text:
Wikibooks talk:Forking

Forking and joining should suggest standards
Hi Dysprosia! I welcome this initiative to present a more coherent Wikibooks for editors and readers. Clearly, community effort should be bundeled to well-defined projects, and in this sense a good forking policy is necessary.

Let's name things: I guess you are mostly concerned about the Programming:C plus plus <-> Programming: C -/- -/- fork. Suppose both parties agree to join the efforts again - whose style should be adopted? Who should be the winner, who the loser? I guess, the debate would continue, if it were not for standards.

Another hot point for forks is the effort of Wikiversity vs. Wikibooks. I don't know how active the former group still is, but content might be duplicated there and here, reducing the quality effort that could in principle be put into one joint effort Wikibook.

Also, with a lot of "New Wikibooks" recently, there is a high chance that content is created twice.

What I wanted to suggest for a long time is, to set up such a standard committee for Wikibooks. We have all the ingredients, we could watch Wikibooks grow for a long time, certainly, browsing around, we see which concepts work and which don't - which books are easy to navigate around and which are not. Since we now have subpages enabled, I would suggest to form a standard committee for Wikibooks, that first works for a couple of weeks to agree on a set of simple and easily adoptable standards, that would work best on Wikibooks. (As with every standard, it is a suggestion that people might adopt to but don't have to). Standards might include:

1. Using a uniform naming convention for new books or when joining books: A new standard might be (but of course it can be discussed) Bookname                   -> use this for the main page, including contents Bookname/Cover             -> use this for cover Bookname/Authors           -> use this for authors Bookname/Introduction      -> introduction Bookname/Chapterdescription -> use this for chapters
 * e.g. Organic chemistry/Foundational concepts
 * The standard would recommend the newly introduced subpages.
 * The standard would suggest a capitalization of names (e.g. all small except first letter or abbreviations)
 * The standard would suggest to name the main page of the book as the bookname. (not like e.g. Teaching Assistant in France Survival Guide as main page and Assistant in France:Application as chapter pages. Also the main page should be renamed to Assistant in France)
 * The standard should discourage the use of numbers for chapter names (e.g. "Book/Chapter 1", "Book/Chapter 2" ...), as it is done in Geometry. This is because it would be very hard to insert a new chapter between existing chapters. When explicit names are used this poses no problem.
 * These standards make the future update of SQL queries on books easier.
 * Also, it might be a new standard, NOT to include the bookshelf name in the title. E.g. "Programming:C plus plus" should in future just be "C plus plus". This is to make Wikibooks more coherent (there is also no "Languages:German" or "Science:Mathematics" but the book's name is plainly "German" or "Mathematics".) Books can be sorted on bookshelves, but the book title itself should not reflect this. (to be discussed).

2. Splitting a book into reasonable chapters, and not having everything on one side.
 * Smaller pages are better for online-viewing of books.
 * On the other hand, there is no point in dividing a page into chapters that each only fill a few lines.
 * Having only 1 layer of chapters seems ideal for most books. Very large books (like Organic chemistry) will need 2 layers, but the suggestion should be to introduce the second layer only when necessary - not before. (like Business English that has 2 levels of chapters where most will be empty for a long time.. my personal guess. 1 level of chapters would be more than enough to let people work on the book in a coordinated way.)

3. Provide a print version. Using templates, a book could provide a print version where all chapters of a book are displayed on one page for printing. A book that does this is e.g. Computer Science:Data Structures. By providing a set of generally available templates, this could be made much easier. -> Hence a good standard committee.
 * Having this print version will take away one of the reasons for the unlucky C -/- -/- fork.

4. Books that follow the standard should have the right to carry a special logo "Wikibook standard 05" (like Fortran 95 and the like..). Someone should create a nice logo, like the CSS or XHTML logos from W3C.

5. Of course, there is no point in transforming very large books like Cookbook or Organic chemistry immediately, but there should be the possibility of an easy transition (e.g. that the standard is introduced chapter by chapter). ("Wikibook standard 05 Transitional"?!?)

The standard committee might even set up a Wikibook, called the "Standard Wikibook" (after having resolved the discussion points above), to present one Wikibook that explains all the rules of the standard, at the same time setting an excellent example for a good Wikibook. The standard committee might then continue to transform excellent books to adopt to the Wikibook Standard 05.

Having agreed on a standard first, joining of forks would be a very natural procedure.

What do you think about this? Dysprosia, would you be interested in being part of the committee? Who else might be a good candidate for the committee? Who is interested in joining? --Andreas 10:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I've had the idea to start the Manual of Style akin to Wikipedia's, but can be more prescriptive. Some of the points raised will be catered by the MoS. The print version however is generated automatically in Monobook using stylesheets, so if you print a Wikibooks page, it will come out pretty already. However, a project to ensure MoS conformity is a great idea. Dysprosia 04:29, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi Dysprosia. The "Print version" I had in mind goes beyond the Monobook print style: The idea is, to have all modules of a book on 1 page, so if you print it, you will get the whole book. Yet, for online viewing the book is organized in several modules. This works in principle by having one page called "...(print version)" that includes as templates all other pages of the book.
 * I like your "manual of style". It is a very good start. If I have time, and you don't oppose, I'll contribute by converting it into an example Wikibook (with cover, Authors, printversion, subpages, navigation...). I think, an example Wikibook would be more effective and easier to understand, than just writing about how it should look like. Cheers, --Andreas 08:59, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I did think of making it a Wikibook, but thought against it. I don't think the amount of material will be sufficient to make it into a Wikibook proper. Several things though I think will need to be voted on - the hierachy method being one of them. Dysprosia 11:01, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * We now have a Naming policy. --DavidCary (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Support of this policy
I support this policy as it is in its entirety. Please let it be so... KelvSYC 02:43, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Programming:C plus plus and its fork Programming: C -/- -/-
(moved from Staff lounge)

Things have taken an ugly turn in Programming:C plus plus with User:Panic2k4 deciding to fork off another page at Programming: C -/- -/-. See my failed attempt at getting the opinions of other wikibookians (apart from Panic and me) above at, and past discussions at Talk:Programming:C plus plus/single page and those discussions rearranged in Panic's new format at Talk:Programming: C -/- -/-.

I've replaced Programming:C plus plus with text asking people to contribute to Programming: C -/- -/- instead. Already the only reason I was in the debate was I feared there'd be two separate books on C++, viz. one at Programming:C plus plus and one in the many modules named Programming:C plus plus  (See Programming:C plus plus Hello world for example). Now with the fork there is a possibility of getting 3 separate books. Doing these things would make it difficult to consolidate all the info. about C++, which places readers of such material at a disadvantage.

If this were wikipedia, we could've added a vote on single- vs. multiple- pages for books, but here the traffic is so low, almost no one would vote. In fact no one might read this thread, just like no one read my previous thread above. -- Paddu 09:15, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Hi,
 * I don't any know C++, so I can't help on the topic, but my opinion is:

Just my 2 cts. Yann 16:45, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Programming: C -/- -/- is not a good name for an article title. It's ugly to type and probably bad to get it working in search engiges. I think, the simpler the title, the better. Maybe try C pp or something like this instead, if C++ is not possible. Actually I don't read C -/- -/- as C++, but as C minus-slash-minus minus-slash-minus. Even C -l- -l- or C -i- -i- or - -|- would be better.
 * The best length for a page is about 30 KB. So if an article is getting really bigger than that (say 40 KB), better to split in 2.

 * My specific questions for now are:
 * whether to allow forks, and
 * whether to allow an old version of a talk page to be replicated elsewhere, misleading people into believing that's the original talk page, and making them miss the comments added to the original talk page after the talk-page "fork".

 * If the answer to the first is "no", not only must Programming: C -/- -/- be brought back to Programming:C plus plus, but the portion of Programming:C plus plus which is also in Programming:C plus plus Hello world, Programming:C plus plus Reference Tables, etc. must be removed from one of the places they appear in and replaced by a link to the other.

 * If the answer to the second is "no", the talk pages must also be merged in case the answer to the first is also "no". If the answer to the first is "yes", both the talk pages must be updated to reflect the latest state of comments.

 * I would say NO to both, but I am quite new in Wikibooks, although I edit Wikipedia for 2 years. And the option everything in one VERY BIG page is not reasonable. Yann 20:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * A1. I'm not sure on the meaning of fork, if you mean a duplicate of an existing page, then no. If you mean to have chapter pages, then yes. A naming convention can be "Programming:C plus plus:Program:Hello World", ""Programming:C plus plus:Program:Simple Calculator", etc
 * A2. Talk pages should not be replicated elsewhere. -- [[User:Mkn|Mkn (Talk)]] 13:35, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * With lower priority, I'd like to know:
 * if a thread in a talk page can be called "dead" and archived, if something was added to it just a month back, and
 * whether first level headers are to be used in titling sections (they are too large, and befit only the title of the page).

 * Note that I'm not that bothered about getting an answer to the multiple- vs. single-module immediately (I should've mentioned this above). But while that is being decided, the above problems must be resolved (esp. since these concern the talk pages on which that discussion can be held). -- Paddu 17:55, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Forgot to add this one in the lower priority section:
 * if threads with the last comment made a month ago can be regarded as "dead proposals" and archived, given the traffic that comes to Wikibooks.
 * -- Paddu 18:56, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * A1. If a thread has been resolved, then make a summary sentence to acknowledge it and delete the thread. Otherwise, archive it if the talk page gets too long.
 * A2. I think second level headers should be used for titling sections.
 * A3. I don't see any problem with archiving older messages. Try to resolve as many of the threads as possible. I'm not sure about other people, but I wouldn't want to read so many messages. -- [[User:Mkn|Mkn (Talk)]] 13:35, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * OK, since someone other than Panic2k4 says that a month old message can be archived, I've removed my (pet peeve) Talk:Programming:C plus plus & moved that to Talk:Programming:C plus plus Hello world (Hello world is where I started thinking about highlighting common programming errors in boxes). Just archiving and forgetting might be OK, but having another section in the talk that says that his proposal is "dead" doesn't seem OK, since someone can start implementing this proposal any time. Note that there was no opposition to the proposal. Just that I didn't find the time to implement it within a month (& a few more days now). -- Paddu 17:31, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My "textbook-l" Post
This is a mail I sent to the "textbook-l" mailing list.

Introduction:

A few days back Panic2k4 and I started discussing about whether to organise the C++ book as many modules or a single big module. This discussion can be found at:

 * Talk:Programming:C plus plus
 * Talk:Programming:C plus plus/archive1
 * Talk:Programming:C plus plus/single page
 * Talk:Programming: C -/- -/-
 * Talk:Programming: C -/- -/- (Archive)
 * http://en.wikibooks.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Panic2k4&oldid=69650
 * User talk:Dysprosia
 * User talk:Yann
 * Staff lounge
 * Staff lounge

The problem:

OK, for now I don't care whether we have single or multiple modules. In fact I never really wanted anyone to suddenly stop the single module approach and split into multiple modules. Neither do I bother about whether the stuff is organised. The book is in its early beginnings, organisation would follow in due course.

My real problem all the while was that Panic was adding to Programming:C plus plus what was already there in the "submodules" as I've called them, i.e. Programming:C plus plus *. e.g. http://en.wikibooks.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Programming%3AC_plus_plus&diff=63263&oldid=61335. From id=61335 to id=63263 Panic added stuff from Programming:C plus plus Variables and Expressions to Programming:C plus plus but didn't remove the para. from "Guide to Writers" that specifically asked editors not to add content from those submodules into the Programming:C plus plus. This way it becomes difficult to keep track of changes made in Programming:C plus plus not made in Programming:C plus plus Variables and Expressions & vice versa. OK, whatever he wanted to do, I thought of sorting it out through talk pages. But one fine day he decided to "fork off" an earlier version of the talk page to Talk:Programming: C -/- -/- (forking the article has been handled, by providing a link to his location Programming: C -/- -/- from the original location), in the process letting my replies at Talk:Programming:C plus plus to lie orphaned (compare the two talk: pages to see my replies not getting copied to the "fork"), while he added Programming: C -/- -/- to the Programming languages bookshelf (http://en.wikibooks.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Programming_languages_bookshelf&diff=69112&oldid=68382) so as to ensure his version gains audience (& contributors) while the pages at the original location lose them. Also, I protested his fork of the talk page but he removed my comment (http://en.wikibooks.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Programming:_C_-/-_-/-&diff=69397&oldid=69393).

Whatever happens to the single- vs. multiple-module debate, *FOR NOW* I'd like to request wikibookians (esp. sysops) to kindly protect Talk:Programming:C plus plus and Talk:Programming: C -/- -/-, merge them into one discussion page, preferably at Talk:Programming:C plus plus, and preferably move Programming: C -/- -/- to Programming:C plus plus without losing edit history (I believe sysops have a way to do that).

Thanks! -- Paddu 19:45, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

PS: I'm not subscribed to the list, so a moderator must approve before other subscribers get the message.

 * Hi Paddu, I think it's best to have the module named as "Programming:C (plus plus)". I just noticed this module and I think it's a bad practice to lump all the contents on one page. The main page should have links to separate pages for different sections of the book. I'm not sure what's been going on, seems like a dispute between you and Panic. Also the problem of the Talk pages? I'll try to help sort out this problem (I'm not admin). Give me some time if you'll allow. Thanks -- [[User:Mkn|Mkn (Talk)]] 12:04, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Ahh, There's already "Programming:C plus plus". I think it's better. Brackets seem more for abbreviation purposes. -- [[User:Mkn|Mkn (Talk)]] 12:20, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Wow... What a nightmare, it had been suggested in February to split the page but until now still all on one page. -- [[User:Mkn|Mkn (Talk)]] 12:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response Mkn, and thank you for accepting my proposal that moving the page is not the right thing to do now. If you look at Programming:C plus plus Hello world and pages linked to from there, you can see that I've been writing separate modules for a long time now. User:Panic2k4 however feels everything must be in one page, at least until a section grows "big enough" when it could be split off as a separate module. Whatever it is that gets decided, I have seen that no one favours forks of the article. But a more important problem is a "fork" of talk pages which makes it difficult to discuss about the problem at hand.
 * It's really nice to see more people getting interested in this issue so a resolution seems closer.
 * BTW if you didn't know Programming:C plus plus Hello world existed it probably means Panic2k4 has succeeded in giving his monolithic page wider visibility than the "submodules", which I think is unfair BTW. -- Paddu 12:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I didn't know about the other modules of C++. But then I wouldn't notice since the main page is so cluttered and I don't see links to such modules. As for the talk pages, if you are able to construct good chapter modules, then the discussion about an issue would naturally be made on that particular page. -- [[User:Mkn|Mkn (Talk)]] 13:12, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd provided links to other modules in the "Guide to Writers" section of Programming:C plus plus but Panic moved the links to the bibliography section at the end. He probably wanted to treat those "submodules" as separate books. (!) -- Paddu 17:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Looks like my mail to textbook-l went into the bit bucket but my subsequent mail to wikitech-l (while I was getting impatient about my textbook-l mail getting moderated) has reached the mailing list  and none other than our GodKing has replied . I, of course, have decided to stop talking about the issue. This was just to inform the readers of this page (if any) of the developments that have happened since. -- Paddu 21:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't completely understand what's going on here, but don't create more than one fork of the same book. That's just silly.  If someone wants to create their own fork, try to figure out why and bring them back, but if they are really adamant, hey, they can do what they want.  It will probably just stagnate with no other users but them contributing.  But c'mon.  Collaborate/compromise/consensus.  Focus on writing the book, not on dumb political struggles. - Omegatron 13:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure what's going on either. I agree that "Programming: C -/- -/-" is an ugly name. Since C++ won't work, Programming:C pp or Programming:C plus plus would be adequate. I wouldn't mind a single 30 K reference page on C, but I doubt that's going to happen. Having 3 different books on the same subject certainly does seem like a waste of time. --DavidCary 19:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Would you mind an anonymous user's suggestion? It may or may not have been proposed before, but if it has, then I apologize.

 * I think to resolve the fork, you simply provide an introduction cover, and ask the user to choose whether he/she wants a single page comprehensive approach to C++ and its structure, or prefers a tutorial-based approached broken down in sections. Make C Plus Plus the tutorial-based approach and C -/- -/- the single page approach, and make them subsections of the module. That way, development, although focused in two directions, can be referenced with one search term. --69.156.104.171 20:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Update: I've determined that the fork Programming:C -/- -/- is against policy and I've started the clock for it to be deleted in two weeks. For an open, collaborative book project such forks are simply unacceptable. For instance, imagine you are a possible contributor, and you notice there are two different books. It would be impossible to determine which book your contributions should go to. Note that there is always the option of forking, but such forks must always be on a different site. MShonle 03:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

 * This seems like a pretty silly argument/debate to me. A web page is a single click or search away whether it is on the same physical server controlled by the same organization or administrator or not.  I personally happen to own probably over twenty books on different aspects of programming in C++ and I have only ever played project manager ... not actually written C++ code.  We are contemplating a fork early and often and mutate effectively policy at Wikiversity.  I would like to extend a boldly engraved invitation to any or all of the forking parties to come to http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikiversity and establish or participate in a course  (or many courses if you are feeling ambitious) or a learning process involving the use of C++ regarding whatever aspect of, it however they choose to organize it, and work with us attracting and mentoring interested learners and other mentors.  While less time will be spent in "productive" writing, the input and assistance in reviewing and editing is often found quite helpful by many authors in academic settings in improving the overall percieved quality of one of their typical products: a text or reference for a specific targeted audience of learners or practitioners.  Also note that the early paradigm of organizing schools is merely one of many possible paradigms or overlays to lead adventurous internet surfers into the clutches of our mentors and mentees.  By all means put your new fork in its own space and link to it from all appropriate namespaces: the hacker hideout, software engineering, Institute for Self Adaptive Programs for use in Autonomous Killing Machines (terminator, rise of the machines), Star Command's League of Justice Game Developer's, Informatics, etc.  You get the idea.  At Wikiversity, we just want to have some fun and provide a little empowerment (over themselves not us) for others; not displace every other book ever written by one unique final master tome of everything ever known or to be known about one favorite subject or title.  We do not even care if you work under multiple pseudonyms with multiple styles to see which one works best with which age groups or skillsets of targeted audiences ... call it concurrent development if duplicated, redundant, mutating, innovative, diverse effort scares, dilutes, or confuses your potential readers, commentators, and fans or makes you personally nervous. 70.110.35.3 07:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I am opposed to this policy
There are many subjects that benefit from the introduction of slightly different viewpoints. I have about 8 textbooks on Special Relativity, most of which cover similar ground but they are all useful. There is also the problem of national curricula - the British A-Level science curriculum might be different from US SATS requirements. It might be useful as a guideline but should certainly not be enforced. It might also be reasonable if a fork contains more than, say, 30% of the content of the book from which it has been forked. RobinH 10:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

 * The policy is designed to prevent each new wikibookian from writing their own personal version of already existing books. We don't need multiple cookbooks, C++ books, etc. (exceptions as listed apply) Books designed for a specific national curriculum are acceptable since they are geared towards different audiences. The policy was initially created because there was an already existing C++ book which was forked over formatting issues; that should have been resolved internally instead of resulting in forking. Advanced topics such as special relativity are probably more difficult to merge and centralize, but all efforts should be made to do so. We are, after all, writing textbooks not theoretical essays. Kellen T 11:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

 * The dispute about the C++ book was not only on format, content was the major problem...--Panic 13:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Many subjects can be studied in varying degrees of depth, so would it not make sense to have 'Elementary' and 'Advanced' books for some subjects. Of course the elementary book would be a prerequisite for the advanced one, so that information does not need to be unnecessarily repeated. --Waqjan (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

 * The proposal is in need of update, see for instance the C++ page, even the forced merge of the previous Programming:C++ was see as erroneous, but is now a faith accompli readdressing it would be of no service, in the mean time several parallel works do now exist in several subjects, this has both positive and negative points, the major one being the fragmentation of the contributors poll but this also increases the freedom of choice and a more freedom to implement divergent approaches, same of those you have just enumerated. --Panic (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Vote
Support
 * Ultimadesigns 01:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Je suis 01:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * --Panic 14:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Move that Forking policy to be rejected and/or be turned it into a guideline
A forking policy without a previous understanding of a derived work and approval of a General_voting_rules or a definition to a book community should not exist. Forking brings content, the problem with forking a work on wikibooks is not space as if equal parts are on different works those can be merged, it will only provide a different context to the content on both works.--Panic 01:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Erm. Sorry, but I'm not quite understanding your rationale. Actually, I'm not understanding either what you mean by "guide". A guideline? --Swift 06:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup, sorry. --Panic 06:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you please reword your rationale? I don't quite understand it. Specifically the phrases "previous understanding of a derived work", "approval of a General_voting_rules" and "definition to a book community". --Swift 08:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

 * A guideline allows for circumstances where its recommendations do not apply. Can you give examples where it would be benefitial to the project that the rules be bent? --Swift 08:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Oppose. This particular text needs some work, but I think we need some kind of policy against unnecessary forking of material. Furthermore, it has been de facto wikibooks policy for some time that multiple books on a single subject are merged. In general, it's better to make policy conform to the community then it is to try and change the community by instantiating new policy. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 03:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you are not opposing because we need a fork prevention policy, but because content shouldn't be duplicated, I agree with that and a merge should be enforced to the oldest copy of the offending page, but by providing multiple instances of the same content to be accessible in different ways even with different structures we are providing a service to readers and facilitating the work of contributors...
 * More, every edit of a book on wikibooks creates a fork (derived work) of the original text/book, even more problematic is that by altering a secondary page you can't keep up with all versions (they still exist on wikibooks) of a work as there is no way a easy reversal or to display of a previous version by date, and a fork policy without a proper definition to the merge process is unworkable. --Panic 04:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you have not extended your view on the opposition, I will try to explain my points a bit more, we (Wikibooks community) should have a Merge policy and a Fork guideline (the Merge policy would enable correcting abuses and validate the guideline) the first would "force" a merge of any abandoned work or give some force to impose limitations to forks, the guideline would define a fork and explain how and why to avoid one and how to proceed with one within certain parameters or pointing to the Merge policy, the bottom line is that by avoiding forks we are not giving the proper treatment to Wikibooks objectives, we need authors, forks enable authors to create by forking a work, this would effectively reduce any chance for conflicts and solve many other problems and enable and even foster competition on the forked versions, let imagine for example we place a time limit on the fork and original version and would force a merge with the book with more content/votes or near to "completion" or some similar resolution in a fixed time frame or even passing a similar process like VfD on both copies (I think the whole community should have a say in selecting the version to keep on Wikibooks).
 * On the other side with a no fork rule the only result will be less authors (or if you prefer less content) because increased protectionism for the existing versions, reducing authors freedom and empowering users that probably would not have the same level of commitment to block or entangle productive users from contributing and will in fact be increasing the chance for conflicts. --Panic 05:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal
See Forking proposal for some technical fixes that could help make this policy more effective. -- SB_Johnny | talk 13:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

 * The Forking proposal was later moved to Forking and Merging before being merged into this proposal; the Forking policy. --Swift (talk) 13:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikibooks:Forking proposal

 * The following section has been merged in from Wikibooks talk:Forking and Merging. --Swift (talk) 13:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a workaround rather than a "solution" to the problem of wanting to properly copy the materials to a new page. But if it's the only way to do it, I don't have any problems with it myself. Kellen T 16:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Yep, it is. There's currently no way to duplicate a page without transwikiing. I think it has a certain charm to it though, since it will keep us tied to our younger sister-project in a positive way. -- SB_Johnny | talk 16:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I have no real objection to forking, if someone were to fork a book I was working on I would just take cuttings from their new work where needed and put them back in the original book! Your idea for forking in a more structured way sounds interesting but will probably need an admin to do it.  The only big problem with forking is that it must not be used to solve an edit dispute - I would rather have two parallel texts in the one book than a fork for this purpose. RobinH 18:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

 * This is a technical proposal on how to properly fork a page in accordance with WB:FORK, not a proposal to allow general purpose forking. Kellen T 19:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I support and would like to use it as soon as it's ready to be implemented. --xixtas 02:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm still not convinced of a need for forking material at all. The project has gotten along fine by shunning forks in the past. I can't think of a situation where material needs to be shared between books, and transclusion can't do the same job. Wikibooks has too few users writing on any one topic for us to be forking content all over the place. We just dont have the infrastructure to support it. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

 * This feature would allow contributors greater freedom to create books, by allowing them to build upon the contributions of others in alternative directions. The best way to get more people to contribute (and continue to do so) is to make whatever tools they might need available to them. While we have had reasons to shun certain kinds of forks before, the kind of forking being discussed here isn't about resolving conflicts between editors, but rather conflicts between topics. Even the garden book might require forking at some point, if separate textbooks were needed for tropical or monsoon-climate gardening, or large-scale agriculture in any number of climates (those books would address a lot of the same things, but from different technical perspectives). Similarly, if someone were to write a textbook on hydrology, much of that information could be used as a basis for a book on petroleum exploration... but would you insist that those two books share the same chapters, rather than forking them off? -- SB_Johnny | talk 13:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

 * In the first case, with the gardening book, it would seem to me more appropriate to simply expand the current book to fit additional technical perspectives. For instance, every page could have a section for "temperate climates" and a section for "monsoon climates", etc. In this way, people wouldn't need to figure out which climate they were in before they started reading a book, the book would contain all the information for everybody who needs it.
 * In the second case, it would be much easier for the petroleum exploration book to say "This book relies heavily on principals already discussed in hydrology, and the reader is expected to have read that book first". This way, we dont need to duplicate content at all, and we are advertising our books internally. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

 * This really seems like an argument for putting square pegs into round holes. For example, having a separate section on each page for various climates would make the pages much larger than they would need to be, and would be similar to including versions in 4 different languages in order to avoid having to make duplicate books, or perhaps similar to insisting that a book on agriculture be required to be part of a biology book. As another example, a book on the History of the American Revolution would perhaps need to mention what was going on in Britain and Europe at the time, but forcing authors to transclude chapters from European or British history books (if we're allowing those to be separate books, of course) would limit the teaching value... a book on British history isn't going to relate the events there to events in the colonies with the same clarity and vigor that would be desirable for the American Revolution book. What this feature would allow authors to do is just take chapters from that other book and condense/expand/transform the material to fit the subject. -- SB_Johnny | talk 15:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

 * If two pages contain the same information, they should be the same page. If two pages do not contain the same information, they should be separate pages. I can understand the idea of wanting to base the text of a new book off that of an existing book, but I can't see why we would want wholesale copying of pages and page histories to a new location. Sections of text that are being used verbatim between two or more modules should likely be templates or other transcluded pages. I've written several books that make use of the same tables or charts, and I transclude those tables individually where they are needed. Text that is not being used verbatim isn't likely to be generated by a copy operation anyway. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

(reset tabs←) That kind of transcluding might work for some books, but I assure you it won't for many other fields, both technical and non-technical. These kinds of forks might want to take a whole page from one book and transform it to fit the style and focus of another book. For an example, compare Aster (flower) and A Wikimanual of Gardening/Aster... the latter was built upon the former (using import), but takes an approach so different that even if transclusion of a Wikipedia article were possible, it would not be appropriate (and neither would transcluding that chapter be valid for Wikipedia).

We're not talking about images and tables. Most books don't use tables in the same way that engineering books do.

I really just don't understand why you want to force contributors to do workaround solutions... it's not necessary, it can seriously hamper the progress of writing a book, and quite frankly it imposes an artificial restriction that can be poisonous to the feeling of creative freedom a textbook-writer deserves to have. Again (using the example I understand the best), forcing a biology book, a botany book, a horticulture book, an agriculture book, a dichotomous key, and a local field guide to trees to all share the same chapters if the content addresses the same thing is rediculous, and I can assure you that the authors of those books won't do it. This feature is simply to allow a valid way to copy a chapter from one book in order to modify it for use in another book. It's a time and effort saving tool that contributors can use to make use of materials that are already available, rather than having to reinvent the wheel every time.

These are our alternatives:
 * 1) Forbid the authors of any given book from using materials from any other book (maybe block them if they do?)
 * 2) Ban the existence of 2 pages on wikibooks that address the same or very similar subjects (we can of course have a policy and jury board to decide when things are too similar to be permitted...).
 * 3) Permit authors of one book to take materials from another book, and adapt it to fit the book they're working on (if this were required to be done using the import tools, there would at least be a "community filter" provided by the administrator who's making the copy).

-- SB_Johnny | talk 15:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm not really going to argue the point any further, If you say it's necessary I will follow your judgement on the matter. There are a couple of things that I dont want to see resulting from this:
 * People duplicating existing books, and abandoning them (especially new or short-term users).
 * People forking books because of disputes over content.
 * Duplicate books not being sufficiently different, and requiring later effort to merge them back together.
 * Even if we have a forking policy, that doesnt mean that we no longer merge related books together. I think it might be prudent, before we allow forks to be created in this manner, that authors should have to specify exactly what their plans are with the duplicate material, so we can try to avoid the problems i've listed. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I share those concerns... I think te first and third are pretty much the same issue on this concern (the only way two books would end up being insufficiently distinct would be if one or the other was abandoned).
 * Since it's clear there will be vocal opposition to getting the tools set up without creating a policy first, I'm going to move this page to become an unstable branch of the current forking policy so that debate can continue there. The tools I had in mind just make it easier (or at least more graceful) than the alternatives, but the alternative methods aren't so arduous that we couldn't make do until the policy has some trial runs and we can see how well the actual forking part works for us. -- SB_Johnny | talk 22:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Switched it around a bit (page name changed now)

 * The following section has been merged in from Wikibooks talk:Forking and Merging. --Swift (talk) 13:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It seemed sensible to try to do this here, since we've been discussing it here. The template (which needs writing) for the talk page should do the same thing the tool would have done, and should include a category so that we can fix any forks in the future (I don't think there will be many, so catch-up should be a small chore).

I'll work more on it in the morning, but it should have some language to address the concern of making forks without discussing it first, in the hopes of preventing abuse and/or abortive forks. -- SB_Johnny | talk 02:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Renewed proposal
I've merged and trimmed what I see as the essence of Forking and Merging, Subject policy and this page. I don't think there is any lack of consensus with the general idea of this proposal and if we keep it short and simple without going into hypothetical details, we should be able to make this official without difficulty.

Should the need for more nuance present itself, we can deal with it then and reflect what we've learnt in this policy.

For now, I suggest that we delete the other two, merge in their edit histories and make this official. --Swift (talk) 11:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

 * This is premature, and requires formalization of announcement and proceedings (skipping any of those will remove any validity to the discussion).
 * The merges should be agreed and worked upon before a real discussion on the subject takes place (as a way of adopting the text as a guideline or policy), since only then similar view points on the issue can consistently be argued and converged upon without people requesting the adoption of special versions of the text.
 * There is also the problem of understating definitions (I've just added one for the fork, to this text), some of the other versions get into that more verbosely, I prefer reducing them to the minimum or even using links to Wikipedia or Wiktionary would probably do a better job, but that lead into another problem...
 * How we can define a Fork on a book, fork is used most commonly on the software world to characterize a split on the evolution of a software project (arguably derived from a fork of a process in an operating system), that is, when a person or group of people decide to take the last version of the project and build a derivative with a distinct scope or objective, there are also forks that started because splits in policy and lack of coordination between the participants, in any case it is hard to define and argue that any fork is negative or has a negative impact on the work itself or on the end user, it does undeniably have an impact on the community working on the project but if things reach the fork stage then it doesn't really count since agreement on the evolution of the project has already failed. This rational can easily be proven if taken in consideration situations were forks aren't possible due to licensing or other legal o structural consideration, so forking is mostly a positive thing in itself, it removes barriers and foster creativity and the undertaking of different approaches, but can we call fork to a book split, hardly.
 * If we agree in preventing this kind of book slits in project, we should define that "our" forks are only valid to projects namespaces, since we work on the bases of the GFDL all our work are forks or splits of a previous edit, even some of the project we have on Wikibooks are "forks" of works, derivatives, or revisions, each time there is a page edit there is a split from the previous revision. But this causes another issue on copy of content across books on Wikibooks, how quantitatively we define a split or a fork (or whatever name we get to call it), only on 100% identical replication of a work? What about transclusions they should be considered in this shouldn't they (even only to exclude them from what we consider replication).
 * Ultimately I don't see "forks" as a problem, I agree that they should be the last solution, but if we adopt a good merge policy forks will not be an issue nor shall we have a good enough reason to object to them, we should however clearly define what we call a fork on Wikibooks and state that only failing to reach a consensus regarding the evolution of project should be a reason for one with some other hard considerations (ie recent number of edits/contributions to the work etc), we shouldn't encourage forks only so people can make a point or prevent a work from evolving. As the first person to fork a book and the basis for the creation of the policy and the executor of the "forced" merge, I do have a good understanding on the needs and problems regarding both issues and the rationals that defend or contest such decisions. --Panic (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

 * "This is premature, and requires formalization of announcement and proceedings" No, we have no such policies.
 * "The merges should be agreed and worked upon before a real discussion on the subject takes place" As I explained above. These mergers are the common denominator of the three merged. What remains are details that we can be without for now. They can be added later.
 * "There is also the problem of understating definitions" This is not a problem. The proposal is clear in what the criteria for creating a seperate book is.
 * Many of your edits to the policy were helpful, Panic, but I re-added "is not an acceptable alternative to improving existing content or resolving disputes." which you had removed with the summary: "removed reason since all should be invalid added must since this part should be enforced". Provisions like this do not limit the scope, but help hone its aim. --Swift (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

 * On the premature nature of the renewal of the proposal, the thing is that a discussion should take place to bring all proponents to the table (since there are several texts on the subject. None approved.
 * The previous text on this proposal was enforced in the past, badly since it was not a result of a community decission process), in any case, the remark about the need for announcement and proceedings is still pertinent.
 * If you really intend on lunching the process to make the text into a approved policy or guideline you have to announce it (normal place is on general announcements forum), and establish the proceeding requirements and set a time frame to the outcome, previous decisions took, what I see as productive and conclusive format, this has somehow not been fallowed on the bots proposal, resulting in its status to become inconclusive and even if the participants now came to a consensus its validity would be object of debate. Even a non approval status to the previous discussion would be more clean.
 * On the merges proposals I still think that they should be resolved and acted upon before initiating an approval proceedings of this text, since it will remove and address other Wikibookians disagreements with it (they can be even considered a forks of this proposal :), since it predates any other text on the issue and the objective/function are similar) bringing everything to the table before is better than latter if you aim to bring consensus to the issue.
 * Regarding the definitions, I personally have no objection on that regard but from past discussions I know some other Wikibookians will (just examine the last few talk pages on similar decission processes, even the bot proposal IIRC was objected to on those grounds), I too dislike verbosity on policy and guideline text but recognize that establishing and nailing down some core definitions or interpretations is needed or the text will just be open to very distinct interpretations. (I above gave the problem of quantifying a "fork" or how forks aren't easily translated to a Wiki environment, even more under the GFDL, I do think you and me are talking on the same issue, but also took this chance to  show that even a proposal text have and will probably be forked).
 * On the text changes I have no major objection just would like you to describe how forks are harmful to the Wikibooks project, and if is you intention to block future forks in general I also don't see a need to define one or two reasons that can promote one (the end of the same paragraph).
 * I see "forks" as unproductive at worst, but also see several benefits as described above. I again state that a strong merge guideline would address those problem in a non prohibitive and confrontational way. I'm not strongly against a fork policy (see previous thread on this page) but don't see it as incentive to productive participation to generate content. Can you state any problem with a fork that a later merge couldn't address?
 * A merge guideline, well constructed, would be inclusive rather than exclusive, and open to corrections, with the added benefit that volunteers would already contributed content to the project. --Panic (talk) 03:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Wow, Panic. I can't remember if this is a record for you, but a 175 word paragraph without a full-stop is certainly impressive!
 * I had no intention of marking this official without bringing it to the attention of the community. Please don't make assumptions about people's motives or intentions.
 * "Can you state any problem with a fork that a later merge couldn't address?" This is mentioned in the policy:
 * "Books with similar content, scope and audience should be developed as a single wikibook in order to reduce the duplication of efforts."
 * Real-life examples abound. I can point to the Japanese book that I'm involved in (browse around the introduction pages, Talk:Japanese and its archives) which we've been stitching together from layers of contributions. We've already deleted over a hundred pages of duplicate content that we've merged. Another example is Foundations of Education and Instructional Assessment which is now in it's fourth edition, each of which has duplicate pages. From a reader's perspective, that's hardly a quality book. --Swift (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

 * There I fixed it for you (I did use commas) :) ...
 * I was going to ignore it but since you seem somewhat offended I must make it clear. I didn't make any assumptions about your actions here, I only called your attention to the facts as I see them, as can clearly be read above, and based on your own reply:
 * "This is premature, and requires formalization of announcement and proceedings" No, we have no such policies.
 * I could have misread you on your words, but clearly haven't. I recognize you are aware of Decision making policy, this reply only made me lengthily restate the obvious. I was not claiming any wrong doing nor demanding you acted on it, only stating that this is the needed procedure, as for motives and intentions I strive to not state my assumptions as facts to others, something that I agree is rarely seen on this project, but be assured that if I ever make that mistake it will own up to it. I do prefer to be direct and if possible factual when I start pointing other peoples mistakes and expect others to do the same. Just take the above example, you assumed my assumption and acted as someone that interpreted my words as an act with bad intention, not so, as the can clearly be read on the posts above.
 * Claiming duplication of efforts is not a rational argument. People forking a work will not be working together nor in the same direction (if so the fork would not occur) so no real duplication of content/work will occur after the fork. I could however agree that contributors would probably have to duplicate corrections to content predating the fork, but this in no big problem since most of those corrections are done by people reading the work, and after the fork some heavy restructuring is expected in both works. I doubt a non contributor would initiate a fork in any circumstance. If a fork occurs I can assure you that only the more active and fit work would survive in the end, you must always keep in mind that all contributors are volunteers and a fork is not taken lightly and only by people wanting to actively contribute.
 * From the time I'm on the project I only have observed, IIRC, two other people thinking as a fork as a solution and I don't think anyone did come to fork, one was the OOP book, the other I forgot. If I'm not in error the Japanese work is a result at least of merging together two "distinct" works (something that involved also moving/renaming of the namespaces, you can better than me clarify the history), in any case you are discarding the issues concerning factual errors that existed (and had to be corrected), the book history, the size of the works and level of contributors/activity this all are factors that have an impact on completing a merge, it seems that you are only pointing negative aspects and not recognizing any added value, were the works stalled ?
 * In the case of the C++ book, were I had the experience of forking and merging, there was no real content difficulties since the original book stalled after the fork, besides minor structural changes, but I see merging a fork as an easier task that merging together two distinct books on the same subject (and I have done that also).
 * As for the Foundations of Education and Instructional Assessment I had examined it some time ago and can't really understand the project. I avoid doing even maintenance tasks on its pages even welcoming editors to it (I know they should be a target for promoting participation) but I have looked into the edit habits of a few and can't make any specific conclusion other that most are editors on a task for that particular project. Are you also considering those "editions" as forks ? Do you expect retroactive implementation of the policy? (I think a different approach must be found for those distinct issues). --Panic (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

 * I've been racking my brains how or if to respond to this. As before, you cling on to your view of others' motives and misconstrue or dismiss any counter-arguments to it. I'm going to leave this and move on. If you think I'm trying to Shanghai this proposal past the community without review, please report it in the general reading room or request reprimands in the administrative assistance reading room. --Swift (talk) 10:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there is no objection to the merger itself in the discussion above. I'd like to move this on, so unless there are any substantive objections to that step, let's merge the page histories and archive the respective discussions in the coming days. --Swift (talk) 10:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

 * [[Image:Yes_check.svg|15px| ]] Done I'll archive the discussions later. I haven't quite decided when to push for a formal discussion to make this an official guideline or proposal, essay, or rejected. There are currently several other discussions in the community (notably the FlaggedRevs discussion on revising the +editor automatic granting criteria) which (should) take priority over this. --Swift (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

* Courses
The Physics Course, Arithmetic Course, Trigonometry Course, and Geometry Course books that appear to be low-quality poorly translated versions of content at another language Wikibooks dumped by an anonymous editor that refuses to engage with the community, with the mathematics books coming after the RFD of another mathematics book by likely the same person under another IP, almost make me want to try to push this to policy. At least I can take solace in the fact that all books have now been classified with status so that readers will gravitate toward higher-quality, more complete books. – Adrignola discuss 18:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

title: Wikibooks talk:Forking


text:
Cookbook:Caramelized Sweet and Sour Onion Marmalade

| American cuisine | Italian cuisine | Vegetarian Cuisine

Ingredients

 * 4 tablespoons olive or vegetable oil
 * 4 large yellow or white onions, sliced into thin strips
 * ½ cups white granulated sugar
 * ¼ cup balsamic vinegar
 * ¼ teaspoon salt
 * ⅛ teaspoon coarse ground black pepper

Procedure

 * 1) Heat oil in a large frying pan over medium heat. Add onions, and sauté, stirring, for about 15 minutes, or until they begin to brown. Do not cook over high heat, as the outside of the onions will char too quickly before the insides have softened and sweetened.
 * 2) When onions have softened and turned a light golden brown, add sugar. Continue stirring until sugar melts and begins to bubble.
 * 3) As the onions turn a richer brown, clear a space in the center of the pan. Pour balsamic vinegar directly onto the hot pan, then stir it into onions.
 * 4) When vinegar has reduced, leaving a syrupy coating on the onions, turn off the heat.
 * 5) Stir in salt and pepper, and allow onions to cool.

Uses

 * Used in Focaccia (Focaccia with Onion Marmalade, Blue Cheese, and Walnuts)

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


text:
Talk:ERP5 Handbook

= Caution = Discussion are moved to erp5-dev and erp5-poland ERP5 mailing lists.

VFD Finished
--ЗAНИA talk 17:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:ERP5 Handbook


text:
Cookbook:Focaccia with Onion Marmalade, Blue Cheese, and Walnuts

| American cuisine | Italian cuisine | Vegetarian Cuisine | Bread

Ingredients

 * Focaccia Genovese Dough
 * 1½ cups Sweet and Sour Onion Marmalade
 * ¼ pounds blue cheese, crumbled or cut into ½-inch pieces
 * 1 cup coarsely chopped walnuts

Procedure

 * 1) Preheat oven to 500°F.
 * 2) When the focaccia is fully risen and ready to bake, gently spread onion marmalade evenly over surface. Evenly distribute blue cheese over onion marmalade and scatter walnuts over the top.
 * 3) Place the sheet pan on the middle shelf of the oven, lower temperature to 450°F, and bake for 20 minutes. Rotate pan 180 degrees and bake for 20 to 25 minutes, until the dough is golden on the bottom and top.
 * 4) When the baking is complete, set up a cooling rack inside a sheet pan and immediately remove the focaccia from the pan by using a metal spatula or pastry blade to break all contact with the walls of the pan. Place the spatula or blade between the focaccia and the parchment or pad and lift the edge up. Then jiggle the focaccia out of the pan onto the cooling rack. Pour any excess oil from the pan over the top of the focaccia. Let the focaccia cool for at least 20 minutes before slicing and serving.


text:
Talk:Freistil/Participate

Untitled
I would like to suggest some other visual identifier (probably color) in addition to (or possibly instead of) italics that would encourage people to mouseover the words while they read. This would aid in learning how to use the book without having to read the "how to use this book" page (which I suspect would often be skipped). Kellen T 17:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't stick to italics, only the markup must not distract the reader. I could imagine either a dark colour similar to that of links, i. e. dark blue or dark purple, or some sort of underlining, both of which could encourage people to hover their cursor. Maybe some changing visual key like the regular link markup would do as well. --Bitbert 20:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I have tried underline and dark blue color, and I think color markup works better. Let me know about your thoughts. --Bitbert 20:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

But the blue color, just like in links, is exceptionally bad. Here are my suggestions:
 * look at translated text here
 * look at translated text here
 * look at translated text here

--Derbeth talk 15:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Freistil/Participate


text:
XForms/Read Only

Motivation
Forms frequently need to display fields that are not editable by the user. The following program demonstrates this feature.

This is done in XForms using a binding and a style sheet.

A single field (or group of fields) can be marked as read-only with a single bind statement. For example, suppose you had a set of fields related to shipping supplies to remote staff in your IT department. The billing address could not be changed, only who an item was shipped to.

The following single line in the model would make all of the sub-elements of BillToAddress read-only:

Note that because of CSS, all the fields under this binding will be marked read-only. This is one good reason you may want to logically group read-only data elements in an application.

title: XForms/Read Only


text:
User talk:Macuser~enwikibooks

Hello and welcome to Wikibooks!

Here are some tips to help you get started:
 * You should sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~.
 * Remember to conduct any editing experiments in the sandbox.
 * If you're a Wikipedian, see Wikibooks for Wikipedians for a primer on how things work here (it's a little different).
 * If you want to base your work here on materials from Wikipedia, please use WB:RFI to bring the material over in compliance with the GFDL.
 * If you're an instructor and plan on using wikibooks for a class project, see Guidelines for class projects
 * Please say hello at the Staff Lounge with any questions or ideas.
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Please take a look at Naming policy before starting a new book.
 * Remember to maintain a Neutral point of view.
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and have fun!

You will find more resources in Community Portal. If you want to ask a question, visit the Study help desk, the Staff lounge, IRC channel or ask me personally on my talk page. For site news, see the Bulletin board. It might be an idea if you add this page to your "watchlist" so that you can see when any new information is posted there.

Good luck! -- Herby talk thyme 17:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Macuser. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Macuser~enwikibooks that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 05:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Macuser~enwikibooks


text:
Cookbook:Sancocho (Dominican Meat and Vegetable Soup)

| Caribbean cuisine

Sancocho is popular in the Dominican Republic and called by many its national dish.

Chicken

 * 1 large orange, juiced
 * 1 tablespoon fresh lemon juice
 * ¼ bunch curly parsley, large stems removed
 * ¼ bunch cilantro, large stems removed
 * 2 tablespoons fresh oregano leaves
 * 2 cloves garlic, minced
 * Salt
 * Freshly ground black pepper
 * 1 pound (about 500 g) boneless, skinless chicken breasts, cut into bite-size pieces

Soup

 * 1 tablespoon clear oil, such as canola
 * 2 cups vegetable stock
 * 4 cups water
 * 1 medium white onion, chopped
 * 1 medium sweet potato, peeled and cut into ½-inch chunks
 * 1 medium boiling potato, unpeeled and cut into bite-size chunks
 * 1 green plantain, peeled and sliced into ½-inch thick slices (see notes)
 * 1 ear corn, quartered
 * 1 jalapeño or habanero chile, seeded and minced
 * Salt to taste
 * Pepper, to taste
 * Hot cooked rice (optional)
 * Hot sauce (optional but not recommended)
 * Chopped cilantro (optional)

Chicken

 * 1) In bowl of a food processor or blender, combine orange juice, lemon juice, parsley, cilantro, oregano, garlic, salt, and pepper, and process until combined.
 * 2) Pour mixture into a non-reactive bowl, add chicken and stir to combine.
 * 3) Cover and refrigerate 1–2 hours.

Soup

 * 1) Heat oil in a large soup pot over medium heat. When hot, use a slotted spoon to lift the chicken out of the marinade and place in the pot, reserving marinade. Cook chicken until opaque, stirring occasionally.
 * 2) Add reserved marinade, vegetable stock and water to the pot, and bring to a boil.
 * 3) Add onion, sweet potato, potato, plantain, corn, jalapeño, salt and pepper.
 * 4) Bring back to a boil, reduce to low and cook partially covered for 1–1½ hours.

Notes, tips, and variations

 * To serve, ladle soup into bowls and top with a small scoop of rice, if desired. Pass hot sauce and cilantro at the table.
 * Because this soup has a long simmering time, choose an unripe green plantain rather than a ripe yellow or black-colored plantain, which has a softer texture.
 * Each cook makes his own recipe for sancocho, combining root vegetables with different kinds of meat, some with up to seven meats.
 * To make the soup even more authentic, add a small peeled cubed yuca root to the broth, along with the other vegetables.


text:
Cookbook:Simple Italian Sausage Spaghetti Dinner

| American cuisine | Italian cuisine

Ingredients

 * 8 ounces whole grain thin spaghetti
 * 1 tsp olive oil
 * 1 small onion
 * ½ pound mild or hot Italian sausage
 * ½ cups red or dry white wine
 * 2 cans (28 ounces) no-salt-added diced tomatoes
 * 1 can (6 ounces) no-salt-added tomato paste
 * 1 tsp minced garlic
 * 1 tsp sugar
 * 1 tsp dried Italian seasoning
 * ¼ cup grated Parmesan cheese

Procedure

 * 1) Prepare pasta according to package directions.
 * 2) Meanwhile, heat oil in a 4½-quart saucepan or Dutch oven over medium-high heat.
 * 3) Peel and finely chop onion, adding to pan as you chop.
 * 4) Remove casings from sausage, if necessary, and crumble sausage into the pan. Stir and cook, breaking up the sausage, until the sausage is cooked through and the onion is tender, about 5 minutes.
 * 5) Add wine to pan and stir to loosen any brown bits on the bottom of the pan.
 * 6) Add canned tomatoes and their juice, tomato paste, garlic, sugar and Italian seasoning.
 * 7) Stir to combine, then reduce heat to medium-low.
 * 8) Stir in Parmesan cheese, and cook until pasta is ready.
 * 9) Serve the sauce with the cooked pasta.

Notes, tips, and variations

 * May substitute ½ cup chopped onion for small onion.
 * Sauce can simmer on low, after cheese is added, up to 30 minutes, if necessary.


text:
Freistil/Zerbröselnde Geldscheine

2006 in      „“:    Euro-       in                      in      Sabotage            in                   2.500       100 €

title: Freistil/Zerbröselnde Geldscheine


text: Template:Freistil/Detail

title: Template:Freistil/Detail


text: User:Bitbert~enwikibooks

title: User:Bitbert~enwikibooks


text:
Wikijunior:Bugs/Tick

What does it look like?
There are two kinds of ticks—soft ticks and hard ticks. Hard ticks have a hard shield-like plate (scutum) covering part of the back. Soft ticks do not have this. Ticks do not have a segmented body. The 2 main body parts are fused together. There are tiny openings (spiracles) on each side for breathing.

Ticks have 8 legs which are covered with short spines. There is a tiny claw at the end of the legs. Ticks use their legs for walking, climbing, and holding. A pit near the end of the front legs is used to smell nearby prey. The eyes are behind its front legs. Mouthparts include organs of touch and taste (palps), jaws (chelicerae), and a needle-like barb (hypostome). Palps cover and protect the hypostome. They move out of the way for feeding.

Ticks have a stretchy membrane on the outside so they can bend and move, and expand when they feed. American Dog Ticks have an oval, flattened shape. They are brown with whitish-to-gray markings. They can range in size from less than ¼ inch to a little over ½ inch. Brown Dog Ticks are reddish-brown and have no noticeable markings. They are about 1/8 inch long. Males are smaller than females.

Gulf Coast Ticks are about ¼ inch long. Females have white, interrupted stripes on their back. Males are dark brown with silvery white lines.

Lone Star Ticks are brown. Adults are about 1/8 inch in length. Males have white streaks or spots around the top edges of the body. Females have a white spot near the center of the back.

Pacific Coast Ticks are relatively flat and pear-shaped. They are mottled grey, black, and brown. Rocky Mountain Wood Ticks have a bright red, teardrop-shaped body. Males have gray and white spots. Females have a white shield-shaped spot on the back.

Female Western Black-Legged Ticks are about 1/8 of an inch long. They have a black back and dark, reddish abdomen. Males have a blackish abdomen and are slightly smaller than females.

Where does it live?
There are almost nine hundred tick species. Ninety species are found in the continental United States.

American Dog Ticks live east of the Rocky Mountains. They are also found in parts of Canada, the Pacific Northwest, and Mexico. .

Brown Dog Ticks are found worldwide. They are more common in warmer climates. They live on wildlife, on dogs, in kennels, and houses. They can survive indoors and outdoors. Cayenne Ticks are found from the southern United States to northern Argentina. They are found throughout Central America and some parts of the Caribbean. They prefer grassy areas where they can find large hosts like horses.

Pacific Coast Ticks can be found from Oregon and California south to Baja and Mexico. They live along trails and dense thickets of shrubs (chaparrals).

Rocky Mountain Wood Ticks live in lower elevations of the Rocky Mountains. They are found in wooded areas, shrubs, grasslands, and footpaths. They rest on tips of grasses and shrubs waiting for a host to come near. They are most common in the late spring and early summer.

Gulf Coast Ticks are found in North and South America and on some of the Caribbean islands. Western Black-Legged Ticks are found along the west coast of the United States. They occur throughout Washington, Oregon, California, and parts of Arizona, Utah, Nevada, and Idaho.

Winter Ticks are found through much of Canada and the United States. They range from the Yukon Territory in the north to the Mexican border in the south. They live in a wide variety of habitats. Winter Ticks prefer forested areas where moose are found.

What does it eat?
Ticks feed on the blood of a host. A host is a creature that provides a “blood meal”. Hosts can be birds, reptiles, mammals, and humans. Some ticks feed on different hosts at different life stages.

American Dog Ticks are normally found on dogs. Sometimes they feed on cattle, horses, and humans. Brown Dog Ticks feed on many kinds of mammals. They prefer dog hosts in the United States. Gulf Coast Ticks feed on large mammals like white-tailed deer, cattle, horses, swine, and humans. Sometimes they attach to birds. Cayenne Ticks feed on horses. Rocky Mountain Wood Ticks and Pacific Coast Ticks feed on medium to large mammals. Nymphs feed on small animals like rodents. Western Black-Legged Ticks feed on wild rodents and other mammals. Winter Ticks are called “one-host ticks” because they spend their entire life on the same host. They are usually found on moose and deer.

How does it defend itself?
Hard ticks have hard, armored bodies to protect them from predators. Bodies of soft ticks are more vulnerable. The fur or hair of the host acts as camouflage to keep ticks hidden. Ticks are often attached to a place that the host cannot reach, such as inside ears or on the head.

What stages of metamorphosis does it go through?
Hard tick adults stay on their host when they mate. Males die after mating. The female dies after laying one large mass of hundreds to thousands of eggs. Adult soft ticks leave the host to mate. Male and female soft ticks may feed and mate a number of times before dying. Females lay small clusters of 20 to 50 eggs.

Ticks develop through four stages of life: egg, larva, nymph, and adult. All stages except the egg need to feed on a host. Most ticks die before they are able to find a host. A tick may take 3 years to become an adult and reproduce.

Female Rocky Mountain Wood Ticks feed for 4-17 days. Then they leave the host to lay eggs. There are sometimes 6,000 eggs in a cluster.

What special behavior does it exhibit?
Ticks breathe through tiny openings along their body (spiracles). They only need to breathe a few times each hour. So, they are able to survive a long time under water.

Adult Rocky Mountain Wood Ticks can survive for up to 600 days without feeding. In favorable conditions, Lone Star Ticks can survive 8 months to 2 years without food.

A hard tick’s saliva makes a kind of glue that sticks it to the host while it feeds. Adult hard ticks stay on their host when they mate. Soft ticks leave their host to mate.

A tick’s body temperature depends on the temperature around it. It must stay warm to be active.

How does this bug affect people?
Ticks live off other living things. They are called “parasites.” Ticks get food by sucking blood from a host. While feeding, they can pass on diseases that make people and animals sick.

American Dog Ticks transmit Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, Rabbit Fever, and canine tick paralysis. Adult females are most likely to bite people, especially during spring and summer.

Rocky Mountain Wood Ticks and Lone Star Ticks cause Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever and Rabbit Fever.

Pacific Coast Ticks transmit Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever and Rabbit Fever to cats, dogs and humans. They also carry diseases to cattle, deer and ponies.

Cayenne Ticks transmit disease to horses and humans.

Gulf Coast Ticks cause serious diseases in humans and animals.

The Western Black-Legged Tick causes Lyme disease, relapsing fever, and Powassan virus disease. Its bite creates a characteristic bull’s eye rash. Winter Ticks are not a threat to human health, but they harm wildlife. Deer and other large mammals easily remove ticks during grooming. Moose are more at risk because they have trouble removing the ticks. Moose get heavy infestations of ticks that cause blood loss, skin irritation, and hair loss. They stop eating and lose weight. One moose can become host to over 100,000 Winter Ticks. Heavy infestations often cause death.

title: Wikijunior:Bugs/Tick


text:
User:Auk

See wikipedia:user:pandion_auk.

title: User:Auk


text:
Wikijunior:Bugs/Woodlouse

Woodlice are known by many names including pill bug, armadillo bug, potato bug, and roly-poly. They are crustaceans like crabs, or shrimp, but they live on land. There are more than 3000 known species.

What does it look like?
Woodlice are arthropods. Arthropods have segmented bodies and jointed limbs. There are about 3,000 different species. They are gray or brown, depending on the species and where they live.

Woodlice are crustaceans that live on land instead of in water. Crustaceans have a hard outer shell (exoskeleton). Woodlice are flat and oval with many flexible segments. They have other names such as sow bugs, pill bugs, doodlebugs, roly polies, and slaters.

Woodlice have 7 pair of legs adapted for crawling. They are between ¼ and about 7/8 inches long. In the tropics, they can be 2-5/8 inches or more in length. The Common Shiny Woodlouse is smooth. It has scattered yellow spots on its back and bright spots along the edges. The last segment of the body has orange spots.

The Striped Woodlouse is shiny with a dark mid-line and dark head. The Common Pill Woodlouse has a tail shield (telson) that can be rounded or triangular in shape.

Woodlice have several different forms. Runners have large eyes and long legs. Rollers have many segments and can roll into a ball. Clingers have edges that press down on flat surfaces.

Where does it live?
Woodlice are found throughout the world in a variety of habitats. Some are found on rocky shores and breakwaters. They do not live in deserts or at the poles.

Woodlice live in gardens, forests, deserts, and jungles. They are found in cool, dark, moist places, like caves. They need shelter from daytime dryness and heat. Woodlice that live in desert regions forage at night when it is cooler.

Most Woodlice live in soil and layers of litter. Some species are arboreal, living in trees. Woodlice in the tropical rain forests live in tree tops and on bark, leaves and branches.

Pill Woodlice live on the forest floor or under the bark of dead trees. They are found in calcium-rich soil of abandoned fields. They use calcium to build an exoskeleton. They are found in woodwork, roofs, ceilings, and cellars.

Carr Slaters live in wet environments. Rock Slaters are found on ocean beaches. They are amphibious, living on land and in water.

What does it eat?
Woodlice feed mostly on dead or decaying plant matter. They eat leaf litter, dung, decayed wood, rotting fruit, and fungi. They sometimes eat soft, moist plant parts.

Woodlice in citrus orchards feed on larva and pupae of fruit flies. Sometimes, they eat other woodlice.

Rock Slaters feed at night, mainly on seaweed. Woodlice in dry regions feed at night so they do not lose moisture.

What stages of metamorphosis does it go through?
Woodlice undergo simple metamorphosis. There are 4 main life stages, egg, manca, juvenile, and adult. They breed in springtime.

Females lay 25-35 eggs. Eggs are carried inside a brood pouch where they develop and hatch. They hatch in a few days and remain in the brood pouch for a few months. They leave when they are able to survive on their own.

Newborn Woodlice are very similar to adults. They shed their exoskeleton several times as they mature. They lose the back half of the shell first, then the front half a few days later.

Most woodlice have a lifespan of about 2 years. Some can live to be 4 years old.

How does it defend itself?
Woodlice predators include toads, spiders, centipedes, and wasps. Others are mammals, birds, lizards, scorpions, and beetles.

To protect themselves, some Woodlice curl into a ball. When curled up, the legs and feelers are protected under the outer covering.

Carr Slaters and Striped Woodlice escape predators by running very fast. They hide in small pools of water.

Woodlice change their spot colors to match their surroundings. This helps hide them from predators.

What special behavior does it exhibit?
Some Woodlice called True Pill Bugs have an arched body and a short tail (uropod) so they can roll into a ball for protection.

Some species can only live only in hot greenhouses.

How does this bug affect people?
They are beneficial because they play a role in decomposition in the soil. They help make soil richer by mixing nutrients into it.

If Woodlice populations become too large they can be pests.

title: Wikijunior:Bugs/Woodlouse


text:
Talk:8th Grade Science

On what kind of standards will this be based on? In the US, 'physical sicence' and biology predominate. --Member 22:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC) By when will this book be completed... It seems interesting... And is someone working on it or is it just abandoned?? Thank You. :)

Captcha2104 (discuss • contribs) 13:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:8th Grade Science


text:
A-level Mathematics/OCR/M2/Projectile Motion

A projectile is a body which moves under the action of gravity, and may also move horizontally. For M2 we only consider projectiles moving in one plane.

A projectile at launch can be thought as a vector, as either a velocity and angle or initial velocities in x and y planes, shown here.

As the object travels in only one plane, if we assume no air resistance (as is standard in M2), then the projectiles horizontal motion will remain constant while the vertical will only have the objects mass (gravity) acting upon it. This leads to the two equations below.

$$\ x_v = u cos( \theta )\!$$ $$\ y_v = u sin( \theta ) - g t \!$$

Below are the equations for the projectiles displacement. One can derive these from our equations of motion from M1 or integrate with respect to t the velocity equations as $$\ x_v = \frac{d (x_s)}{dt)} \equiv \int x_v dt = x_s + c \!$$ since we define our start point as the origin, c = 0

$$\ x_s = u cos( \theta ) t \!$$ $$\ y_s = u sin( \theta ) t - \tfrac{1}{2} g t^2 \!$$

With these four equations, and applying some facets of symmetry we can solve many novel problem.

 * When $$\ y_s = 0 \!$$, the projectile has just been launched or is in line with the point of launch (or on flat ground, landed). To calculate range, and the time of flight, we use this fact and rearrange

$$\ y_s = u sin( \theta ) t - \tfrac{1}{2} g t^2 \!$$

$$\ 0 = t ( u sin( \theta )  - \tfrac{1}{2} g t ) \!$$

$$\ t = 0\ and\ t = \frac{ 2 u sin( \theta )}{g} \!$$

The x_s at this point in time is the range,

$$\ x_s = u cos( \theta )\ *\ \frac{ 2 u sin( \theta )}{g} \!$$

C3 identity

$$\sin(2x) = 2 \sin (x) \cos(x)\,$$

$$\ x_\triangle = \frac{u^2 sin ( 2 \theta ) }{g} \!$$

 * When $$\ y_v = 0, y_s = maximum \!$$, since our vertical velocity is being accelerated downwards by the object's weight, using M1 knowledge (h being maximum height)

$$\ v^2 = u^2 + 2 a s \!$$

$$\ 0^2 = (u sin( \theta ))^2 + 2 ( - g ) h \!$$

$$\ 0 = u^2 sin^2 ( \theta ) - 2 g h \!$$

$$\ 2 g h = u^2 sin^2 ( \theta ) \!$$

$$\ h_\triangle = \frac{u^2 sin^2 ( \theta )}{2 g} \!$$


text:
Wikijunior:Bugs/Louse

What does it look like?
Most lice belong to the diverse family Philopteridae. Some species have wings and others do not. They are pale in color. They are 1/32 to 1/8-inch long. Eyes or eye tubercles (rounded areas) are present. There are 6 strong short legs with special claws at the ends for gripping. The specialized mouthparts are adapted for sucking blood.

Human lice belong to the Order Phthiraptera and family Pediculidae. The 2 subspecies of human lice—head lice and body lice-are almost identical in appearance. They are gray in color and flattened in shape. The female is about 1/16 to 1/8-inch long; the male is a little smaller. Each of the six legs has a hook-like claw to help anchor the louse to the hair shaft. Head lice do not jump or fly. Head lice tend to take on the hair color of the host.

Chewing Lice have small, flattened bodies without wings Their mouthparts have mandibles (jaws) for chewing. They have short, segmented antennae. The head is wider than the thorax. There are 1 or 2 claws on the legs. Mammal Chewing Lice are 1/32 to 1/8-inch long. They are pale brown in color. The large, square head has short antennae and mandibles for chewing. Each of the 6 short legs has a single tarsal claw.

Barklice belong to the Order Psocoptera. They have a large head, bulging eyes, and long filiform (threadlike) antennae. There are usually 2 pairs of membranous wings. They are 1/32 to 1/4-inch long. They are dull brown, black, or gray in color. Their wings are held in “rooflike” fashion and may have spots and irregular patches of color.

Booklice also belong to the Order Psocoptera. They have flat, yellowish-brown bodies and most have no wings. They are 1/64 to 1/32-inch long. They have small eyes and usually have short antennae.

Parasitic Lice have flattened, wingless bodies. Short legs are often modified for clinging to fur or feathers.

Birdlice are 1/32 to 1/4-inch long with an oval abdomen and 6 short, stout legs with 2 claws each. The large, roughly triangular head has biting mandibles.

Sucking Lice are small and have a flattened body with no wings. They are about 1/8-inch in length. Sucking mouthparts are stored inside the head when not in use. Compound eyes are small or absent.

Where does it live?
Lice occur worldwide and live in a wide range of habitats. Some live in the soil; others in treetops. They invade buildings and houses where food is available.

Barklice are found on leaves, foliage, bark, and bare wood of standing dead trees. They are found in bird nests and on rocks where lichen grows.

Pediculus humanus live on human hosts and sometimes on monkeys. Pediculus schaeffi is found exclusively on apes. The Body Louse lives and reproduces in clothing fibers. The Head Louse lives entirely in hair. Its eggs are called nits and they are glued to the host’s hair.

Pubic Lice live almost anywhere on a very hairy body, but they are usually found in armpits, beards, and groin.

Mammal Chewing Lice live on livestock, such as horses and cattle, and on household pets. They are found on non-domesticated species as well.

Marine animals, such as seals, sea lions, and walruses, are hosts for Spiny Sucking Lice.

What does it eat?
Lice usually feed on a specific host. For instance, Mammal Chewing Lice feed on mammals such as horses, cows, dogs, and cats. Some species, such as Barklice feed on a variety of organic matter such as lichens, fungi, and tree bark. Booklice graze in “herds” on lichen. They also eat grain, household food, and books. Sucking Lice feed on the host’s blood.

Bird Lice are a large group of pests with 2 important species. One species feeds on feathers of water birds and birds of prey. Another species attacks hummingbirds and sparrows.

How does it defend itself?
The very small size of lice makes them inconspicuous and hides them from sight. Head lice camouflage themselves by taking on the color of the hair. Adult female barklice protect their eggs by covering them with silk made in their salivary glands. They also make silk tents to protect other barklice.

What stages of metamorphosis does it go through?
Lice undergo incomplete metamorphosis--egg, nymph, and adult. Eggs are attached or glued onto areas of hosts where lice live. There are usually 5 nymphal stages. A few species bear live young, but most lay eggs. Females lay 50-300 eggs at one time. There is an 8-day gestation period. Eggs can hatch any time during the year. After hatching, nymphs start feeding within minutes in order to survive. They become full adults in 9-12 days, living only about 2 weeks.

What special behavior does it exhibit?
Most species are solitary, but some are sociable. Many species of lice are ectoparasites, living permanently on the bodies of birds and mammals without killing them. Some lice live in strange places, such as inside pelican pouches or in feather quills. Lice have even been found on prehistoric mummies.

How does this bug affect people?
Lice infestations generally occur in people who live in crowded conditions and who rarely wash their clothes. Infestation with lice is called Pediculosis. In people it causes itching and sleeplessness.

Body Lice are dangerous because they can transmit the organisms that cause infections, such as typhus, trench fever, and relapsing fever. A louse becomes a carrier after biting a patient. The infection is passed on when another individual scratches the louse or its feces into the skin. In World War I many soldiers died of these diseases. Head Lice outbreaks are common among young children. Head Lice are transmitted from one person to another on combs, hair brushes, or hats. There are usually only 10 at a time on a head. They do not burrow into the scalp and rarely cause serious infections. Several lice species are important pests of domestic animals, especially poultry. Dog Lice infestation may cause an animal to become very thin because constant grooming interferes with eating.

Some Bird Lice species, such as the Shaft Louse, can be serious poultry pests. Infestations of Chicken Body Lice can lead to feather-loss and infection.

title: Wikijunior:Bugs/Louse


text:
Category:Book:Flute

da:Kategori:Tværfløjte

title: Category:Book:Flute


text:
Category:Template documentation

ja:カテゴリ:テンプレート文書 pl:Kategoria:Opisy szablonów pt:Categoria:Documentação das predefinições ru:Категория:Шаблоны:Документация sl:Kategorija:Dokumentacijske strani predlog zh:Category:模板說明文件 ne:श्रेणी:Template documentation

title: Category:Template documentation


text: Category:Book:Indonesian/Grammar

title: Category:Book:Indonesian/Grammar


text:
Category:Book:Movie Making Manual/Editing

Editing

/Post-production


text: Category:Boolean templates

title: Category:Boolean templates


text:
Category:User el

el:Κατηγορία:Χρήστης el eo:kategorio:uzanto el it:Categoria:Utenti el ja:Category:User el

title: Category:User el


text:
Category:User da

da:Kategori:Brugere da de:Kategorie:User da it:Categoria:Utenti da ja:Category:User da

title: Category:User da


text: Category:Book:Indonesian/Appendices

title: Category:Book:Indonesian/Appendices


text:
Category:User id

eo:kategorio:uzanto id id:Kategori:User id it:Categoria:Utenti id hu:Kategória:User id ja:Category:User id

title: Category:User id


text:
Category:User th

it:Categoria:Utenti th ja:Category:User th

title: Category:User th


text: Category:User grc

title: Category:User grc


text:
Cookbook:Hearty Beef Vegetable Soup

| Soups

The original contributor of this recipe noted that the recipe originated from their mother, who used to make it for them.

Ingredients

 * 1 pound beef round steak, cut into ¾-inch cubes
 * 1 tablespoon margarine
 * ½ cup chopped onion
 * 2 cans (28 ounces) beef broth
 * 4 cups water
 * ½ cup sliced celery
 * 2 teaspoons dried basil leaves
 * 1 can (14.5 ounces) stewed tomatoes
 * 2 cups sliced carrots
 * 2 cups bow-tie noodles
 * 2 cups torn fresh spinach leaves

Procedure

 * 1) In a 4-quart saucepan over medium-high heat, brown beef in margarine.
 * 2) Add onion; cook until tender.
 * 3) Stir in beef broth, water, celery, and basil; bring to a boil.
 * 4) Cover; reduce heat and simmer 1 hour.
 * 5) Add tomatoes, carrots, noodles; bring to a boil.
 * 6) Reduce heat and simmer, uncovered, 25 minutes.
 * 7) Stir in spinach; cook 5 minutes more.

Notes, tips and variations

 * For a hearty stew, remove 1 cup broth from soup, and stir in 3 tablespoons flour until smooth. Return mixture to soup; cook and stir until thickened.

title: Cookbook:Hearty Beef Vegetable Soup


text:
User talk:66.233.183.227

Cookbook:Milkshake
Thanks for experimenting with Wikibooks. Your test worked, and has now been removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing material in modules will normally be removed quickly. Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our project. Thanks. Webaware talk 02:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:66.233.183.227


text:
User:Whiteknight/convert.js

//

/* Unit conversion Javascript Written by User:Whiteknight Automatically convert between different sets of equivalent units Especially Metric->American unit conversions. Use this script by writing the following into your personal javascript file:

document.write(' ');

function ConvertUnitsLink { var tb = document.getElementById('p-tb').getElementsByTagName('ul')[0]; var link = document.createElement('a'); link.onclick = ConvertUnits; link.href = "#"; link.appendChild(document.createTextNode("Convert Units")); var li = document.createElement('li'); li.id = "custom-link"; li.appendChild(link); tb.insertBefore(li, tb.firstChild); }

function ConvertUnits { Convert("Kg", "Lbs", "conv_mass_val", "conv_mass_unit", 2.20); Convert("m", "Feet", "conv_dist_val", "conv_dist_unit", 3.28); }

function Convert(munits, iunits, valtag, unittag, mtoifact) { var spanElements = document.getElementsByTagName('span'); for (i = 0; i < spanElements.length; i++) {   if(spanElements[i].className == valtag) {     var number = parseFloat(spanElements[i].innerHTML); var result = 0.0; if(spanElements[i].value == "SAE") {       result = number / mtoifact; spanElements[i].value = "Metric"; }     else {       result = number * mtoifact; spanElements[i].value = "SAE"; }     spanElements[i].innerHTML = result + ''; }   else if(spanElements[i].className == unittag) {     if(spanElements[i].value == "SAE") {   	spanElements[i].innerHTML = munits; spanElements[i].value = "Metric"; }     else {       spanElements[i].innerHTML = iunits; spanElements[i].value = "SAE"; }   }  } }

$(ConvertUnitsLink); //

title: User:Whiteknight/convert.js


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

QUOTE: "You don't need to animate the 2 bones in the legs, just place the body and the foot, the leg will follow automagically." HA HA; even though its not in the dictionary, automagical seems to be the right word for the job.

--Jawboot 04:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


text:
User:Jomegat/vector.js

document.write(' '); import_script('User:Whiteknight/google.js'); import_script('User:Whiteknight/graph.js');

title: User:Jomegat/vector.js