume segmentation and dose calculation in the presence of respiratory motion." Rietzel E et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005 Apr 1;61(5):1535-50.


text:
Radiation Oncology/Protons

Proton Therapy

Clinical Chapters

 * General CNS
 * Acoustic neuroma
 * Pituitary adenoma
 * Craniopharyngioma
 * Medulloblastoma
 * Germinoma
 * Pediatric low grade glioma
 * Anaplastic glioma
 * Glioblastoma
 * Retinoblastoma
 * Head & Neck
 * Breast
 * Esophagus
 * Cholangiocarcinoma
 * Hepatocellular carcinoma
 * NSCLC
 * Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma
 * Pancreas
 * Prostate
 * Cervix
 * Chordoma
 * Cancer pain

Facilities and Vendors

 * ''Please see the facilities and vendors page

General Information

 * Michigan; 2011 -- ASCO Post -- "We Can Conduct Clinical Trials of Protons" (Lawrence TS, ASCO Post, September 15, 2011, Volume 2, Issue 14)
 * Conclusion: "In my opinion, proton facilities should not be permitted to continue to produce results that cannot be distinguished—except by the far greater price—from those produced by IMRT photons. Our patients deserve true improvements in outcome, rather than the hype and added expense that currently dominates the field."
 * Independent Journalist; 2010 PMID 20339139 -- "The proton beam debate: are facilities outstripping the evidence?" (Goozner M, J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010 Apr 7;102(7):450-3. Epub 2010 Mar 25.)
 * Comment
 * Tufts; 2009 PMID 19755348 -- "Systematic Review: Charged-Particle Radiation Therapy for Cancer." (Terasawa T, Ann Intern Med. 2009 Sep 14. [Epub ahead of print])
 * Literature review. 243 articles, 185 single-institution retrospective, 9 nonrandomized trials, 8 randomized trials
 * Outcome: No statistically significant or important difference in overall, cancer-specific survival or total serious adverse events
 * Conclusion: Evidence is needed
 * Royal Marsden
 * 2009 PMID 19672149 -- "Current clinical evidence for proton therapy." (Brada M, Cancer J. 2009 Jul-Aug;15(4):319-24.)
 * Updated review
 * 2007 PMID 17350945 -- "Proton therapy in clinical practice: current clinical evidence." (Brada M, J Clin Oncol. 2007 Mar 10;25(8):965-70.)
 * Review
 * Columbia; 2009 PMID 19185838 -- "Protons for radiotherapy: a 1946 proposal." (Hall E, Lancet Oncol. 2009 Feb;10(2):196.)
 * Historical perspective
 * Louisville; 2009 PMID 19111269 -- "Randomized prospective trials of innovative radiotherapy technology are necessary." (Halperin EC, J Am Coll Radiol. 2009 Jan;6(1):33-7.)
 * Most important clinical problem facing radiation oncology is whether randomized prospective trials are necessary to assess innovative technologies. It is possible to identify innovations that should be required to meet the standard of proof of a benefit in a randomized prospective clinical trial before being introduced into widespread clinical practice.
 * Yale; 2008 PMID 19028271 -- "Should proton-beam therapy be widely adopted?" (Schulz RJ, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Dec 1;72(5):1307-9; discussion 1309–10.)
 * Editorial (Schulz RJ): Clinical outcomes of PT generally indistinguishable from photons. Issues of capital and operating costs, and cost-effectiveness should be revisited
 * Response (Suit H): Significantly less integral dose. Answers to comparative Phase III requests are readily answerable by treatment plan comparisons. Need to work on questions that are of unarguable importance, such as hypofractionation, organ tolerance, concurrent chemotherapy protocols, etc.
 * 21st Century Oncology; 2008 PMID 18954812 -- "A changing paradigm in the study and adoption of emerging health care technologies: coverage with evidence development." (Wallner PE, J Am Coll Radiol. 2008 Nov;5(11):1125-9.)
 * Evaluation of drivers for health care. Increased interest to generate more appropriate and usefule "evidence" of benefit.
 * Recommendation that "coverage with evidence development" could be used for proton therapy
 * Harvard; 2008 PMID 18262083 -- "Magical protons?" (Goitein M, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Mar 1;70(3):654-6.)
 * Editorial. Few notes of caution about dangers of proton therapy
 * Comment (Withers HR, UCLA) PMID 18954723
 * Response (Goitein M, Harvard) PMID 20159368
 * Harvard; 2008 PMID 18237800 -- "Should positive phase III clinical trial data be required before proton beam therapy is more widely adopted? No." (Suit H, Radiother Oncol. 2008 Feb;86(2):148-53. Epub 2008 Jan 30.)
 * Distribution of biological dose superior for proton therapy in most situations. There is no medical rationale for clinical trials of protons, since they deliver lower biological dose to non-target tissues
 * Conclusion: Talent, effort and funds for phase III trials should be better spent to investigate real problems
 * Harvard/MD Anderson; 2008 PMID 18182658 -- "Should randomized clinical trials be required for proton radiotherapy?" (Goitein M and Cox JD, J Clin Oncol. 2008 Jan 10;26(2):175-6.)
 * Editorial. Argument for protons: 1 better dose-distribution due to physical depth dose characteristics, 2) virtually no difference in tissue response per unit dose, 3) radiation delivered to normal tissues damages them. Argument against protons: 1) no randomized evidence. Editorial conclusion: Burden of proof on conventional x-ray therapy to justify that cost savings of photons are not accompanied by undesirable additional morbidity
 * Patient comment (PMID 18443348): RCT in this instance do not meet equipoise; there will be lawsuits for offering inferior treatment
 * Comment (Glatstein E, University of Pennsylvania) PMID 18443345: RCT should be done because there is an uncertainty about clinical benefits of protons
 * Comment (Tepper JE, University of North Carolina) PMID 18443346: Need some evidence of benefit, and expensive technology should have higher standards than technology with minimal cost. At minimum, need high quality Phase II trials, which we don't have yet
 * Comment (Lewis BE, UNDMJ) PMID 18443346: Financial concerns cloud the judgment of physician and hospital, both of whom stand to benefit from increased use of new expensive technologies. We must have the courage to generate high quality, disinterested, and unbiased data
 * Comment (Macbeth FR, NCC Cardiff) PMID 18443346: Only evidence for superiority is base of skull cordomas and ocular tumors, but both are retrospective, and not proven. Payors (patient, insurance, HMO, taxpayers) deserve to know how much better the treatment is, given the significant expense
 * Comment (Brada M, Royal Marsden) PMID 18443346: Information thus far originates from proponents of protons, with frequent commercial interest in the new equipment. Having some evidence of clinical benefit is not too much to ask
 * Rebuttal (Goitein & Cox,) PMID 18443346: We need to move beyond fixation on RCT and get on with the business of designing, funding, and conducting large-scale clinical studies using ethically defensible methodologies that would have the broad acceptance of our patients
 * Uppsala; 2007 PMID 17499373 -- "Proton beam therapy - do we need the randomised trials and can we do them?" (Glimelius B, Radiother Oncol. 2007 May;83(2):105-9. Epub 2007 May 11.)
 * Editorial for issue containing Lodge and Olsen studies below
 * Cochrane Review; 2007 PMID 17502116 -- "A systematic literature review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of hadron therapy in cancer." (Lodge M, Radiother Oncol. 2007 May;83(2):110-22. Epub 2007 May 14.)
 * Conclusion: Existing data do not suggest that rapid expansion of hadron therapy is appropriate
 * Oslo; 2007 PMID 17499374 -- "Proton therapy - a systematic review of clinical effectiveness." (Olsen DR, Radiother Oncol. 2007 May;83(2):123-32. Epub 2007 May 11.)
 * Review: 4 RCTs, 5 comparative studies, 44 cases series
 * Conclusion: Only low-level evidence available to support proton use
 * NCI; 2006 PMID 17148768 -- "Research groups promoting proton therapy "lite"." (Hede K, J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006 Dec 6;98(23):1682-4.)
 * News brief
 * Heidelberg; 2006 PMID 17010908 -- "Radiation therapy with charged particles." (Schulz-Ertner D, Semin Radiat Oncol. 2006 Oct;16(4):249-59.)
 * Review of protons experience, then focus on carbon ions
 * Duke; 2006 PMID 16887485 -- "Particle therapy and treatment of cancer." (Halperin EC, Lancet Oncol. 2006 Aug;7(8):676-85.)
 * Historical perspective
 * MGH/PSI; 2005 PMID 16332585 -- "Swedish protons." (Goitein M, Acta Oncol. 2005;44(8):793-7.)
 * Editorial for an issue of Acta Oncologica dedicated to protons
 * CNAO Italy; 2004 PMID 15971303 -- "Medical aspects of the National Center For Oncological Hadrontherapy (CNAO-Centro Nazionale Adroterapia Oncologica) in Italy." (Krengli M, Radiother Oncol. 2004 Dec;73 Suppl 2:S21-3.)
 * Review of Centro Nazionale Adroterapia Oncologica (CNAO) rationale
 * Milan
 * 2004 PMID 15276173 -- "Clinical and research validity of hadrontherapy with ion beams." (Orecchia R, Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2004 Aug;51(2):81-90.)
 * Review of ion therapy literature
 * 1998 PMID 9713294 -- "Particle beam therapy (hadrontherapy): basis for interest and clinical experience." (Orecchia R, Eur J Cancer. 1998 Mar;34(4):459-68.)
 * Review of indications for hadrontherapy
 * Harvard; 1992 PMID 1311773 -- "Proton beams in radiation therapy." (Suit H, J Natl Cancer Inst. 1992 Feb 5;84(3):155-64.)
 * Overview of proton therapy. 11,763 patients treated. 46% small intracranial lesions, 32% tumors of eye.
 * Formation of PROG to evaluate efficacy of proton therapy

Economic Issues

 * Please see the Economics page

Secondary Cancers

 * Columbia University
 * 2008 PMID 18192046 -- "Secondary neutrons in clinical proton radiotherapy: A charged issue." (Brenner DJ, Radiother Oncol. 2008 Feb;86(2):165-70. Epub 2008 Jan 14.)
 * 2007 PMID 17668949 -- "The impact of protons on the incidence of second malignancies in radiotherapy." (Hall EJ, Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2007 Aug;6(4 Suppl):31-4.)
 * 2006 PMID 16618572 -- "Intensity-modulated radiation therapy, protons, and the risk of second cancers." (Hall EJ, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 May 1;65(1):1-7.)

Randomized Evidence

 * Please see the level I evidence in proton therapy page

Image-Guided Proton Therapy (IGPT)

 * Shelby A. Lane et al. Image-Guided Proton Therapy: A Comprehensive Review. Cancers (Basel). 2023 May; 15(9): 2555. ( 37174022)

Proton Boron Capture Therapy (PBCT)

 * G A P Cirrone et al. Sci Rep. 2018. First experimental proof of Proton Boron Capture Therapy (PBCT) to enhance protontherapy effectiveness ( 29348437)

Proton Boron Fusion therapy (PBFT)

 * Joo-Young Jung et al. Oncotarget. 2017. Comparison between proton boron fusion therapy (PBFT) and boron neutron capture therapy (BNCT): a monte carlo study ( 28427153)
 * Farshid Tabbakh et al. Sci Rep. 2020. Enhancement of Radiation Effectiveness in Proton Therapy: Comparison Between Fusion and Fission Methods and Further Approaches ( 32214140)

title: Radiation Oncology/Protons


text:
User talk:70.34.78.71

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikibooks. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

title: User talk:70.34.78.71


text: User talk:84.176.226.93

title: User talk:84.176.226.93


text: User talk:59.144.179.161

title: User talk:59.144.179.161


text:
Talk:Bartending/Glossary/Table of measures and conversions

How to link here
Don't link to Bartending/Glossary/Table of measures and conversions; instead use Bartending/Glossary/Table of measures and conversions/Section and set up a redirect link. This way if the sections change, we don't have to edit hundreds of pages.

Colons are depreciated i edited your suggested links. Discordance 14:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Better yet, I've moved the the table of units to the top so we can just link the top of the page. I see no reason this should ever be complex enough to require breaking it into, much less linking to, individual sections. Aaron Pannell (discuss • contribs) 16:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"Quantities are how much stuff you put in things." Wow, that's practically Tolstoy. 68.33.32.246 04:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


text:
Using Firefox/Browsing with Tabs

What are tabs?
Firefox has been designed to be useable by any user immediately--with no learning curve. However, to truly "rediscover the web", you should become comfortable with Firefox's advanced features. One of these is the use of tabs. Firefox uses "tabs" to show multiple web pages in the same window. Several other web browsers, such as Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge, also use tabs.

Tabs are featured above the address bar, in a file folder-like layout. Tabs allow users to have one Firefox window in the taskbar, with multiple web pages open within that window. In the image, the default Firefox homepage is shown in the first tab, and Firefox Central (accessed from the "Getting Started" bookmark) is shown in the second. The number of tabs that can be opened at any one time is unlimited, though the tab bar can only hold around 20 tabs comfortably.

Create, close, and select tabs
There are many different ways to both create, close, and access tabs. First, a new blank tab can be created by clicking on File → New Tab, or by using the keyboard shortcut [Ctrl]+[T]. If the tab bar is visible, an empty space (i.e., one not occupied by a tab) can be right clicked, and "New Tab" will create a new tab. Similarly, double clicking an empty space on the tab bar will create a new blank tab. Another way to create a tab, arguably the most common, is by clicking the middle mouse button (sometimes referred to as the third mouse button, or scroll wheel) on any link or bookmark (for instance, "Getting Started" in the above image). Finally, holding down the [Ctrl] key and left clicking a link will open that website in a new tab.

There are also a variety of different ways to close tabs. First, File → Close or [Ctrl]+[W] will close the currently selected tab. Also, the red "x" on the right edge of the tab bar will close the current tab. Finally, middle clicking on any tab (it doesn't have to be selected), or right clicking and selecting "Close Tab" will close whichever tab was selected.

Finally, there are a few different ways to select tabs. The most obvious is to simply left click on a tab. However, a keyboard shortcut also exists: [Ctrl]+[Number] where "Number" is any number 1-9. The corresponding tab will then be selected. Of course, this only works for the first 9 tabs opened. Another common keyboard shortcut is [Ctrl]+[Tab]. This will make the next tab active. Using [Ctrl][Shift]+[Tab] will select the previous tab. These shortcuts are an easy way to cycle through the currently open web pages.

A new feature in Firefox 1.5 is the ability to "Drag and Drop" tabs. By clicking and holding down the left mouse button on a tab, it is possible to change the order of tabs or put them on a different Firefox window. Once the desired location is found (as signaled by an arrow), the left button can be released, and the tab will be moved.

In addition to basic functionality, there are many other ways to use tabs.

Customization
For Tab preferences, see the chapter on Preferences.

Multiple home pages
Tabbed browsing also enables another feature: multiple home pages. With multiple home pages, it is possible to have several pages open each time the browser is opened or the "Home" button is selected.

To set multiple home pages, go to the "Preferences" window, accessible from Tools → Options on Windows, Edit → Preferences on Linux, or Firefox → Preferences on OS X. Once in the Preferences window, select the General panel, and type each URL, separated by a pipe character (which is |), in the Home Page box. For example:

http://addons.mozilla.org/|http://www.google.com|http://wikibooks.org/wiki/Special:Randompage

An easier way to set multiple homepages is to open all of the desired sites in tabs (making sure only the desired sites are opened) and then click the Use Current Pages button from the General tab of the Preferences window.

Bookmark Groups
Bookmarks Groups are very similar to Multiple Home pages. Bookmark Groups create a folder with multiple related (or unrelated, even) bookmarks. It is then possible to open all of them at once by clicking on the created folder and clicking Open in Tabs. Alternately, you can simply open just one of the bookmarked web sites. To create a Bookmark Group, simply open each desired site in its own tab (again, be sure to only open the sites you'd like in the group). From there, a few ways exist to create a group:
 * Right click on a tab and select Bookmark All Tabs...
 * Click on Bookmarks → Bookmark All Tabs...
 * Hit [Ctrl]+[Shift]+[D]

No matter which way you create the group, the same window will appear, asking you for a name and where to create the group.

Middle click to close tabs on Linux
When using Firefox on Linux, the default behavior when middle clicking is to try to load whatever is currently in the clipboard as if it were a URL. If you prefer to use the middle click to close tabs, type about:config in the location bar and hit enter.

In the new window that appears, type middlemouse.contentLoadURL in the box labeled Filter:. Then, right click on the preference, and select Toggle, which should set the preference to false.

(Another contributor writes: Unfortunately, in some versions--- such as the one I'm using now---this simply causes Firefox to do nothing when you middle-click a tab. 'Twould be nice to figure out how to really fix this!)

Firefox/Navigation par onglets Mozilla Firefox/Navigazione con schede

title: Using Firefox/Browsing with Tabs


text:
Formal Logic/Detailed Table of Contents

Detailed Table of Contents

Formal Logic
 * 1) Preliminaries
 * 2) Sentential Logic
 * 3) Predicate Logic
 * 4) Identity Theory
 * 5) Syntax
 * 6) Semantics
 * 7) Natural Language Translations
 * 8) Derivations

title: Formal Logic/Detailed Table of Contents


text:
Talk:Using Firefox/Installation

I've never installed Firefox on OS X, and I don't really like the current directions for Linux. I might change those to use the non-installer version of Firefox (just for Linux), because the Linux installer is terrible. Any other clarification for OS X would be greatly appreciated --Steeler fan 21:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Using Firefox/Installation


text: User talk:12.1.225.50

title: User talk:12.1.225.50


text: Template:Formal Logic/SpecialNav

title: Template:Formal Logic/SpecialNav


text:
Talk:Using Firefox/Preferences

I don't really know what this section is supposed to be about, so I'm going to just go through each part of the Preferences window. (Pref Window V, which is in Firefox 1.5, not the old one) --Steeler fan 21:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe the purpose is to explain what the preferences do, but it seems like a lot of the settings are pretty self-explanatory. I don't know. Gflores 00:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I finished my "initial" entry, which is actually pretty exhaustive --Steeler fan 05:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Using Firefox/Preferences


text: Template:Sample

title: Template:Sample


text: User talk:203.26.113.165

title: User talk:203.26.113.165


text:
Talk:Using Firefox/Browsing with Tabs

Firefox's "main competitor" isn't IE but Opera. Opera has very similar features to Firefox, including the Multiple Document Interface and it is used in a similar manner. Opera has the great advantage that it is more useable and that it is correctly configured out of the box. For instance, if you install the "automatic save tab history" extension then it still won't get you the full functionality you get with Opera. But hey, if you're just writing a propaganda piece then go right ahead. 24.43.210.202 00:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd love for Opera to actually be Firefox's main competitor, but marketshare is all that really matters. Really, it should read that Firefox is IE's main competition, since IE still has more people using it. Opera could be the greatest browser ever, but if it doesn't have users, then it doesn't matter. --Steeler fan 01:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

IE Tabs
Updated section which said IE didn't use tabs. Talkie Toaster 13:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Using Firefox/Browsing with Tabs


text:
User talk:Steeler fan

Hey, I've noticed you've been working on the Firefox book. Would you like some help on it? Just tell me which modules to work on and I'll get to it when I have time. Keep up the good work. :) --Gflores 00:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Steeler fan


text:
Handbook of Descriptive Statistics/Measures of Central Tendency/Mode

Modes are the most common values in a data set.

Example: Of the data set 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 6 4 is the mode because there are three responses of "4" and only one response for 1, 2, 3, 5, or 6.

Data can have more than one mode, example:

Of the data set

1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 6.

2 and 5 are the modes because they are equally the most frequent.

Histograms can often be a good way to see if large data sets have more than one mode.


text:
User talk:67.185.177.111

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikibooks. You were warned several times that linking to commercial sites is not allowed. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires.

title: User talk:67.185.177.111


text:
Blender 3D: Noob to Pro/Advanced Tutorials/Advanced Animation/Guided tour/timeline

Timeline Window
The Timeline window is below the 3D view in every standard project. You can see where keyframes are for the selected object and scroll through the timeline


text:
Blender 3D: Noob to Pro/Advanced Tutorials/Advanced Animation/Guided tour/Const/index

The Constraint
A constraint is what makes everything easier, magic, automatic, customised (add more words here) in a rig. It tells a bone or an object to do something special based on the position of another object, and the position of the constrained object itself. There are many constraint types for you to play with. Most will work everywhere but, the IK solver will only be available in the Armature Editmode or Posemode.

There are no strict rules to follow when using constraints. As long as they save you time and make everything work by itself. A constraint should never be "time-consuming" or difficult to use. Think about the animator who is going to work with this rig (it could be you!). So, do everything in a smart way. It's possible to copy constraints from one object/bone to a bunch of objects/bones. A useful thing to know when doing a repetitive task like rigging all the fingers of a hand. Just select all bones/objects that you want to give a copy of the constraint, and then select the bone/object containing the constraints. Press SHIFT + CTRL-CKEY in 3DView, and select Object Constraints from the popup menu. The idea behind this is to copy the constraints of the active object to the selection.

When working on an armature in Posemode, the bones will change color if they contain a constraint. Green for almost all, except for the IK constraint, which turns the bone Yellow.

The Constraint Panel
You can add a Constraint to an object or a bone by going in Object button window(F7) for objects and bones. Look for a Constraint panel like this (note, it's usually empty):

The panel also appears in Editbutton(F9) when you are in Armature Editmode or Posemode. So what you get:
 * A button to add a new Constraint. The choice you have is listed down this page.
 * When you add a new Constraint, A block gets added in the stack. The UI is almost the same as the Modifier Stack. Each block represents an entry. You can delete it with "X", move it up or down in the stack, close or open it.
 * Constraints are evaluated from first to last. So if you have two Constraints working on the same channel, let say Location, The last one will most probably win the chance to move the object. But...
 * Most of the constraints have an influence slider to determine how much it will influence the stack. If the last constraint has an influence of 0.5 it will mix the result with the one before.
 * You can animate the influence of the Constraint by moving the time, changing the Influence slider and adding a key with the Key button.
 * The Show button will display the influence IPO curve in an IPO window for editing. (The IPO window must be opened before pressing the 'show' button).
 * You can change the name of the Constraint by clicking on the name when the constraint is open.
 * By Clicking on the white jacket of the Constraint you select which one is active for edition, same as "show" button.
 * If most of the Constraint you can enter the name of the Object you want to work with as a target or reference. For a bone, you need to enter in which Armature object it is, then an other field for the bone name will appear. When filling those fields, remember you can use autocompletion using TAB.

The Constraint Index

 * Copy Location
 * Copy Rotation
 * Track-To
 * Floor
 * Locked Track
 * Follow Path
 * Stretch-To
 * IK Solver
 * Action


text:
Blender 3D: Noob to Pro/Advanced Tutorials/Advanced Animation/Guided tour/ipo/index

Graph Editor
The Graph Editor is meant to work with curves, which mostly represent key-frame transitions or drivers.


text:
Blender 3D: Noob to Pro/Advanced Tutorials/Advanced Animation/Guided tour/ipo/type

Dope Sheet
The Dope Sheet is a window in which you can move, very easy, keyframes from one frame to the other. They are visualised with clear diamonds.


text:
User talk:Mahanga

Well, I really don't know..Outside of the Preferences page, the other ones don't look so bad. It'd be really helpful if you could even just read over the stuff and fix anything that doesn't flow right or add anything you think is missing. Or, you could do the Privacy page, because I don't really know what I'll write there...If you've got any experience using Firefox on a Mac, that would be really helpful too, since I've never used it. Otherwise, I appreciate that you're replying to comments I leave on the discussion pages. Also, I hope it wasn't wrong to reply here instead of my talk page, as I'm not 100% sure what the "protocol" is. --Steeler fan 01:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

software-screenshot
I don't see much sense in this template - we already have screenshot. BTW, Firefox screenshot shouldn't be marked by this template, it's free software. Use. --Derbeth talk 08:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

UK Constitution
Have you considered voting for UK Constitution and Government again this month, as it has been renominated. It relly is a very good book.Dolive35 16:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mahanga


text:
User:Torbjørn~enwikibooks

I will be writing my own book soon and it will probably appear here and on the wiki books index.

check back soon

title: User:Torbjørn~enwikibooks