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

Login problems
I created an account and it said that the account was created but I have cookies disabled. I exited my browser and came back in. I made sure I have cookies enabled. When I came to the main page, I was logged in, but when I went to another page, I was logged out. I attempted to log in but it again told me I have cookies disabled. I tried on IE and Firefox. What do I do? 68.211.54.128 20:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC) (Hermione1980)

 * I guess it's possible your ISP is blocking cookies, but it seems unlikely. It's also possible that you still haven't configured your browser correctly. If you're using IE, a little warning will appear when it blocks cookies, so check for that. Other that that, there's not a lot I can do. Try your ISPs technical support number if this continues to be a problem. - Aya T C 20:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm having pretty much the same problem: If I enter wikibooks from outside (using a bookmark or typing the URL in the address field), I show as logged in. But follow links within wikibooks, I usually show as not. I don't think my ISP could do that if they tried; rather I think that you have a bug in your cookie detection software. I use MS Internet Explorer 6.0; my privacy level is set to Medium; and I have explicitly set cookies on domain wikibooks.org to Always Allow. Just how do you determine if cookies are enabled? -teb728 23:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC) Oh!! I think I found it: If I stop ZoneAlarm before trying to login, I get logged in. I'll bet it has something to do with my ZA privacy settings. -teb728 00:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

ACT
Do we have an ACT WikiBook study guide? If so, where is it? If not, would it be a good idea to create a new one? --Think Fast 02:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I must ask, what is ACT? There are a half-dozen things with that acronym. :-) MShonle 03:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea to me. Sj 23:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm talking about the college entrance exam. Sorry for the confusion. --Think Fast 12:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, would anyone be interested in helping me start it? --Think Fast 00:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I started it on August 30 and have written five articles since then. If you can, please sign up to do something. --Think Fast 13:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Uploading image sources
I would like to upload image source files in OpenOffice.org .odg format so contributors would not have to create an new figure but they could update the existing one. I know I could use SVG, and I will, but at the moment OOo draw is easier to use. Could someone propose extending the list of allowed files to OpenDocument files? --IzI 12:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * None of the regulars of this site have the ability to make such a change. Try http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/ - Aya T E C 15:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I have found the bug report http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2089 and commented it. I would like those who think this feature is important to vote for the bug to be solved. Thank you. --IzI 15:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

A slightly different approach to archiving pages
This page needs to be archived again. I would like to propose a slightly different way to do this. Since the page history already contains archives, it should be unnecessary to create a new page for each archive of a discussion page. --SV Resolution 14:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I tried this out on a WikiJunior Solar System Talk Page. Here's the procedure:
 * 1) Turn the current version of the page into an "archived" page.
 * 2) Put a message at the top of the current page -- this is an archive page; please do not edit.
 * 3) Save as a minor edit. Summary: Designated as archive page
 * 4) Go to history, click date of most recent version. Copy the complete URL. Call this THIS_URL&oldid=12345
 * 5) Create the "new" version of the page
 * 6) Edit the current page
 * 7) Remove the "this is an archive page" notice
 * 8) Create or update "list of archived pages" ex: * [THIS_URL&oldid=12345 2005-09-01] --~
 * 9) Create or update list of "see also" links
 * 10) Remove the "stale" discussions
 * 11) Create or update FAQ and other related pages and move information there.
 * 12) Save. Summary: Archived.  Moved stuff to xx and yy and zz.

Pros
Does not create a new page just for storing a "static" old page.

Cons
If someone did accidentally edit one of the "archive pages", they would cause a reversion to the archived page. Someone else would probably catch on, though, and decide to add the newbie's text to the NEWEST version of the discussion

Christianity -- book or wikicity?
So far, this wikibook looks like a website containing a categorized collecion of useful links. There is no outline or introduction to explain how the finished work will serve as a textbook. Would wikicities be a more congenial home for it? --SV Resolution 15:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * There seems to be something of an edit war on that page at the moment between Athrash and an anonymous user. Athrash has moved the anonymous user's contributions to the page Christianity/Overview. - Aya T E C 16:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neither version looks like a textbook, or like it has plans to grow into a textbook. --SV Resolution 16:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I would strongly beg to differ that this has no plans to be a textbook. IMHO this Wikibook is an outstanding example of an annotated text (the Bible in this case) which I would actually use in both theological studies classes that I teach (currently to a group of 6-year-olds, but that is another story), as well as a good source material for doing a comparison study between differing versions of the bible. The problem is that trying to get something going like this is an incredibly difficult task, which can only get screwed up by somebody not understanding the format of the Wikibook. I am also impressed that Atrash has tried to not push things away and get them deleted, but rather provided a more appropriate forum for such discussions and comments with the Overview section.

This has also been the subject of a Vote for Deletion already in the past, which the concensus was to keep.

In terms of "new" Overview section, I think it would be hard to keep a NPOV approach, but I'm also willing to try and see what contributors would want to do first. All of the topics listed in the Overview section would make a find addition to a general book about Christianity, especially to fellow Christians. Certainly a discussion about faith should not be prohibited from a place like Wikibooks, and the faith-based articles on Wikipedia seem to work out in the end...although they do sometimes get rather contentious. --Rob Horning 23:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Major overhaul of Wikibooks policy (again)
Recently there has been a lot of discussion of what does and doesn't constitute a Wikibook. Due to the confusing nature of the current definitions, a policy-tightening vote is being proposed.

Please visit Policy/Vote and contribute and express your opinion.

Please take note that anything that passes a vote will mean sweeping changes for many popular Wikibooks, but there will be a good warning given both before voting begins and before any move is made.

Thank you. GarrettTalk 03:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Yo, Garrett, you still included Christianity: The Book as non-book on Wikibooks:Policy/Vote even with some positive statements above and with the recent problem of which version was up front. The recent anonymous editor on Christianity who erased the translation/paraphrase/annotation to post the external link evidently just lost that website, so those links may go in a few days. The anon does not seem to want to discuss sharing resources, so be it. Do you want the scholarly approach or not? One of the Google ads for keyword God/Religion on Wikicities cannot coexist with a page of the Bible (POV) Yes, Christianity is contentious, it has been that way for 2000 years, yet what is the alternative for the so-called moral majority (POV). You have said that Jimbo Wales is not “God,” but in his spirit, I quote, “keep editing wide open for everyone, but restrict the ability to post external links to people who are trusted by that community. Make it really easy for trusted users to extend the zone of trust, because you want to encourage participation.”    - Athrash |  {Talk)  06:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Books on Christianity are certainly appropriate for this project, as Rob has said. But all such books will need to take a scholarly approach. For example, study guides et cetera for bible studies courses are ok. But a website to link Christians together or to serve missionary purposes no longer qualifies as a book and belongs elsewhere on the web. (And it's not like the only two choices in the world are Wikibooks or Wikicities; people are free to set up their own web servers and run mediawiki on it.) If there's been a change between the book/nonbook status of Christianity I'm sure that Garrett will remove it as an example. (I've posted a whole list of non-books and other tangents on the talk page. I've even added a section of really cool books that will indeed be a loss for wikibooks, but a gain for wikicities. But it seems necessary if we are to be consitent about the policy we are stiving for. This section of my comment has nothing to do with the Christianity work, which, to repeat, is appropriate for Wikibooks provided it's scoped appropriately as a textbook, and not as a single web-resource for anything and everything Christian.) MShonle 06:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes I see. I missed all but the beginning of the above issue. But it's certainly looking like a cohesive book after all so I've removed it from the examples. GarrettTalk 12:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that there ought to be opposing oppinions and quotes on the voting page as well, to remove bias from it. Especially since a few of them are based off only the experience of the quoted person (for example- my local library actually has a large selection of video game help guides).  Something just seems wrong to me for a voting page to be biased to one side of the issue.  The topics should be either worded neutrally, or all have counterarguments.  --Gabe Sechan 19:47, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Voting hasn't begun yet primarily because the options haven't been determined. For the real discussion go to the talk page. The options currently listed was just a first draft attempt: it's a very iterative process, and we won't figure out how to get it right until we get it wrong a couple of times first. I think the library quote is from something I once said. However, given the discussion since then I think that idea is dead in the water: It would include unsavory books and exclude some good books. Before voting begins it's likely all of the options will change. Or, it's possible we'll, though reaching consensus, only be deciding to approve or disapprove a single, spelled out policy. Please do raise your concerns about the books you want either to remain on Wikibooks or to be removed from Wikibooks. For example, there was concern about "no fiction" wording that worried some people that their language instruction guides couldn't use characters saying example French sentences. One possible wording, which I would like to put up for vote, would clearly allow for such "example fiction." MShonle 20:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Rendering problems 2nd time
The HSME book seems to be having problems. It's centre justified. To see the problem for yourselves go to Primes. What is the problem? Can someone tell me if there's a plan to fix it? This is bloody annoying! Xiaodai 09:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It appears that using MathML whenever possible is the problem Xiaodai 09:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I see no problems when using Always PNG and PNG if Simple, so I'd say that is the problem. Hm. Well it's either the browser or MediaWiki not implementing MathML correctly; either way it will take time to fix. GarrettTalk 12:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Merging of Forks Action Taken
This is a message to all Admins and Bureaus here. As some of you know I have begun enforcing the Forking policy on the Programming:C plus plus and Programming:C -/- -/- books. I have reviewed the policy and the history of the conflict and I have determined to take action.

User User:Panic2k4 has requested that another Admin review this case. I hope several of you can take some time out of your other duties to assist us.

There is a certain danger in taking action for a policy that has not been enforced for a long time. For one, it is not fair to the contributors and those whose works are affected the most. Moving forward we must be consistent and faithful to our policies. Sending mixed signals by selectively enforcing only some policies harms the project. Thus, for this transition we must be extra dilligent in being as open as possible (as we always must be).

It was not an easy decision to give the merge ultimatum. However, I believe as a member of this community my duty is to assist, as I can, in growing the project and getting, keeping, and respecting contributors. I myself am an expert in C++ and anecdotally I can tell you I was at a loss as to which book I could contribute to. Particularly given that Programming:C_plus_plus, the book with the more professional name, had a large and confusely-worded message on the front that would lead one to believe the Programming:C_plus_plus page could not be edited at all until "the merge dispute" was over (even though the issue was with the talk page not being ready for edits). The resulting state so far has been one where there is a rather insular project that potential contributors are scared off from touching or fixing up, and where existing contributors leave in frustration. To develop collaborative works it is essential to reach consensus and be flexible. Allowing people to fork off works over trivial formatting issues is counter to the spirit of collaboration.

As a side note, when reviewing this case I have also noticed the use of certain templates placed on other books, both of which were created by Panic2k4. One template was determined to tell users a policy that belongs to MeatBall, and not WikiBooks. The other template was a banner for other books that I felt were redundant with our bookshelves and distracted from the important "front-cover" page where a book has a chance to really sell and describe itself. (The "Foreword" template was similarly intrusive on front pages.) I have removed almost all uses of these templates in the interest of not scaring off contributors and in allowing books to keep their own front-cover characteristics. (In the history of the pages you will see I am not the only user who has taken issue with their use.) This secondary, non-merge action on my part should also be reviewed. If I had made any mistakes in this lengthy template-removal process I would appreciate if anyone could bring it to my attention. --MShonle 03:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Aye - you are right to enforce the policy

 * 1) Krischik 06:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Kellen T 00:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Dysprosia 07:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC) Absolutely. Enforce the policy as soon as feasible, the shorter we have such a mess the better.
 * 4) Gentgeen 08:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Background informations
Sadly the dicussing has dragged across several places:

 * User_talk:Mshonle/Fork_issue
 * Talk:Programming_in_C_-/-_-/-

If you know more then please add to the list.

Question about link to a commercial site
Hello, I just added a link on the Neapolitan/sites resources page to a bookstore in Naples, Italy that carries the largest selection of Neapolitan related materials that I know of. Is this kosher? Neapolitan language materials can be quite difficult to come by.E. abu Filumena 08:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

 * As long as it doesn't look like you're encouraging use of and/or advertising for that site, sales-related links should be OK. :) GarrettTalk 13:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Beta game
I was wondering if I could create a guide for the Mac only MMORPG Oberin, it IS in beta and I know that you can't create Wikipedia articles about beta games. Just posting this to make sure it's ok.

-Drizzt
 * A more suitable place for such a guide might be http://gameinfo.wikicities.com/. While we currently do have some game guides on wikibooks there's a chance they will all be transwikied to Wikicities in the not too distant future. --MShonle 18:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I hope that new Wikibook authors don't get discouraged from statements like the one above. While game guides may be transwikied somewhere else, that discussion, much less any formal project-wide vote on the topic, has yet to take place.  Like anything else in this forum, take anything you read with a grain of salt and don't take any person's word for it that something is official policy unless it is in the policy pages.  Even then, the policy can be changed and updated.  There are over 10,000 registered users on Wikibooks, and even more than 30 admins.  If you have a vote with less than 10 votes for approval on a topic, you really havn't had "concensus" of the community.  Anything less is just a call for opinions to confirm an attitude of your own.  --Rob Horning 09:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The Descent of Man
I started working on a book that was already listed as a title. It was actually mistitled the Descendant of Man but I assumed it was supposed to be Darwin's book. I have summarized 7 chapters of the Descent of Man, but I don't know if I should continue. It's not on a bookshelf but can be found by clicking on "by category" going to the bottom of the page and clicking on science and then biology. Please tell me what I should do. I don't know how to put it on a bookshelf so someone would have to do that if you thought it should be there. M.Parshall11 September 2005

 * When you say you started working on it, do you mean it was a "redlink" (like your signoff name is now) or was there already content there? I can't find anything other than what you've written. I don't think there's any problem with what you've written.
 * I've added it to Science bookshelf. If Life Sciences isn't quite right feel free to move it under the more accurate heading.
 * I notice you added a link in the category, but the category system actually works the other way around. You put the category's name in brackets on the book's first page; for example putting there will make it automatically show up in Category:Biology.
 * I also notice you've moved this from Charles Darwin - The Descent of Man to The Descent of Man. You should use the move tab at the top of each page in future, changing links as necessary. Using the move command will keep the editing history of that page, whereas a copy-n-paste won't. But don't worry, it can be easily fixed.
 * Anyway, if you have any other queries or problems don't hesitate to post them. :) GarrettTalk 02:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Using my own contributions elsewhere
I was wondering about an author's use of his own Wikibooks contributions. Can I publish (some of) my own contributions under a non-free, non-open license? The idea would be this. Someone who gets my contributed content from Wikibooks would be free to use it in the usual open license manner. But someone who gets content from the non-free publication would face the usual restrictions for published non-open books. Where the content is identical, the distinction becomes moot since they can say they got it from Wikibooks and there would be no way to show otherwise—and who cares anyway. Where the non-open content is a slightly modified version of the Wikibooks version, then only the Wikibooks version (or a version derived from it by someone else) could be used. Basically, I might want to publish a non-open license book that includes some (possibly updated) material contributed to Wikibooks but includes significant other material as well—and I might want to do that without having the whole work forced to be open-licensed. I am unclear whether the GFDL or Creative Commons license allows this. It would not allow me to do this with someone else's open license contributions. But would it allow me to do this with my own? The issue is, at least as far as I am concerned only relevant to content spanning several modules, not to bits and pieces.--JMRyan 00:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Nope. You relinquish such rights when you release your work under the GFDL. According to the GFDL, ALL derivative works must be under a similar free license. And so unfortunately you'd need to go through the rigamarole of putting the entire text of the GFDL somewhere in the book.
 * In fact, to publish it otherwise would be illegal. Yes, that's right; technically, we could sue you if you did this. Crazy huh? :) GarrettTalk 01:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

 * This is totally wrong. He has merely licensed the work. He has not transferred copyright. After licensing as GFDL, he can then license the work under any other license as well. He just can't revoke the GFDL or attempt to relicense something he doesn't own copyright to. He certainly doesn't need to worry about complying with a license which he himself has granted; his rights are far greater. You could only sue him if he used your contributions. Note that trivial stuff, like near-robotic spelling fixes, would not count because they do not contain artistic expression. (As always, this is not to be considered legal advice.) AlbertCahalan 04:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

 * What came first the egg or the chicken ? that is the problem he must be able to prove that a more restrictive license was used before the GFDL (see the text below), GFDL is no exclusive but after you implement it future work falls under it--Panic 05:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

 * No, he doesn't. He owns the copyright on what he wrote.  That means he can relicense it at any time he so chooses.  However, anyone who got a copy of the content through a previous license does not get their copy revoked.  In other words, I can write an article here then release another version (or the same version) anywhere else I want under any license I want.  Only the version found on this site would be GFDLed.  Check out similar situation in software with dual licensed products.  Which one you use first does not matter whatsoever.

 * Sorry for my bad wording, were I say restrictive (= any prev. license, be it more or less restrictive) future (= derivative) the rest of your comment does agree with my statement--Panic 01:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 * The others are also right when they point out this only goes for his contributions. Non-trivial changes to his contributions would be copyrighted by the authors, and publishing those under a different license would be copyright infringement.  --Gabe Sechan 16:36, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * Albert is correct. The user allowed a specific copy of his work to be placed under the GFDL, for use in wikibooks. He still has rights to the original version of this work and any works he personally derives from his original work. IIRC, once there are contributions to his original work on wikibooks, he may not copy those changes as well without abiding by the GFDL (since those modifications are subject to it and they are not his work). Kellen T 08:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh, I guess I misinterpreted what he was proposing. I do wonder about what Panic's saying though; if that's true I'm basically screwed as far as my none-too-dissimilar GameFAQs publishing problem goes. Hm. :( GarrettTalk 13:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Perhaps the last two paragraphs of http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-violation.html are relevant. They would appear to support Albert and Kellen.  Or perhaps I can be sued but only by myself?  Of course, (as Gabe and Kellen pointed out), any ability to reuse my own stuff can apply only to my own original contributions and not to modifications contributed by others. --JMRyan 20:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi JMRyan: I have one question, if you'd rather keep a closed license on your own work, why even release a little bit of it as GFDL in the first place? For example, you could release the "first edition" of some work as GFDL, and then develop a "closed second edition" based on that, but the "GFDL second edition" would have changes you could only use in a strict GFDL sense (and, for example, could not be part of the "closed second edition"). It seems the advantages of opening it won't ever be reaped and it might be in your best interest to keep it all closed. MShonle 22:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, I saw part of a book that need work and so I started working. It turns out that almost all of my contribution consists of adding of new modules. Then it occurred to me that I might someday what to publish a text covering mostly the same ground.  It probably won't really happen, but the thought did occur to me.  It would not be a 'Best of My Wiki Contributions' published as a closed book.  I would more or less restart more or less from scratch, but there would be enough overlap in organization and style that there might be copywrite issues if I am not allowed to reuse my open stuff in a closed book.  Some ideas I think I might have for what might go into a closed book cut too close to original research and non-neutral POV to be appropriate for a Wikibook—indeed that would be a primary purpose of the closed version. --JMRyan 23:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

 * That makes sense. I must say that contributing to an open book is giving away a lot of capital, and really the only comfort is that other people will need to keep your work just as open if they intend to improve upon it. For your particular case you could take your GFDL contribution and add all of the non-NPOV and original research material you like. While those aren't allowed on Wikibooks, the GFDL allows for it. Thus you can leverage other's contributions for your own book. So, in your particular case you don't need to go closed. You can stay in GFDL the whole time. Another reason I thought someone might do this would be to put a first edition on WB, wait until it generates a good reputation and use, and then charge for an improved but closed second edition (that would not have any other contributions in it). In such a case, you're stuck doing all of the work, can't benefit from the community, and are really only using WB as word of mouth space. The only hitch in such a business plan is that the communities second edition might be stiff competition with your own second edition. MShonle 23:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Note: I'm no lawyer but the rights you are referring to on derivative works may depend on what version of the GFDL was used on the prior work.--Panic 23:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 * You should take a look at http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html Draft Debian Position Statement about the GNU Free Documentation License(GFDL) and most useful on this topic, check the Authorship section at http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?FreeDocumentationLicense FreeDocumentationLicense  --Panic 02:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Sitenotice
can an admin please sort this out the fundraiseing drive is over for now.

Wikibooks' language courses of use?
I am interested in contributing to Wikibooks, but would like to know if the site's language courses, or any other courses, have been of use, or even a considerable catalyst for further study of a subject. Thanking you, 82.249.136.174 18:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC).

Printable version of pages vs GFDL
When any one selects this option available in every wikipage the only reference to the location/license is...

Retrieved from This page was last modified 02:24, 13 September 2005. Content is available under GNU Free Documentation License.

Since the previsible use of the function is the intended printing of a stand alone (on independet page as it doesn't force or shows the full work) to hard copy, any reference to a direct link to the GFDL is missing or a slow mail way of obtaining one, and no reference to the authors or any "Acknowledgements" (section) or reference to stand alone works that the new derevative uses.

from point 6 of the GFDL as it can be reached from the footnote in any page that links to http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html

"You may extract a single document from such a collection, and distribute it individually under this License, provided you insert a copy of this License into the extracted document, and follow this License in all other respects regarding verbatim copying of that document."

Can this be a problem?--Panic 01:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 * A user printing out a version for their own use does not need to print out the license. Only when someone is actually distributing the document (i.e., beyond their own use) would they need to include a copy of the license. If someone is printing and binding these books for sale (as a form of distributing) or forking on their own site (another form of distribution) they'll need to include the license. The license should be someplace where someone should reasonably be able to get a hold of it. Including the license itself everywhere would be equivalent to the GNU "cat" command outputting the GPL each time it is run. MShonle 03:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 * There are some problems with your view:
 * 1) You are making assumptions...
 * 2) The License doesn't state that difference so it has no regard for the intended use of a copy, has to deal with ANY copy. (does it state your "limited" use ?)
 * 3) Again, and for what I do (not much, sorry) fallow in this page most people that should know the limits and impositions of the GFDL seem to have divergent opinions or personal interpretations (writers/administrators), that can lead to real pains if ever chalenged.
 * 4) Probably, including a limited list of do's and don'ts (that could be made into a stated policy since the license in itself can't be changed) and a link to the snail mail (GNU, were a copy can be obtained should be added to every work and also made into a policy, this is not a proposal only an hipotesys) would be a good idea, this would help writers know theyer rights and limitations even if they don't want to "trace" the license for every "bug" and is common knolege that it has some... and even more if aplied to electronic works (sutch as the present framework), I as a simple user do have problems fallowing every policy and debates, and I don't think of me as being IT chalanged, and at least for now not every person has/needs a law degree, so the wording should be made accessible to every one, and the age factor of the contributors doesn't help also.--Panic 05:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 * THe licenese requires you to give a copy of the license upon *distribution* of the text. Printing a copy for personal use is not distribution- you aren't giving it to anyone.  This is the same reason you can make a change to a GPLed program for personal use and not distirbute the change- the clause is a limitation on distribution, not on use.

 * There isn't really any ambiguity here at all, just very carefully worded legalese by some very smart people. Just remember, distribution is not use.  You can use a GFDL text in any way you want- read it, make copies of it, draw scribbles over it, light it on fire, even alter invariant sections.  When you give copies of it away, only then does the GFDL apply.  The GFDL is a grant of distribbution rights, not a EULA.--Gabe Sechan 16:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I think that you interpretation is correct (but only addresses part of the hipotetical problem), another point of view is that wikimedia is indeed a destribution veicule and the printed version is "edited" on site, and so the resulting copy is first provided on site, it's probaly equal to a user having the hole work with all the needed references to the rights and providing edited copies to a (let say) small number of other people without the license, so were is the limit of an the "use" and remember that there is't another evident way of getting a printer ready copy, or in most works a complete copy with all the needed section, references.--Panic 20:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm having a bit of trouble understanding your argument, so forgive me if I'm getting it wrong. Yes, wikimedia is a distribution vehicle.  It also offers the license and everything else needed to by the license.  However, it isn't necessary for all of it to be on the same webpage, merely for it all to be available to you at no extra charge.  On printable pages, the site doesn't need to force you to print out the license as well-  it gave you a link to the license already, your printing out a copy is a use of the copy you already downloaded (under fair use laws which allow time and space shifting of media, see Universal v. Sony, the Betamax case), not a new distribution.  You are free to print that out too if you want.  If you are printing out copies to distribute to other people, you need to include the license (although for small distribution eg you giving a copy to a friend or two, nobody coares.) --Gabe Sechan 21:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Careful... Sony_Corp._v._Universal_City_Studios doesn't mean what you said it means. It means that people can make devices that have substantially non-infringing uses with regard to copyright.  It didn't speak at all to "fair use".  It could be argued that a copyright holder could restrict you from printing something that you had downloaded, and you would have no "fair use" safe harbor. The Betamax Case is not a license to time-shift.  Only to make devices that aren't strictly for piracy.  (However, the recent MGM_v._Grokster case may unsettle that, making the Betamax case more or less irrelevant.) --Randal L. Schwartz 22:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 * You should probably have to read it all to understed the several problems I pointed out and the development on the several comments, I'll try to resume all without comments, but see ref. to point 6 of the license on the first post (It's getting long)...
 * 1) Printed copy should have more than a reference to the licence, like a location in slow mail to obtain a full copy, and probably not a link to the original page but to the root of the work (or acumulate them), and/or a reference to the "personal use" since "sections" of the work "may" not be split.
 * 2) A complete version of every work, "print ready" with the full license should be available in every work (trasnclusions) to a "monolithic" page is a solution.
 * 3) Web use or electronic use as in Wikimedia doesn't seem to have a problem since the links are on every page.
 * 4) A common and voted on interpretation of the license should be created without the "wierd" legal mumbo-jumbo, to make it accessible to every reader, this should be centralized and aggregate every conclusion about the use of GFDL in Wikibooks.
 * 5) A policy that resquires a link to that explanation (with the url) should be used on for intance the introduction or foreword or any author(s) section of a book, so to desmistify and clear any personal interpretations of future writers and protect derivative works (edits that add some content are derivative works, there are also at present some mirror services not all run by wikimedia that host copies of the works).--Panic 23:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add that I did include the GFDL in the last copy of material I printed from Wikibooks material. You are correct that every "complete" version must include this text (which is quite lengthy... about 6 pages altogether even at a reduced print size). That makes printing out a single page from here something that is very awkward. BTW, if you "save this page" with Mozilla or Firefox, it downloads a copy of the GFDL with the web page as a part of the image inclusions. I can't comment about other browsers, but I would suspect similar actions, based on the html script for these pages. This is far from a simple web link, and no new policy needs to be done.

As far as requiring people to use the GFDL, the notice is about as clear as it can be without having the full text of the GFDL in its entirety on each and every web page. If that is the case that we need to do that, I suggest that we hold a vote to get rid of the GFDL for Wikibooks and perhaps restart the whole project. I'm not ready to do that, nor do I think that was the intention of the Free Software Foundation.

For printed works, it is more a "buyer beware" in terms of people grabbing content from Wikibooks and thinking it is free public domain stuff that they can use however they want. If you try to make a derivitive work of this content, you need to understand the copyright nature of this stuff, and the fact that many people (including myself) claim copyright on everything that we do here. In fact, the Wikimedia Foundation is specifically excempting themselves from copyrighting just about anything on any of its projects in order to avoid legal hassles, but you are legally liable for anything that you put down in any of these projects. If you copy the material from these sites, you need to get permission from each and every author before it can be published. By the nature of what we do here, that permission is automaticly granted via the GFDL, under the terms of that license, by common concent and by "contract" that you sign each time you press the "Save Page" button for adding text.

IMHO no new policies need to be written, but you are certainly welcome to do so, and submit them to the community as a proposed policy. After it has been voted on it may become an "enforced policy", of which there are relatively few here on Wikibooks at the moment. The text of the GFDL provides more than adequate legal language regarding official policies for how links to this site are concerned, but if you think differently, write the proposed policy and see how other people would like to modify it or support it. There are reasons for the legal "mumbo-jumbo" of all licenses, and a "simplification" of the license language can often over do it. Mainly the GFDL says "You can use this stuff on the site however you want, you just have to allow others to freely use it too afterward." As a simplification, this misses many key points, and that is why the full legal junk has to be there, together with legal commentary on the GPL and GFDL from many sources that would fill books. Perhaps we need to start one of those books here about the GFDL? --Rob Horning 00:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikiversity Vote
Voting has started for a new Wikimedia sister project proposal called Wikiversity. This is a request for anybody that is interested to cast a vote either in support or opposition to this new project proposal. The results of this vote will determine if this project will be started on its own seperate group of wikis as a Wikimedia sister project, together with approval from the Wikimedia Foundation Board. Discussion about this proposal should take place on the Wikiversity discussion page.

P.S. I've added a notice about this vote on the front page of Wikibooks mainly due to the very close ties between Wikiversity and Wikibooks. Because of this unusual situation I'm trying to advertise from the larger Wikibooks community in general as well for this vote. This vote is to decide the ultimate fate of Wikiversity and to get a general community view of what should be going on with this project. --Rob Horning 00:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Moving Wikisource:Source code to Wikibooks
Hi,

We are probably going to delete Wikisource:Source code. So I propose that some of these pages to be move here in Wikibooks. Please advise which pages would you like to get in Wikibooks. I propose to discuss this on Wikibooks talk:Computer science bookshelf. Thanks, Yann 18:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

 * It looks like there is some useful content there, perhaps some of which could be used in the Computer Science:Advanced Data Structures and Algorithms book. Overall, though, we're a book project and don't want to just have pages and pages of code. If there's plenty of exposition in addition to the code, that would be great. (As a good guide, for each non-trivial function it would be reasonable to expect three to five paragraphs explaining what exactly it's doing. Sometimes a whole subsection of a chapter is used.)
 * Why is this being removed from Wikisource? Perhaps you should make a Wikicity to hold the content for now, until there are contributors ready to turn it into a real book. --MShonle 19:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I've used any salvable content (related) to the C plus plus book, and credited the original work.--Panic 02:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

We at Ada Programming have registered a SourceForge Poject to hold our source codes. That way we don't need to litter the text modules with pages and pages of code. We only quote as much as is needed to explain the problem at hand and the reader can download the rest. Taking into account that Ada is not a main stream language the download statistic shows that the offer is apreaciated by the reader.

--Krischik T 06:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

About Ada Programming sources...

The idea is nice but I see some possible problems, since SourceForge is outside the Wikibooks how does one edit the sources, does it force a registration? using the CVS? and what about the code licenses are they all GFDL? do the authors get credited?, and that is only a solution for big sources, reference code should always be "on" the book, with references to were to get more complete/complex examples...--Panic 02:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Well you put your finger on all the soure points: But the advantage of providing fully compiling and fully tested examples to our readers outweight the disadvantage for us. But that might not be true for Programming:C++. --Krischik T 07:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Sourceforge allow write access only to registered project members.
 * You can choose the licence - but its a software licence (we use GPL).
 * Authors can be seen only from the cvs log.
 * True, we only use SourceForge for "working demos" only and not for code sniplets.

Pages namespace clarification needed
I think this discussion belongs into the main wikibooks discussions, until some common policy, ideally for all wikibooks, is reached. Just the fact that everyone of us three has a different opinion what is meant "unspokenly" means that it'll finally have to be spoken. --Max 20:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

As proposed by Max I've moved this discussion to here...

 * 1) pages that relate only to Wikibooks/policies/structural debates of a book,  should always use that work Talk: namespace if not contributing content to the book "topic", this should be a policy if none exists.
 * 2) Contributions to a Talk: page related to a given page/book should have if none exist a policy of excluding it author contributions to that talk from the author list of the book (as specified in the GFDL), the rights of any contribution to that page will always be protected by the license at the bottom of the page, as a stand alone "work", that will include any archive or sub page from the main discussion area.

The original discussion can be reached here--Panic 02:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia projects are free form, there are no hard and fast rules that claim any page under a given name must be part of the book. This free form nature gives great freedom to contributors. For example, the whole vote for deletion process on wikipedia is just people editing a file, there's no formal voting buttons or things like that. Life changes too much to encode things in the software like that. But even if there were a policy like that, the need for a style-guide would be enough evidence that the policy should change. But this is all moot, considering that (1) style guides are entirely appropriate, (2) it does not matter in any sense if they are or are not part of the book, and (3) many other books do this already. MShonle 19:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

How to print a entire document
there is a tutorial "Blender 3D: Noob to Pro" As I and most find it easier to read a hardcopy while I work through a tutorial, I would like to print the document. Although under toolbox there is a printable version link, only one page is displayed. I would like to print the entire document. Someone else requested this in the discussion page, but no reply.

how can I print the entire document. Please help.

One way would be to create a whole-book-on-one-page version using transclusion, and use that to print. See Programming:C_plus_plus:All_Chapters for an example --Max 18:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

How can I include part of a page?
In Rueda_de_Casino there is a table, and I want the table to be populated using the pages about the individual commands, e.g., Rueda_de_Casino/Abajo, but I can't work out how to make the template for the commands: Template:Rueda_Command cause this to happen.

Any or that I use in the template is (obviously) evaluated there and then - I can't see how to make it apply to the individual command pages.

I appreciate any help.

I've also written a new template:Rueda Command TR (table row), so each individual command page does have some duplication, but at least it's not a huge amount. I'd love to remove that though.

Here's the relevant (and repeating) source:

I've since resolved this with a little strange syntax:

This way the template Rueda_Command is used on the real page, and Rueda_Command_TR on the summary page. It's a bit ugly, and I'm not confident that other people will do it right, so I'm still hoping for a better solution. -- Ricky Clarkson, 24th September 2005.

Naming convention for categories?
Hi there. Is there a naming convention for categories? I've been using quite a few categories in the Movie Making Manual and I'd like to check that they are legal. Here's a link to the root category. And here's a link to our "formatting guide" on categories. I find that categories are an excellent way to help users to navigate the Movie Making Manual because each page can be in several different categories. For example, a page on "writing for low budget movies" can be in both the "writing movies" category and in the "low budget filmmaking" category. Please tell me I'm using categories in a legal way! I'd hate to have to re-do all the categories. Dan AKA Jack 13:20 22 Feb 2005 (GMT)

 * (Copied from Talk:Movie_making_manual): I don't think there are any conventions for categories. There's not really a lot of categorization going on here right now, so I don't think it's been seen as a real issue. The Cookbook has a lot of categories, but we have somewhat inconsistent names for them (fixing that is on my list of TODO's). I am sort of inclined to have a prefix on all the categories related to a particular book, e.g. "Category:Cookbook:Vegan recipes" or "Category:Movie making:Cinematography" because at some point I can see there being difficult overlaps when we have enough books. Who gets to own Category:Tools? or does that category just get polluted with modules from different books? Seems like the "top level" categories (ones w/o a prefix) should be for categorizing books as a whole, then scoped categories (w/ prefix) should be used w/in books.... but that's just me musing about it. Kellen T 17:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

 * The proposed Naming policy does contain a convention on category naming. ManuelGR 19:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

 * OK. Would these naming conventions be acceptable?...
 * Examples of proposed page names:
 * Movie Making Manual:Writing (currently Movie Making Manual-Writing)
 * Movie Making Manual:Capture Mediums and Recording Formats (currently Movie Making Manual-Capture Mediums and Recording Formats)
 * Examples of proposed category names:
 * Movie Making Manual:Cinematography (currently category:cinematography)
 * Movie Making Manual:Post-production (currently category:post-production)
 * Also... currently, our headers are named like "MMM Header"... do we have to rename these to "Movie Making Manual:Header"? I have setup a redirect from MMM to Movie Making Manual.
 * Finally, should I wait until the Naming policy becomes concrete before making the necessary changes to the Movie Making Manual? It seems like some things are still likely to change (like regulations on capitilisation and abreviations for headers etc).
 * Thanks, Dan AKA Jack 13:45 23 Feb 2005 (GMT)

Yes, there is a naming convention for categories, as outlined in WB:NP. Each book book has Category:book  reserved for their own internal organization purposes, with all other categories reserved for inter-book organization. Currently, book aliasing is on a case-by-case basis, and plans are that any proposal for aliases must be put through WB:CCO or some other organizational page (ie. so we can get community consensus). KelvSYC 17:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the reply. Sorry, where exactly on the WB:CCO page do I enter my proposal that the Movie Making Manual be allowed the MMM alias?  Thanks,  Dan AKA Jack 10:20 24 Feb 2005 (GMT)

Technical articles on video and film cameras - WP or WB???
Hello. I am one of the contributers to the Movie Making Manual. I would like to start a section of the book to cover technical details of various video and film cameras. These pages will contain information such as: how to operate the camera, the advantages and disadvantages of the camera, the technical specs of the camera etc. Should these pages be put in the Movie Making Manual wikibook or in WikiPedia? I note that a page on the Panasonic HVX200 was recently deleted from WP.

We already have a table listing the tech specs of several cameras. (Is this table legitimate WB content? It's certainly useful and is certainly the sort of thing that text books include.)  My proposal is that the camera names would be wikilinks to more detailed pages about each individual camera. Should these pages be in WB or WP? Thanks, Dan AKA Jack 11:20 26 Sept 2005 GMT

 * Since uber-detailed descriptions of cameras (and comparisons) would not be considered encyclopedic from some WP viewpoints, I'd say that qualifies for inclusion here. Kellen T 18:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I think it's appropriate to talk about cameras to the extent necessary to inform the reader of what they need to know and what the important differences and trade offs between technologies are. But any extra information that is just there for the sake of being extra information probably shouldn't be included. Also, it shouldn't become an Amazon-like ratings of equipment: because that then presents a non-NPOV issue. It perhaps might be sufficient to just provide the exact name/model of the camera so that readers can find it elsewhere on the web. --MShonle 20:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Great, thanks a lot for your replies... I agree with all you've said. This brings me on to another, more technical question...  Thanks, Dan AKA Jack 12:14 27 Sept 2005 GMT

 * So, some of our cameras have no entries at all in WikiPedia. Should I start stub-articles on WikiPedia which contain a link to our WikiBook page (like this)?  Or should I do a #REDIRECT ?  Thanks, Dan AKA Jack 22:13 27 Sept 2005 GMT
 * Stubs on WP sound appropriate to me. Kellen T 22:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Yeah, I agree: stubs are the way forwards (although, of course, fully written encyclopeadic articles would be even better!).  Thanks, Dan AKA Jack 11:18 28 Sept 2005 GMT

How to duplicate information between two pages
Is there any easy way to duplicate information between two pages? In particular, I have written a table which compares several cameras. I am planning to also give each camera its own page. I would like to duplicate the specs from the table to the camera-specific pages.

For example, the table lists a camera called the Genesis. I would like both the table and the camera-specific page to include specs like "resolution" and "view finder". What I'd really like is one page where I can declare some variables, like:

genesis.resolution = 1920x1080 genesis.viewfiner = electronic

And then I'd like to be able to call these variables from both the table and from the Genesis page. Does anyone know how I could do this, please? Thanks, Dan AKA Jack 12:25 27 Sept 2005 GMT

 * Hmm... it looks like Ricky Clarkson has a solution. Is this syntax my best bet?  Thanks, Dan AKA Jack 12:35 27 Sept 2005 GMT

 * I've never used that tag yet myself, but I've seen it enough in Wikipedia templates and such that it must work pretty well. Until such time as chosen strings can be called directly from a spreadsheet-like page this is really the only way. GarrettTalk 14:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Proposed name changes for the Movie Making Manual
After several discussions with fellow wikibookians, it seems it's time for me to go through the Movie Making Manual and change the naming system. Please can you let me know if these proposed naming systems are "legal":

Do these proposed names look OK? I'm asking because I've been told that I need to get community consensus on these names before preceding. I have already setup a #redirect from MMM to Movie Making Manual.

Thanks, Dan AKA Jack 21:05 GMT 29 Sept 2005

 * I believe you only need consensus on the main prefix, not your book-specific formatting for each thing, but here are some comments anyhow:
 * The page and template names look fine to me.
 * The category names should probably be in "namespace" format, e.g. "Category:MMM:Cinematography" because the categories don't have any strict hierarchy; a category can be a subcategory of many other categories, so the subpage format is a bit misleading. Of course... you could decide that your categories would only be a subcategory of one other category and then subpage notation might work.
 * Picture naming is fine, but you should consider uploading them to commons instead of here and tagging them with useful categories so that other books/WP entries/etc can make use of them where appropriate.
 * Kellen T 17:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll get round to changing the names soon.  Thanks, Dan AKA Jack 11:20 GMT 2nd Oct 2005
 * Would anyone object to me changing all the page names to MMM/Page Name instead of Movie Making Manual/Page Name? "Movie Making Manual" takes up a lot of space and makes the titles hard to read! dan_aka_jack 23:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Lost password
alerante here... I've lost my password and attempted to retrieve it using the "forgot password" button. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be working... so I've come to the staff lounge to beg for help. Is it possible to do something like reset my password and send it to the registered address (which I hope I didn't typo up)? 70.144.137.101 20:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

 * If you set a valid email address when you created your account, your password should get emailed to that address. Otherwise, you'll have to contact a server admin to get it, who may ask you some questions to prove you are the valid owner of that account. Server admins usually hang out on irc.freenode.net, channel #wikimedia-tech. - Aya T E C 18:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Works now. Apparently the servers were under quite a high load the first time, so I tried again. alerante | “” 21:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Help choosing a name for a book on doing a PhD?
Hi,

I'd like to start a book on starting, surviving and completing a PhD. But I'm having trouble thinking of a name. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Some candidate names:

Surviving a PhD
 * Pros: Catchy
 * Cons: It's a bit negative. A PhD needn't be an unpleasant experience that needs to be "survived".

Doing a PhD
 * Pros: Gets to the point of the book
 * Cons: Sounds a bit crap

The PhD
 * Pros: Nice and short
 * Cons: Sounds more like a sociological study on PhDs rather than a how-to guide

How to do a PhD
 * Pros: Gets to the point
 * Cons: A bit long

PhD How-To
 * Pros: Gets to the point; nice and short
 * Cons: Isn't it just Linux geeks who use the term "how-to" in this way??!!

Any feedback would be much apreciated. I think my favorite is "Doing a PhD"... or maybe "PhD How-To". Thanks, Dan AKA Jack 12:25 30th Sept 2005

 * A PhD friend of mine has voted for Surviving a PhD - Dan AKA Jack 15:00 30th Sept 2005

 * It might be more useful if the scope of the book were expanded to doing research. This is less narrow but still certainly doable as a book. But I'd worry first more what the TOC will be, and then figure out the title after that. ;-) --MShonle 16:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I'd go for "Piling it higher and deeper: Survivng a PHD". Basicly a vote for #1, I guess.  --Gabe Sechan 16:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your replies so far. Yes, I would love the book to include information on doing post-grad research.  I was thinking of a TOC something like:
 * Choosing a subject area
 * Choosing a lab
 * Getting funding
 * Doing the research
 * Writing up
 * The Viva
 * Life after the PhD
 * Please keep the ideas coming... - Thanks, Dan AKA Jack 17:33 30th Sept 2005

 * I would also add: how to read a journal or conference paper; what research isn't (e.g., if a project can't fail then it's not research); how to write a paper and get it accepted (writing and organization tips); how to collaborate with others (e.g. picking people with similar interests, or picking those with very different backgrounds). I'd also add that the best area to get into is the one where you are interested in the incremental results. Most area's "big results" are exciting, but that doesn't mean you'd be suited for doing research in most areas, since most research itself is incremental. --MShonle 16:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi. MShonle, it sounds like you have loads of great ideas! Thanks for your feedback.  I'll report back here when I kick off the book.  What name shall we go for?  Surviving a PhD?  If so, can we use PhD as an alias for category and template names?  Thanks, Dan AKA Jack 11:04 GMT 2nd Oct 2005

 * I would suggest "Surviving and Thriving with Research". Most people who are in PhD programs already have a boatload of assistance and help (particularly from their advisors). So, perhaps the biggest audience of this book would be the autodidacts who want to learn about PhD programs and research in general without the help of a formal university program. Also, the wider scope tends to suggest some interesting topics. But go with any name you wish. :-) --MShonle 22:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I would think something along the lines of "Earning a PhD" or "Working Towards a PhD". --Whiteknight 20:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for all the feedback. I like the idea of broadening the scope of the book to include all research, not just the PhD (although it would be good to have a sub-section on PhDs).  Which brings us back to the original question: what to call the book?!  I like Mshonle's idea of "Surviving and Thriving in Research" but I worry that it's a little long.  How about just "Research"?  Or "Working in Research"?  Or "Surviving Research"?  Or "Researcher's Manual"?  (Of course, we mustn't forget that there are several typs of "Researcher": there's the academic researcher we're talking about, there's the college student and there's TV researcher).  Thanks, dan_aka_jack 12:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

New domain name for Wikijunior
At zanimum's request, a new domain name for Wikijunior was discussed at a Wikimedia meeting on September 18 (which was attended by the board, people with official positions, and local chapter reps). I asked at that whether Wikijunior should move to its own domain name. Anthere said that she does not consider it the board's decision alone and suggested the Wikibooks community should decide this, thinking a new domain meant a new project. I felt the project was already approved (since it's running on Wikibooks and we have a grant for it), and said that I didn't see the move to a new domain as a huge issue. Jimmy clarified that the proposal is for Wikijunior be a place to put 'finished' work, with Wikibooks still being the development community, so it would be a 'view' on the work, not a new project per se. I asked whether there had been any objection to it moving, but this wasn't clear. Jimmy proposed that we notify the Wikibooks community that we're saying yes to this, but giving a week or two for people to voice objections, and if there are none then we can approve it and let the Wikibooks community work out how to proceed.

So, if there are any objections to moving the finished Wikijunior texts to Wikijunior.org and keeping the editing processes on Wikibooks.org, please raise those, either here or on the textbook-l mailing list. Angela 19:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Sounds like a great idea. --MShonle 20:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't see why this should be limited to Wikijunior. Teaching any sort of class from a live wiki would be insane. Never mind the bad changes: a really nice reorganization could seriously mess up a sylabus. AlbertCahalan 00:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * While I'm fully in favour of eventually creating static sites for Wikiuniversity, Albert, this all costs money. We have to keep Wikimedia afloat with the available funds, Jimmy Wales' C-SPAN interview said it will cost US$2 million this year to run the project. The only reason I ever suggested a seperate domain is that we have funds dedicated to this particular project, and only this project, to do with as we see fit. Wikiuniversity hasn't pulled in a cent, and so there's no reason for the Foundation to reroute valuable funds. --  user:zanimum

 * I posted a longer reply on Textbook-l, and I will refer to that for my objections to this proposal. In short, I think there are many details that should be worked out before this proposal gets a green light.  Most important are the following issues:

 * How does content get "flagged" to be "moved" over to the read-only site? Votes on content?  Admin discression?  An "editorial board" that can move this content over?  What about "updates" to the content and when does that get moved over?
 * Is the new website going to be pure HTML, or a read-only Wiki? (both have merits with advantages/disadvantages)
 * Are we going to include the Wikijunior books in a format other than HTML? We already have PDF and Audio book formats for some content right now.  What about other formats including printed versions?
 * Are we going to offer the content up for sale with an on-line bookstore to purchase a printed/bound copy of some of the content? Are we going to allow educational institutions and organizations the chance to obtain for free copies provided through the Beck Foundation grant?
 * Why is information about the Beck Foundation kept so secretive? All of the links on Meta point to some concrete manufacturer that has nothing to do with this grant or project, and all attempts to get the correct information seem to fall on deaf ears.  (That website is litterally a foundation construction company that offers jobs in the construction industry... not book publishing or educational activities of any sort.)  Is this grant from the Beck Foundation for real or is it a farce?  Where is the paperwork for the grant and who has the "signatures" and other contact information for the grant?
 * Is this going to keep the Wikibook format of seperate "projects" or is it going to be a "Wikipedia-Junior" collection of articles in an overall encyclopedic format? I prefer the current book format, but zanimum seems to prefer the encyclopedic format, from what I've seen so far.
 * Who is going to maintain the content on the new site? While Stewards and Wikibooks admins might be a good start, I think it should be more with the very active participants of the Wikijunior books themselves as a seperate community.  How are they going to be selected and are they going to be given sysop privileges on the new site?  That would mean more like developer privileges if it is going to be a more pure HTML website.
 * What is the "front page" format going to look like? Right now Wikijunior is very functional and designed more for editing rather than something kids would be interested in.  Are we going to make it more "kid-friendly" like a video-game console?  A very different kind of "skin" for this project as well for the default?  Who is going to come up with this new format for the front page and subsequent navigation?
 * How are links from this new site going to link back to Wikibooks and the editable content? Should it even link back except as a non-hyperlink reference?  How are we going to keep this "kid-friendly"?
 * Should this link to anywhere external to the site except maybe the Wikimedia Foundation main page and perhaps gnu.org for GFDL information? What about cross-references and footnoted bibliographies and how should we deal with that?  If this has full cross-references hyperlinked, why make a seperate site altogether anyway?  Why not simply have a redirect with wikijunior.org go straight to Wikibooks instead?
 * What about international language versions of this project? Who is going to maintain those and will it be all part of the same site?  Is there any content translated or worked on in other languages that would be worth including?  Surprisingly, I think Chinese may be the furthest along than any other language besides English for Wikijunior, but as I don't speak Chinese this is something I havn't been able to verify or confirm other than a bunch of words written in that language.  That does make the Chinsese P.R.C. government censors something to worry about as well and forces that issue much sooner than even what Wikinews and Wikipedia have had to face so far.  Generally I don't think Wikijunior is going to be much of an issue in that regard, but something to worry about perhaps in the future.

 * Even by themselves these are each non-trivial questions, and together make me think this proposal to turn on a new domain name sponsored by or in part by the Wikimedia Foundation to be something very premature. If you have thoughts on these issues, please respond below.  I think this may be a good idea, but a complete proposal must be put together and not be run roughshod over the current set of participants at Wikijunior.  --Rob Horning 03:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Wow Rob, I never would have thought of all those points, but I see what you mean. There is still alot to be done. We've barely even begun to get the print version of Solar System ready. There are only two people who have proofread Solar System modules so far (SV Resolution and I), and only 3 modules are completely proofread. We're going to miss the Oct. 3 deadline Danny gave us. This project need more time, in many areas. There's just too many small things that haven't been done that are going to add up to one big headache if we try to rush anything.--Shanel 01:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Look: all we're doing is registering the domain for now, and it can be a redirect to Wikibooks, until we straighten the details out. Anyway, I've answered all of your questions on Meta, a more appropriate place for them. See Wikijunior/Question on the Web site. --  user:zanimum

I think the IDEA of creating a special place for static versions of things is a good one. Creating that special place and experimenting with ways to get things there is a good idea. Many of the questions Rob Horning go to the whole idea of validation currently being discussed at meta. or is that wikipedia. I have temporarily lost track of that one.

How are we going to know when Wikijunior Solar System is ready for publication? The "as published" version should go on Wikijunior, right? This is a similar problem. Why not provide PDF as well as HTML? Wiki stuff is free stuff, so anyone SHOULD be able to download the booklets. I imagine anything else would violate the wikimedia foundations principles. The sale price of the booklets should cover the cost of printing and distribution plus a tiny bit extra (to keep it out of the red), so that the "beck foundation" money can continue to support the electronic home of the books.

Creating an environment where kids can research and add VERIFIED facts is another one. In either of these approaches, there are definite guidelines. Things seem a bit less free-wheeling than they are at wikipedia.
 * Here's one interface for that sort of thing: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view.php/1617 (a bit automated)
 * Here's another one: http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1997/GlyniseFinney.shtml (completely manual, with a human gatekeeper)

I think issues about skins and front-page formats will be easier to resolve. They can evolve. --SV Resolution 02:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * My 2p: I'm somewhat skeptical about this quote from Angela's message:-
 * [...] Jimmy clarified that the proposal is for Wikijunior be a place to put 'finished' work, with Wikibooks still being the development community, [...]
 * I don't believe there is any reasonable way to determine whether or not a Wikijunior 'book' can be deemed 'finished' or not, as there are always things that can be changed. Furthermore, since language slowly evolves over time, we must retain the ability to update content appropriately, for example, to use more modern metaphors. Besides, I always thought that Wikisource was the canonical place to host materials of a more 'fixed' nature.
 * If the intention is to create a bunch of new wikis on the DNS names  .wikijunior.org, then would it not be more appropriate to actually develop the Wikijunior content there? There ought to be an easy way to tag books in some way to indicate how 'finished' they are considered to be (e.g. using the [[Image:00%.png]] [[Image:25%.png]] [[Image:50%.png]] [[Image:75%.png]] [[Image:100%.png]] icons). Further, with the departure of both Wikiversity and Wikijunior from the Wikibooks wiki, we can finally just be a single project, and not a hosting site for arbitrary Wikimedia projects. I might further suggest the previously discussed possibility of setting up an incubator wiki as per the board meeting of Aug 14 2005 as an alternative to Wikicities for projects which the Foundation deems appropriate.
 * If the intention is not to create a bunch of new wikis, then I'd be interested to hear what the Foundation have in mind. - Aya T E C 19:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I see no reason why we can't move the content in its entirety. No book is ever finished, if that was the case we'd be moving our 100% books over to Wikisource. Just as a featured article over at Wikipedia can change beyond recognition within the month after its featuring. And if a list of only the finished books is needed, well, create an impressive-looking page just for that purpose!

Also I should point out that any texts that are transwikied will be deleted in their entirety from Wikibooks. I've already come across this problem when people were making changes to the foreign-language books both on their new wiki and on the old copies here, and that is NOT a problem we should be forced to deal with any more than we already are.

I don't believe the books should be locked from editing in any manner. No Wikisource works are locked and they're getting along fine, so I see no reason to do otherwise. And having uneditable HTML pages would be a contridiction of the project's title.

As for adminship, I'd of course like to think we can trust the current Wikijunior contributors, but I do think we need to make sure they're trustworthy candidates first. Therefore I propose that the Wikibooks admins be responsible for overseeing the voting in of the first few, and after that they can be left to their own devices and vote amongst themselves. Similarly until this change takes place it would be up to us to fight vandalism the same as it is when the project is here (only it will be easier to catch on the new tiny wiki). Of course it could be some of our admins are already Wikijunior contributors, in that case they might be able to be independent right from the get-go.

On the technological side, I hear Wikipedia is now running MediaWiki 1.6 Beta 1; does this add support for Special:Import? If not, I think that should be done BEFORE any move takes place. This is a hella big project, and being able to have capable users do a full dump of each page and then re-upload it would be infinitely superior to the current (read: crappy) copy-n-paste transwiki system.

Anyway, a week or two is far too short. Look how many weeks we've spent duking it out over the policy redefinition, and we're only just now approaching a time when we might be able to finalise things. This isn't Wikipedia, things move slowly here on Wikibooks. Perhaps too slowly, but then again it gives time for everyone to express their opinions and be satisfied with any changes.

To me, making sure the printed versions break even while still being "ethical" is a minor issue. Publishers mark up their prices to a horrendous degree, and bookstores jack it up even further, but we'll be bypassing both of those by printing them ourselves. Even if we put "$5 from this book's purchase goes as a donation to the Wikimeda Foundation" on the cover, we'll still be shoving out professional-level children's books at basically bargain-bin prices. Indeed a slightly higher price might actually help; when I see ultra-cheap things on sale my immediate thought is "what's wrong with it?"; I'm instantly suspicious and very reluctant to purchase without finding out exactly why; having a more, dare I say it, "competitive" price might make the books seem more serious.

In closing, Wikipedia has recieved high praise from web surfers and the media alike despite the fact that the vast majority of its articles are in an evidently unfinished state. I see no reason why a full transfer of Wikijunior data could not also take place, ideally pending the existence of Special:Import of course. Splitting up what should be a unified community effort into two different places, not to mention the still active Meta talk page, is a very bad thing. GarrettTalk 02:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Skins & Colors
Hello. I'm new and I apologize if this has been covered before. I just started using Wikibooks. Thanks! It's a nice site. However I have a couple of suggestions:

1. I've been using Wikipedia for a while, and as WikiBooks looks *exactly* like WikiPedia -- I keep getting confused as to which site I'm on! For example I kept trying to add stubs to my new module but it kept failing -- until I realized that I was looking at WikiPedia. I looked at some of the skins you have on offer but prefer this standard layout but maybe it could be tweaked just a little bit so I know I'm not on WikiPedia.

1a. The address bar icon (I don't know it's proper name) that shows up in Firefox and IE is identicial to WikiPedia (a black 'W' on a white background). Please customize it. I've never done it but maybe http://www.chami.com/html-kit/services/favicon/ or http://www.favicon.com/ can help?

Thanks! Sincerely, Ewlyahoocom 10:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi Ewl, welcome! Under your user preferences you can give either (or both) of your accounts different skins. You can find it under "Skin" on Special:Preferences. Also, you may want to create new modules by first creating the link to it, and then clicking that new link (which should be red) to create the page. That way you'll always stay in the same site. --MShonle 23:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Like I said, I didn't care for any of the other skins. Can I customize this one, just tweak the colors a little bit? It isn't clear how to do that. Sorry if I'm being dense. And how do I customize my own favicon? (It's that thing that shows up as  in the html). Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 15:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, you can create your own user CSS at User:Ewlyahoocom/Monobook.css, and then do a hard refresh (Ctrl+F5 on Windows) to see your changes. You'll need some basic knowledge of CSS, but if you can identify from the page's source what ID tag does what function you can then hunt for it in the global CSS (http://en.wikibooks.org/skins-1.5/monobook/main.css). You only need to copy the sections you change into your user CSS, anything you don't define can be left default. For an example of the incredible level of control you have see The Radio Control Wiki's Monobook.css. As for the favicon you can't customise that yourself, it's sourced from Image:Favicon.ico and can't be redirected. I tried upload a new one back when you first posted about it but it refuses to let me. That's going to require a PHP-level change, so I'll try to get on #wikitech today and see if someone there has the power to do that. Anyway, hope that helps! You can now get on to customising your visual theme, and hopefully you'll see a new icon sometime soon too! :) GarrettTalk 01:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Controversial wikibooks
I've been planning a book on my userpage but i can't find the wikibooks module that deals with controversial books (or any other wikibook section like the votes for deletion page, all the internal pages are hard to find.) If you do look up my userpage tell me if you think it would be deleted. --V2os 21:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Primarily I would say that we'd require two things: (1) that the information somehow be externally verifiable (through, say, primary and secondary sources that you reference); and (2) that the topic be specific and precise enough so that someone else will be able to contribute to the work. A follow up to both of these standards is that we don't allow original research. Original research is both unverifiable and is specific enough that only the original author could contribute, regardless if other people would like to. BTW, the VFD page is at Votes for deletion. There's also an Alternative Science wikicity that is currently inactive, but you can adopt it and make it active again. That would seem to be a better fit for what you are going for. --MShonle 23:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I think I'll just narrow the topic of the book. (I just looked at the wikicities page, i just want to deal with the psychic parts of things, they would have me doing vampires and such as well.)

 * You can think of the altscience wikicity as it's own site, just like WikiBooks. Think of each of those topics as books in their own right, and you'd just be contributing to the psychic book. --MShonle 22:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Bot at IRC channel
Has anybody seen #en.wikipedia.vandalism at FreeNode? There's an quite useful bot helping fighting vandaism. Maybe we should install it at #wikibooks? --Derbeth 15:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Scope of the Neuroscience book
Should the Neuroscience book include huge topics such as Cognitive Neuroscience, Neuroanatomy, Sleep, Neural Development and Electrophysiology or should each of these subjects be their own books (i.e. we'd have a book for Neuroanatomy, a book on Sleep etc). Personally, I think we should have one big Neuroscience book which includes topics such as Cognitive Neuroscience and Sleep as sub-sections. Why? Because modern neuroscience is highly interdisciplinary and every effort should be made to stress the importance of this interdisciplinary approach to students. For example, a chapter on Learning and Memory wouldn't be complete without a section on the neuroanatomy of the brain networks associated with memory or a discussion on the neurobiology of learning.

Some pros and cons of having a giant Neuroscience book as apposed to having each subject within its own book:

Pros of the Giant Neuroscience Book™
 * Emphasises interdisciplinary approach
 * Easy linking between sections
 * Hopefully a single "neuroscience community" of writers will develop. In these early stages of WikiBooks, it can feel lonely developing a book. The more we can do to focus effort on single books rather than every user starting his or her own books, the better.

Cons of the Giant Neuroscience Book™
 * Page names will be longer, for example:
 * Neuroscience/Cognitive Neuroscience/Learning and Memory/Amenesia instead of
 * Cognitive Neuroscience/Learning and Memory/Amenesia
 * Linking from WikiPedia becomes a little uglier. For example, if we were to link from the Memory page on WikiPedia to WikiBooks then we'd have to insert a link along the lines of: See the Learning and Memory section of the Neuroscience WikiBook.

Please let me know your thoughts on this.

Thanks, dan_aka_jack 13:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

How about a Neuroscience bookshelf containing several interrelated volumes? It would be like the encyclopedia of Neuroscience in several volumes instead of in one fat book. --SV Resolution 18:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I think it makes sense for a big topic like this to go both ways: Have a survey book which treats many topics, but only at the fundamentals level, and not much deeper, and then have dedicated books for all of the sub topics. It's just like how intro to anthropology might have two weeks for physical anthro, even though you could take several courses that discuss the topic more deeply. As for the long names, I would just call it Cognitive Neuroscience/Amenesia and have topics only nested to a second level (though index pages could show more stucture, such as Learning and Memory). --MShonle 20:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Yeah, this all sounds good. If do have a whole bookshelf of Neuroscience books, could we use bookshelf-wide category names?  E.g.  ? dan_aka_jack 23:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Name Nesting
Are there any limits to the depth of the name nesting system? For example, could I call a page Wikis/Editing/Formatting/Lists/Really Nice Lists/Ones With Bells and Whistles On? Even if there aren't any limits imposed by the software, do you have any views on what makes a practical depth limit? dan_aka_jack 23:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * WB:NP. I think that three degrees in a page name is the maximum reasonable number and two degrees should be generally used. Consider practical reasons - it's easier to type a two-step title to address box. --Derbeth 08:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, three sounds like a sensible max. dan_aka_jack 11:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

How do we request software features?
Hi...

Should we consider setting up a page where we can list all the features that we feel would make our WikiBook lives easier? Sure, MediaWiki is a great bit of software but sometimes it feels like using it to write a book is a little tougher than it should be. For example, some features that would be nice are:

 * Automated indexes
 * The ability to set the name that will apear on automated category listings (i.e. a page called "Movie Making Manual/Lighting" will come up as "Movie Making Manual/Lighting" on the "MMM:cinematography" category page.  It would be nice if it came up as "Lighting".

I'm sure you lot have loads of other ideas too. How do you bring these ideas to the attention of the Media Wiki devs?

Thanks, dan_aka_jack 00:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Feature requests for the MediaWiki software should be made in bugzilla.wikipedia.org. Gentgeen 08:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * OK, thanks. dan_aka_jack 08:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Be warned that mediawiki devs are mostly concerned with wikipedia features and how any feature changes will affect WP. They are, therefore, very concerned with performance issues and generally "over it" when it comes to enhancements. Another way to get ahold of mediawiki developers is to ask questions in #mediawiki on irc.freenode.net. To talk to admins/devs for other issues, you can use #wikimedia-tech. Wikibooks also has an irc channel there; #wikibooks. Kellen T 20:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * MediaWiki is open source software under the GPL. Your best bet is to either learn php and add the feature yourself (if you're a programmer), or convince a coder friend of how awesome your features are and how cool they'd be if they wrote it.  Try stroking their egos, us computer geeks have large ones.  Basicly, the current set of media wiki devs are stretched thin and focused on wikipedia, if you want new functionality its better to write it and show them working code than to ask them to do it.  --Gabe Sechan 20:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Interesting... thanks... I don't know PHP at the moment but I've always been planing to learn it... maybe one day! Thanks, dan_aka_jack 12:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Redirecting a template to another template
How can I redirect one template to point to another? For example, I would like to redirect the template Template:MMM Header to Template:MMM:header. I've tried putting these commands on the "MMM Header" page but none work:

 * 1) redirect MMM:header
 * 2) redirect template:MMM:header
 * 3) redirect

Any ideas would be very much apreciated. Alternatively, can I delete Template:MMM:header so I can move Template:MMM Header to Template:MMM:header ? Many thanks, dan_aka_jack 07:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * You could just copy the content from Template:MMM Header to Template:MMM:Header, or is there something else you're trying to achieve? Kellen T 20:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * True, I could do that. I was concerned about having multiple templates... but I suppose it's no big deal because soon I'll get round to changing all the pages to use the new naming convention.  Thanks, dan_aka_jack 12:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Redirects should work, but beware of letter case. They must be exactly equal as in other links. ManuelGR 14:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Academic References
Hi there,

(first off, I should appologise for posting so much in the Staff Lounge! I'll calm down soon, I promise!)

I would like to discuss the best way to reference academic papers in a science wikibook (e.g. the Neuroscience book). Personally, my prefered way would be like this example: (Grenier, 2005). (This is generated using this code:)

(Author, date)

Does anyone think this is a bad idea?

There are some WikiPedia / Meta projects focussing on citations, e.g.:

 * Footnotes
 * Wikicite
 * w:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fact_and_Reference_Check

Personally, I really dislike numbered references because I like to see the author names within the text (sometimes, just sometimes, I will remember the reference... I have no chance of "remembering" an arbitrary numbered reference).

What are your thoughts?

Many thanks, dan_aka_jack 14:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Citation policies are something that should be book-specific IMO. Your format looks fine, but you might consider using some sort of citation template if you expect it to change in the future. Kellen T 21:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * If you want APA referencing by all means feel free to copy the template over from Wikipedia. It doesn't matter what; as long as it's a widely-used referencing system using it's fine. However the advantages of the numbering system are of course that it doesn't disrupt the text, I actually had to cut down on references when using the APA style once because it took up too much room; with the numbers there's no such worry. However you do need to port over WP's APA template; that way instead of jumping to the content the link takes the reader to the bottom where they can see the work's full publication info and all that razz, and also doesn't disrupt editing flow quite so much. I also see I need to fix the CSS to hide the ref arrow, I'll do that right now. GarrettTalk 02:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi. Thanks for your quick replies.  Please could you provide me with a link to WP's APA template?  I ran a few searches but couldn't find it!  Personally, I quite like have the in-text reference hyperlinked to PubMed, it makes it easy for the reader to find the referenced article and download it if they wish.  But I agree that a major downside to this is that it makes the editor's job a little harder.  Thanks, dan_aka_jack 11:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmpf. I was sure there was one but I can't find it either! Well if you want something done right... OK, you can now define your reference like this: and then you merely need to repeat it as  at the bottom. The second | is because a comma will break the link, so instead the template draws the comma for you. I wasn't sure whether the parenthesis should be part of the hyperlink or not; once you've tried it out inline you might want to change that. Actually, let's try it out, so we can see what it looks like.

 * Talk, Garrett U. (2005), My Me Page. Washington: Wikimedia Press LLC.

 * Wait, is that how you do APA? Bah, I forget. Anyway it works. It would be better if it filled out the whole reference automatically like w:Template:Web reference simple but that can be worked out later. GarrettTalk 02:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Syntax
Hi,

I'm using the syntax in the Movie Making Manual's Table of Cameras in order to automatically copy selected bits of information from the camera-specific pages in the Table of Cameras. For example, I have entered information about the D-20 camera in the D-20 page and this same information is re-used in MMM/Cinematography/Cameras and Formats/Table of Cameras. However, I can only get this to work if I strictly use. I cannot use. This is bad because points to MMM/Cinematography/Cameras and Formats/Table of Cameras/D-20. Instead, I want it to point to MMM/Cinematography/Cameras and Formats/D-20 (i.e. I want to remove the "Table of Cameras" from MMM/Cinematography/Cameras and Formats/Table of Cameras/D-20.) But, for some reason, using the link  in the Table of Cameras doesn't work.

At the moment, I'm using the syntax in the Table of Cameras and then putting a #redirect on the MMM/Cinematography/Cameras and Formats/Table of Cameras/D-20 page to point to MMM/Cinematography/Cameras and Formats/D-20. But this is ugly and I'd much rather have a direct link from the MMM/Cinematography/Cameras and Formats/Table of Cameras to the MMM/Cinematography/Cameras and Formats/D-20.

So... does anyone know how I can link directly from the Table of Cameras to the MMM/Cinematography/Cameras and Formats/D-20 without having to go via the MMM/Cinematography/Cameras and Formats/Table of Cameras/D-20 page? (sorry, that was a bit long winded!) dan_aka_jack 16:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

 * You use the whole link, prefix the link with a colon ":" and don't need to use the trailing slash. e.g.
 * This is from: w:Wikipedia:Transclusion_costs_and_benefits Kellen T 23:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Great, thanks a lot - I'll give it a go. Sorry for being a bit out-of-the-loop recently... I'll try to get back to WikiBooks soon dan_aka_jack 14:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Can't Edit, please help
trying to add text to My new Folkstyle wrestling book but there are errors. I think it is my computer. If you could please help me, add this to the main page of the Folkstyle_Wrestling wikibook(I don't want to add it to the bookshelves untill it actually exists)

Welcome to Folkstyle Wrestling

Table Of Contents

 * 1) What is Folkstyle Wrestling
 * 2) The Rules
 * 3) Basic Offensive Movements
 * 4) Basic Defensive Movements
 * 5) Basic Wrestling Strategy

-24.241.16.59 01:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Basic Offensive Moves From Neutral
 * 2) Basic Defensive Moves From Neutral
 * 3) Intermediate Wrestling Strategy
 * 4) Basic Offensive Moves From Referee's
 * 5) Basic Defensive Moves From Referee's
 * 6) Training and Condition Techniques

There seems to be something wrong with the servers, one minute I can look at the page or its history and the next it says it doesn't exist. Anyway the page is there, but you might have to refresh once or twice to make it show up. GarrettTalk 03:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Can we move on the Naming Policy?
Hi,

Please can we push forward with the WikiBooks Naming Convention? Personally, I'd really like to be able to name my wikibooks pages with confidence and without worrying that the WB:NP may change meaning that I'll have to waste a whole tonne of time re-naming my pages. Right now, there are more votes against the proposed WB:NP than votes for it. So... what's the next move? Should we discuss how to improve the present WB:NP? I assume these discussions should be held on the Page Naming talk page. Thanks, dan_aka_jack 16:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Use of Categories
I've been trying to find a resource on the use of effectively using and creating categories. I can't even find a list of available categories to use! categories is far too arcane a subject, and we need to shed some light on it --Whiteknight 16:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I've been more of the opinion that categories is sort of anti-Wikibooks in many ways. The whole point of categories is to help organize content on Wikipedia by topical relevancy, and to place Wikipedia articles in a topical category for grouping and searching purposes.  This seems to work very well for Commons as well as Wikinews, where the categories are very handy for organizing the content on those projects.  Categories can also be heirarchical in nature, as you can place a category in a category as well.  This feature in particular is very useful for doing a topical search.

 * On Wikibooks, however, we have an existing structure of bookshelves for topical organization of content, and then each Wikibook has its own often unique method of organization. While there may be some use for organizing individual modules in seperate Wikibooks to a common category, it is my opinion that this is an unnecessary practice and tends to encourage the creation of modules as Wikipedia article alternatives.... something which I'm opposed to in general for Wikibook as a project.  Categories could perhaps be used to help organize the main pages of each Wikibook, but even this gets complicated.

 * Mind you, I'm not against the use of Categories within a given Wikibook, and this is a tool that you can use to help author your book, but I am speaking against using general categories for individual modules where they create links to disjointed parts of many Wikibooks. There is some talk on Card Catalog Office about using categories to help organize the "main page" of a Wikibook for classification purposes, like the LOC catalog number or more topical organization for bookshelves.  Certainly the role of categories on Wikibooks needs further discussion, and how we are going to be using them.  --Rob Horning 03:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Whiteknight, I have been using categories extensively on the Cookbook. You can find a list of all current categories at Special:Categories, and there is a listing of uncategorized categories at Special:Uncategorizedcategories. You mostly have to look at wikipedia for documentation about these sorts of things in general since their policies are much more developed and usage much higher. If you have specific questions, feel free to ask here or on my talk page.

 * Rob, I agree that cross-categorization of specific pages from different books is a bit weird. I tend to think that most categories should be prefixed by bookname (ala the Pokedex) to specify their scope, and that un-prefixed categories should be wikibooks-wide and generally should only be used for cataloging books. Kellen T 22:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Self Sufficiency
Just started to write Self Sufficiency however I started in mistake is Self sufficiency note lower case s. now writing in Self Sufficiency with big s but am not allowed to remove other page. This page comes up when searching for self sufficiency and could be confusing for users. could an administrator delete it please.

 * Welcome. In such cases, you can either make a redirect  #REDIRECT Self Sufficiency  or insert delete. Please, do not leave blank pages, they're confusing. --Derbeth 11:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I did the same with Programming:Visual Basic Classic/Jarithmetic Round Two Implementation. Finger slipped when typing the capital I of Implementation.  I just viewed the page and then used the Move link on the tabstrip at the top of the page.  Seems to work. --kwhitefoot 18:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Page Organization
Is there any way to make a navigation template for a book so that you can easily go to the next and previous page. Also is there any way to change the navigation template from the same page.

That last sentence may sound confusing. What I am trying to do is organize my book in a number of different ways, depending on what you are looking for (for instance, you can either browse by difficulty level or by Section type). Is there anyway to make a template which will be able to reflect both of these browsing types (when I press next page, it will look which organization type I am in and go to the appropriate page) hope that makes sense. -68.116.202.52 21:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) Yes, look at Template messages/Navigation. You cerainly will find something suitable for you.
 * No, there is no way to save user settings in a template. --Derbeth 21:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

GPL code
I read somewhere that GPL and GFDL are incompatible. Does that mean that I cant include a bit of GPL code in a Wikibook as an code example? Maybe I can do it if I clearly say that the code is GPL and not GFDL?

 * Take a look at Wikibooks talk:Copyrights where this point has been brought up before. Also take a look at the Debian discussion on the question: http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html.  If the code is your own then you can dual license it or even make it public domain.  --kwhitefoot 10:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

 * You cannot change the license of a book you are writing under us, but it is possible to mark content. For example check out what Polaqu is doing with the unfree OGL license. I'm sure something similar could be done. GarrettTalk 08:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

 * One interesting alternative is to start a "sister project" to the wikibook you are working on at Source Forge. They have free hosting of copyleft software (generally GPL, but they do allow BSD and other free software licenses as well) and a number of neat services as well including CVS access and even MySQL database services.  That way the source code for the projects that you want to be machine compatable can be "distributed" seperately under the GPL, as opposed to the documentation that would be here on Wikibooks. I've also seen some people try to "dual license" content, where the copyright license for a particular Wikibook has another explicit licensing option.  The legal ground on that is a bit shaky as it would be harder to "prove" that contributors were aware of the alternative license before they started adding new content to such a dual-license Wikibook, but at least it is an option.  If the content is here on Wikibooks, it must be licensed under the GFDL, but it doesn't have to be the only licensing arrangement.  And if the content is original, you are free to do whatever you want with what you have personnally written, including republishing under a propritary license.  Companies like MySQL AB do that with their software, where they have both a "free" GPL'd version and a "commercial" version that you have to pay explicit licensing fees for.  --Rob Horning 15:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Bookshelf Help.
I can't find a suitable bookshelf for Folkstyle Wrestling. For those of you who don't know, it is the sport of wrestling. In fact, I don't think there is a place for any sports books. I don't believe that games would be a place that people who wrestled would look if they wanted to find a book on it. Should I create a new bookshelve,or is there a category that I'm missing? -68.116.202.52 22:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC) edit: I just found physical education, which says that it includes martial arts, but still don't think that this accurately describes a sport(even though it does happen to be a martial art also)