text:
Embedded Control Systems Design/Software toolchain

This chapter introduces some software tools are available to support system developers. Not only in the creation of the software to control their systems, but during the complete design process, for hardware as well as software.

Integrated development environment (IDE)
An Integrated Development Environment (IDE) is software that assists programmers in developing software (and only software!). IDEs normally consist of a source code editor, a compiler, a linker/locater and usually a debugger. Most often, various tools to simplify the construction of the code are included as well, such as for example version control support, and integration with software frameworks from which code can be reused. Sometimes, an IDE is devoted to one specific programming language or one (family of) specific processor or hardware (for example, the software with which you can program robots from one specific vendor), but more often the IDEs support multiple languages, processors, etc. Some commonly used IDEs for embedded systems are the GNU compiler collection (gcc), Eclipse, Delphi, Kylix, KDevelop, Matlab, Microsoft Visual Studio, Netbeans, Powerbuilder, DevC++, Jdeveloper, IntelliJ, etc.

The industry (and not only the embedded systems industry!) is gravitating towards either the open source Eclipse framework, or the proprietary Visual Studio. The reason why only these two will most probably survive in the future is the effect of increasing returns: an IDE that offers already a lot of integration between component tools has an easier job attracting more users, and more users attract more further development opportunities. (This effect works irrespective of whether the tool is open source or not.) The embedded industry has made to a large extent the choice for Eclipse.

Editor
A source code editor is a text editor program designed specifically for editing source code to control embedded systems. It may be a standalone application or it may be built into an integrated development environment (e.g. IDE). Source code editors may have features specifically designed to simplify and speed up input of source code, such as syntax highlighting and auto complete functionality. These features ease the development of code. Some commonly used editors for embedded systems are BBEdit (for Mac), Emacs (GNU), Kate (KDE), Microsoft Visual Studio (built-in editor) and Vi (vim)

Compiler
A compiler is a computer program that translates the source code into computer language (object code). Commonly the output has a form suitable for processing by other programs (e.g., a linker), but it may be a human-readable text file. A compiler translates source code from a high level language to a lower level language (e.g., assembly language or machine language). The most common reason for wanting to translate source code is to create a program that can be executed on a computer or on an embedded system. The compiler is called a cross compiler if the source code is compiled to run on a platform other than the one on which the cross compiler is run. For embedded systems the compiler always runs on another platform, so a cross compiler is needed. A cross compiler is a tool that one must use for a platform where it is inconvenient or impossible to compile on that platform, like micro controllers that run with a minimal amount of memory for their own purpose. Since many embedded systems have limited resources, cross-compiling is very common.

A compiler is likely to perform many or all of the following operations: lexing, preprocessing, parsing, semantic analysis, code generation, and code optimizations. Some commonly used compilers for embedded systems are GCC (GNU), Visual C/C++, CPPBuilder (Delphi/Kylix).

Linker
A linker or link editor is a program that takes one or more objects generated by compilers and assembles them into a single executable program or a library that can later be linked to in itself. All of the object files resulting from compiling must be combined in a special way before the program can be executed. The object files themselves are individually incomplete, most notably is that some of the internal variable and function references have not yet been resolved. The job of the linker is to combine these object files and, in the process, to resolve all of the unresolved symbols. Linkers can take objects from a collection called a library. Some linkers do not include the whole library in the output. They only include its symbols that are referenced from other object files or libraries. Libraries for diverse purposes exist, and one or more system libraries are usually linked in by default. Unfortunately, the standard library routines often require some changes before they can be used in an embedded program. The problem here is that the standard libraries provided with most software development tool suites arrive only in object form. So you only rarely have access to the library source code to make the necessary changes yourself. If you weren’t working on an embedded system, you’d be finished building your software. For embedded systems the program is complete except for one thing: no memory addresses have been assigned to the code and data. You’ll have to provide information about the memory on the target board as input to the locator. The locator uses this information to assign physical memory addresses to each of the code and data sections. It will produce an output file that contains a binary image that can be loaded into the target ROM. A commonly used linker/locater for embedded systems is ld (GNU).

Debugger
A debugger is a computer program that is used to test and debug other programs. The code to be examined might alternatively be running on an instruction set simulator (ISS), a technique that allows great power in its ability to halt when specific conditions are encountered but which will typically be much slower than executing the code directly on the appropriate processor. When the program crashes, the debugger shows the position in the original code if it is a source-level debugger or symbolic debugger, commonly seen in integrated development environments. If it is a low-level debugger or a machine-language debugger it shows the line in the disassembly. Usually programmers use unit testers. These testers can test a minimal software component, or module. An emulator helps programmers test their software, it makes testing with hardware in the loop possible. An emulator simulates the systems that must be controlled by the embedded system. It is possible to use Standard Test Access Ports (JTAG) to debug the software on the embedded system. These standards defines a 5-pin serial protocol for accessing and controlling the signal-levels on the pins of a digital circuit, and has some extensions for testing the internal circuitry on the chip itself. Some commonly used debug programs for embedded systems are GDB (GNU), Microsoft Visual Studio Debugger

Often programmers use bugdatabases. A bugdatabase-program makes it possible to database of all the bugs with their description. So colleagues can find information about bugs easily. They don’t have to waste time by searching a solution for a bug because others already solved it. Some bugdatabase-programs make it possible to discuss bugs with other engineers. A frequently used program is Bugzilla.

Version control
Version control is the management of multiple revisions of the same unit of information. It is most commonly used in engineering and software development to manage ongoing development of digital documents like application source code and other critical information that may be worked on by a team of people. Changes to these documents are identified by incrementing an associated number or letter code, termed the "revision number", and associated historically with the person making the change. Software tools for revision control are increasingly recognized as being necessary for almost all software development projects. Nowadays, most products are assembled from several components. In order to know what version of each component was used to construct the assembly, all information needs to be kept in a detailed database. In the future, version control software should offer a feature to keep track of all versions of the components in a certain version of the assembly. This makes it easier to solve problems with a product on a later date. Version control software currently used for embedded systems are for example Concurrent Version System (CVS), Subversion (A new version of CVS) and GNU arch.

Model-Driven Engineering toolchains
In the past there was a trend to integrate the different steps of the software toolchain in one integrated development environment. This trend continues, more and more features are added to IDEs. A trend for the future is more integration of software development with Computer Aided Engineering (CAE) analyses. For example: developers of software have to adjust their software-code because there are problems with the dynamic response of the system to control. In the future, CAE models of dynamic response and FE analysis will be inherently embedded into the design of the software.

Modelling standards
UML2, SysML, Marte, AADL

MDE projects
Important MDE projects for embedded systems development are: www.Topcased.org, www.openEmbedd.org, and www.papyrusuml.org; these projects are cooperating towards more interoperability.


text:
Embedded Control Systems Design/Applications

Introduction

This section discusses some important applications which contain embedded control systems. The aim is to describe each system by means of the structure, classifications and terminologies introduced in the previous chapters of this book. The different applications will be discussed according to the layout of this book:
 * Requirements
 * Design process
 * Application-specific implementations

This chapter will not elaborate on the generic design processes, which have already been discussed in the other chapters. Each of the different sections will rather point out specific aspects that have to be taken into account in the design of the respective application, but might be less important in other designs. The different sections will also point out where these design criteria should be taken into account in a normal design process for these applications.

The goal of this chapter is not to give an exhaustive overview of all the different embedded systems in the different applications, but merely to give an overview of the most important specific systems and demands. There won’t be an overview off all the hard- and software components either, because valuable information on these can be found elsewhere …

The applications treated in this wikibook are:
 * Robotics: industrial robots, machine tools, RoboCup soccer robots
 * Automotive: cars, trucks, trains
 * Aviation: airplanes, helicopters
 * Home and Building Automation
 * Aerospace: rockets, satellites
 * Energy systems: windmills, nuclear plants
 * Medical systems: prostheses, revalidation machines

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


text:
Embedded Control Systems Design/Glossary

This chapter contains an overview of the terminology and abbreviations that are used in the other chapters of the book.


text:
User talk:Bruyninc~enwikibooks

Hello, Welcome to wikibooks! I saw your book, Embedded Control Systems Design, and i am very pleased to see other people writing books on the subject of control systems. I was the principal author on both the Control Systems and Embedded Systems book, so if you need any help at all with your book I would be glad to lend a hand.

Also, if you need anything else, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. I usually respond quickly to questions and requests. Good luck with your book! --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks a lot! I can only hope that this book becomes half as good as yours! :-) Bruyninc 23:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Embedded Control Systems Design/Asynchronous activities

 * Hello Bruyninc, how are you? I haven't seen you or your students recently, I was wondering if you were ever going to return to work on this book. It is a good book, and an excellent example of a successful class project. I showed it to some professors at my school, and while it doesn't exactly fit into our curriculum, they were still very impressed by it.
 * Anyway, that message above is automated, and there really isn't a problem. I think it gets triggered when people create very short pages. I'm sure that you're planning to write more on that page, so i'll remove the warning message from the page. Let me know if you have any questions, or if you need any help. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 16:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm fine thanks! And yes, the new class is going to contribute quite a lot of new material in the following weeks, as well as improve on the existing content :-)
 * Bruyninc (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2008 (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 Bruyninc. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Bruyninc~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 23:00, 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) 04:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bruyninc~enwikibooks


text:
Foundations and Current Issues of Early Childhood Education/Chapter 8/8.1

School Role in Early Childhood Health
Students suffering from an economic disadvantage (i.e. homelessness, family suffering from financial difficulty, low-income housing riddled with environmental health hazards, etc.), schools have the power to play a crucial role in helping to meet the needs of these children. To create a learning environment that is safe, happy, and healthy for all school age children, schools must implement policies and/or programs to address the following issues: medical and preventative healthcare, mental healthcare, nutrition and food services, and physical education.

Medical and Mental Preventative Healthcare

Many children suffer from ailments and emotional distress as a result of their immediate home environment. “Homeless children are at much greater risk of illness, injury, malnourishment, abuse, neglect, violence, separation from family, delays in cognitive and language development, and impaired academic functioning than housed children” (Crowley, pg 23). As a result of inadequate medical care many children frequently come to school sick or are absent, with the most common ailment being dental disease. According to a recent article on oral health in America, more than 51 million school hours are lost each year due to dental related illnesses (Available Online at http://www.oralhealthamerica.org/news/022207.htm). The most common dental health problem among school children is tooth decay, which can cause a great deal of pain and discomfort, thus inhibiting concentration in the classroom and leading to possible absence from school. Free oral health screening and other preventative programs could be instituted in the schools to aid in the prevention of dental disease. Perhaps the schools could recruit local dentistry practitioners to come into the schools to implement oral health screening and educate the children on the importance of tooth brushing. As an added bonus each child could go home with a toothbrush and one of those miniature sized tubes of toothpaste. To further improve oral health schools could institute other programs such as fluoride rinses, a type of solution to rinse away bacteria from the mouth. “To be effective, interventions should be tailored to children's stages of dental development” (Available Online at www.nationalguidelines.org).

“Early identification, assessment, and management of health problems” and potential problems “that affect a student's safety are necessary to limit more serious consequences and to prevent ill health from affecting the child's emotional well-being and ability to learn” (Available Online at www.nationalguidelines.org). Free screenings for diseases and free vaccinations are also ways in which schools can take preventative measures to ensure the health and wellness of their children. When I was in elementary and middle school, for example, my school did free screenings for vision, hearing, scoliosis, tuberculosis, and lice and offered free vaccinations for the measles, mumps, and rubella, as well as tetanus. In recent years this list includes screening for mental health problems, substance abuse, asthma, type II diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and a host of other health issues (Available Online at www.nationalguidelines.org). Parental consent was required to participate in all free health screenings, except when screening for lice, and all students not participating had to submit a form from their physicians as proof of having received the appropriate medical care required by the schools. The school nurse and a member of the administration administered the vaccinations and screenings for all students allowed to participate.

Nutrition and Food Services

It is also important that schools provide good nutrition and food services to students. “School food services are designed to supplement families' efforts” (Available Online at www.nationalguidelines.org). Families should also be made aware that food programs provided by the school offer financial assistance to low-income families. They may receive information on these programs through school bulletins, the mail, open-houses, and parent-teacher associations. A common problem that many students face in regards to receiving early morning breakfast; however, is the bus schedule. One way to resolve the bus schedule conflict is to rearrange the bus schedule so students may participate in the breakfast program. Buses could be scheduled for earlier pick-ups for those students participating in the program. If rearranging the schedule is not feasible with the school system perhaps breakfast could be made available for students after the beginning of the school day. In any case, teachers could provide nutritious snacks, such as apples or bananas, for those students who are in need.

The introduction of vending machines in the schools, which supply a sugary array of snack foods and drinks, has created a nutritional problem in schools. More than half the food service workers surveyed by the American Federation of Teachers stated that students prefer foods high in fats and sugars over nutritional lunches. Vending machines are not present in all schools; however, children can still obtain drinks and foods high in sugars in the dessert lines. Not to mention, many students bringing their lunches and afternoon snacks with them are also packed with sodas and other sugary foods. While schools cannot prevent what parents pack in lunches, they should be able to provide a healthy alternative for snacks. When I was in Kindergarten, the school had a program which supplied all of our snack foods. Instead of cookies, chips, and sodas we were given air-popped popcorn, raisins, apples, bananas, real fruit juices, and other nutritious foods. More nutritious snack foods would help combat the growing problem of obesity, as would increased physical education.

Physical Education

It is important for schools to maintain a physical education program for students. Current research points out that physical activity reduces the occurrence of anxiety, depression and behavioral problems among young children. It also reduces the likelihood of children becoming obese (Stegelin, pg 101). Physical activity is extremely important as it leads to healthy hearts and bodies and helps fight obesity, which seems to be a growing problem in our nation. In recent studies obesity has been linked to other serious diseases and emotional disorders such as diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, depression, and fear of rejection (Stegelin, pg 101).

For many children, television, video games, and a parents’ general fear of the outside world inhibit physical activity outside of the school environment. For smaller children it would perhaps be a better idea to make physical education part of the curriculum every other day. Having a recess program and sports programs such as t-ball and soccer every afternoon would also help children burn off energy gained at lunchtime. Physical activity allows children to develop stronger muscles, fine tune their motor skills, and helps them increase their social and emotional confidence.

References

School Health Resources. Site maintained by CYKE, (2005). Available online at: www.schoolhealth.org.

Action for Healthy Kids. Available online at: www.actionforhealthykids.com

Taras, Howard. (2004) National Guidelines. Site maintained by CYKE. Available online at: www.nationalguidelines.org

Rogers, Elizabeth. (Feb. 2007) Oral Health America. Available online at: www.oralhealthamerica.org

Julainelle, Patricia F. and Maria Foscarinis. (2003) Responding to the School Mobility of Children and Youth Experiencing Homelessness:  The McKinney-Vento Act and Beyond. Journal of Negro Education, Volume 72, No. 1, pgs 39-54.

Crowley, Sheila. (2003) The Affordable Housing Crisis:  Residential Mobility of Poor Families and School Mobility of Poor Children. Journal of Negro Education, Volume 72, No. 1, pgs 22-38.

Stegelin, Dolores A. (2005)  Making the Case for Play Policy:  Research-Based Reasons to Support Play-Based Environments. Annual Editions, pg 99-106.

Questions

1. How many school hours are lost each year due to dental illness?

a. 23

b. 51

c. 32

d. 90

2. What is the number one illness among school children?

a. Obesity

b. Diabetes

c. Dental disease

d. Asthma

3. Physical activity helps prevent _____________ .

a. Dental Disease

b. Obesity

c. Heart Disease

d. Diabetes

4. Financial assistance is offered to low-income families for school food programs.

a. T

b. F

5. ___________ children are at a higher risk for illness and/or injury.

a. African American

b. Hispanic

c. Homeless

d. Middle class

Essay

1. How can communities mobilize to help and promote school health?


text:
Foundations and Current Issues of Early Childhood Education/Chapter 9/9.2

Universal Preschool

Written By: Kara Flake

A Universal Preschool gives the chance for all three to five year olds to attend a preschool and receive a free education, no matter their social status. Children who receive preschool education are typically the children who come from wealthy families, those who can afford private schooling, or the children who are below the poverty line and meet the requirements for federally funded programs.

Table of Contents:

E. The importance of a preschool for all children
A. Who should pay for the universal preschool?

Children who are just above the poverty line seem to be overlooked. They still cannot afford to be sent to a preschool, but do not qualify for federally funded programs. These children make-up a great deal of the population and deserve admittance into a high quality preschool program. The payments for a universal preschool should come from state governments, but should be greatly supplemented by federal funding. They need to support this, for every child.

SIDE BAR :  "The United States needs to fund universal preschool." - Wilson Greene

B. Benefits

The benefits of a universal preschool are far larger than the costs and expenses state and federal governments would incur. Not only will the children who are just above the poverty line be able to also attend, but the other children of all circumstances will be able to also. This is a chance to give free education to all children, and which will benefit them in the long run. Children from low and middle socio-economic backgrounds would be given a high quality education, where if there is not a universal preschool, they most likely will not. Also, this would benefit handicapped children. They would provide more options and schools better equipped to deal with their problems. Research has shown that a high quality education given to a child before they turn five, results in significant long-term benefits for that child. One of the greatest benefits of a quality preschool is that you are able to motivate and activate the child’s brain when it is growing and developing at its fastest. These children who go through quality preschool programs are less likely to repeat a grade, need special education, or get into future trouble with the law system.

1. Children with handicaps and disabilities

The universal preschool would enable early detection of children’s learning disabilities. This would allow schools, teachers, and parents a much better opportunity to identify and also to understand the student’s disability. Overall, this will get the most out of the potential of students with disabilities. By expanding state and federal funding to put into action universal preschools, we will expand the opportunities and possibilities for handicapped students to learn in the least restrictive area, which is also under the Handicapped Children Act. Currently, many preschools focus on non-handicapped children, and therefore do not have sufficient funding or resources to care for handicapped children.

2. Children of low socio-economic backgrounds

Children who come from low socio-economic backgrounds can greatly benefit from high quality preschool programs, as well as all children. However, less than half of children in poverty attend preschool at ages three to four. This puts these children at a disadvantage already, and they are unprepared when entering primary school.

C. Where did the idea of a universal preschool begin?

A free universal preschool for every child is the new education flag. However, it is a very old idea that goes far back. Going as far back as in ancient times in Athens when Plato prescribed his work as “The Laws”, he described it as a sanctuary for children, beginning at age three, in order to lead up to his scheme for state education. This is the premise that defines early childhood education as the underpinning for future learning experiences and gathers many countries to advocate the universal preschool movement in their educational systems. Throughout many nations, there is a general agreement that early childhood education is an investment for success all through the following school years and beyond into adulthood.

D. School Psychologists support Universal Preschool

School psychologists’ jobs were primarily to only work and provide services to young children in the early childhood program with special education needs. However, that has changed. Now their job calls for an expanded role, focusing on school readiness and the provision of services to all young children and their families in a prevention-oriented approach that is likely to get the most out of efforts to advance educational and social outcomes. State initiatives have encouraged universal preschool, which "refers to the goal of making available to families of all 3- and 4-year-olds a program of services that provides high quality education for children and helps to prepare them for a successful entry to kindergarten". Children going from home to a school setting so suddenly, are very unprepared. They need school readiness, which is what the universal preschools will offer. With a high quality preschool education, research has shown that these children were less prone to retention, committing crimes, dropping-out, and so on. They were more prepared for going into primary school, and even further in the future, they had shown more advances in education. It has been shown that children have many diverse needs, which should all be met.

E. The importance of a preschool for all children

Why should all children have a free preschool education? What is so important? At such a young age, these children have not yet developed the ability to act with consideration and intention, nor are they able to learn on demand. They need this when going into higher education. It is a crucial time, and at this age is when they learn to do these things. This is one of the many reasons preschool is so important for children and that every child should have the opportunity to be in a quality preschool program. In preschool, they learn to go from reactive thinking, to being able to think before they actually act. These quality preschool programs should include proper teacher qualifications and training, small class sizes and teacher-to-student ratios, stimulating and motivating curriculum, and services that support the child and their family. The universal preschools will include this, along with so many other benefits that have been mentioned, for all the children.

REFERENCES:

Universal Preschool: A Costly But Worthy Goal., Greene, Wilson. Journal of Law & Education, Oct2006, Vol.35 Issue 4.

Guest Editorial: On Behalf of Children. Swiniarski, Louise Boyle. Early Childhood Education Journal, Feb2006, Vol.33 Issue 4.

Addressing School Readiness: Expanding School Psychology in Early Education. Hojnoski, Robin L.; Missall, Kristen N., School Psychology Review, 2006, Vol.35, Issue 4.

Multiple-Choice Questions:

1. When it comes to affording preschool programs, what children seem to be overlooked?

A. Children from high-class families

B. Children who are below the poverty line.

C. Children who are just above the poverty line.

2. Who should pay for universal preschools?

A. State governments

B. Teachers

C. All families

3. Where did this paper say that the idea of preschool originated?

A. in Ancient Egypt B. in Ancient Athens

C. in the United States

4. Children who attend a preschool are less likely to do all of the following, except:

A. be held back in school [retention]

B. commit crimes in the future

C. graduate

5. At first, school psychologist’s jobs were only to:

A. consult families

B. work with children who have special education needs

C. help with school readiness in the children

Multiple Choice Answer Key:

1. C

2. A

3. B

4. C

5. B

ESSAY QUESTION:

How do you feel a Universal Preschool program will help children?

Sample Response:

There are many children in the world whose parents/guardians cannot afford to send them to preschool. Some may meet the requirements where they can be offered federal funding programs, but may not be aware of that. Others are just above the poverty line where they do not meet the requirements and do not have any choices. The universal preschool programs give you a choice. Even though you are supposed to offer a fair education to all children, it still does not happen. This is a way to make it happen. It is important to give children the opportunity to grow and develop during such a crucial age. This is when their minds are growing and developing the fastest, and it is at these ages that we should help with that by giving them that education. It also helps prepare and get them ready for going into primary school. It makes the transition much easier than going straight from being at home to all of a sudden being in a classroom, being expected to do work and learn on demand. Learning on demand comes during the preschool age, and in a preschool setting is where it is supposed to be enhanced and supported. The benefits of preschool are amazing and research proves it. Also, research has shown that children who go to a quality preschool are less likely to get held back a grade, commit future crimes, or need special education.


text:
Talk:Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/Books/Prisoner of Azkaban/Chapter 20

Hermione howling like a werewolf
Umm, no she doesn't. Hermione in the book is petrified at the thought that she might affect the past by interfering; you must not be seen is the watchword here. She is utterly horrified that Harry has had the temerity to actually cast the Patronus that saved everyone; and she would not be so scared by it if she had already done the same thing to distract Lupin. This is another of the things that is different between the movie and the books, and in this case is rather illogical in the movie portrayal. Chazz (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/Books/Prisoner of Azkaban/Chapter 21

Hermione howling like a werewolf
Umm, no she doesn't. Hermione in the book is petrified at the thought that she might affect the past by interfering; you must not be seen is the watchword here. She is utterly horrified that Harry has had the temerity to actually cast the Patronus that saved everyone; and she would not be so scared by it if she had already done the same thing to distract Lupin. This is another of the things that is different between the movie and the books, and in this case is rather illogical in the movie portrayal. Chazz (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


text:
User:Archolman

Wikistuff is the best thing about the Net
It's a grown-ups toy, this.

Introduction
I'm pleased to meet you. I hope that my contributions will be acceptable. All help gratefully received.

I live near Huddersfield, in the North of England. I contribute to Wikipedia. user:archolman/sandbox

title: User:Archolman


text:
Talk:Paint.NET

=Comments/Guestbook= Express your feelings about Paint.NET and the Paint.NET Wikibook in this section!

This is how to create a comment:

i luv Paint.NET!
This is a comment. It looks really cool. Almost as cool as Paint.NET

Great job!
This is going really well so far. I tried the fire tutorial and was blown away (unintentional pun). I also read how to make animated GIFs which is actually what I was looking for. If you need encouragement to keep adding more chapters to the wikibook, consider this it.

Great job so far.

Thank you!

The forum has moved!!!!!!
The PDN forum has moved! Has anybody revised the links??? Chairsenses (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If your still messed up, click here

title: Talk:Paint.NET


text:
Template:Russian/Exercise

EXERCISE • •

SOLUTION • •

To use

 * Example:

title: Template:Russian/Exercise


text:
Talk:Windows Batch Scripting

Reorganising this page
This is a very long page, I would rather have it in separate pages. I am going ahead and doing this. Wish me luck. --Grich 02:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think think this page needs splitting up but to turn it into something other than a reiteration of "documentation" elsewhere I think it should be split it categories with good examples. The sections would something such as File Management, Control Flow, Presentation etc. I think more content should be added before doing this split. --Jason Cozens 17:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I have now added new chapters for this book. I haven't started editing (deleting or moving content) from the main page as I will do this as the chapters build up. The intention is to make the main page into an overview and add an introductory chapter (Chapter 1.). --Jason Cozens 20:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Question
NEWB says: Why doesn't recognize a file like file 1.doc I typed in the right path ,and start file 1.doc but it won't load the doc.

 * The reason is because batch files treat spaces as a new command. If you want to run file 1.doc, you must type  START file_1.doc with the underscore. --[[user:penubag|penubag ]]''' ([[w:user talk:penubag|talk ]]; [[w:user:penubag|w ]]) 05:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

 * @NEWB, penubag is wrong. I have never seen ANY version of the Windows START command use an underscore to replace a space.
 * Instead, simply surround the file-name with quotes like so:
 * Actually, you don't even need the START command, you can launch the document by simply typing the name and extention inside a set of double quotes. Like this:
 * - BB -- BinaryBunny (discuss • contribs) 23:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * - BB -- BinaryBunny (discuss • contribs) 23:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * - BB -- BinaryBunny (discuss • contribs) 23:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Add CMD to list of Commands - Commands to be covered.
Is it OK to add CMD into the list of commands between  and  ? --Jason Cozens 09:00, 07 November 2008 (UTC)

I've seen that CMD is listed under external commands. Does there still want to be an entry in the main list of commands as for cmd.exe CMD comes up in the >HELP list. --Jason Cozens 11:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

In order to make the initial version of this book tractable I'd like to concentrate on one set of commands and then add notes about other command interpreters later. I propose to start by covering the commands in Windows XP cmd.exe Version 5.1.2600 to start with. --Jason Cozens 20:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Split This Book
This book definitely needs to be split into different sections.

Specifically this (no longer current) book needs to be dedicated to Windows built in Command Interpreter (as of Windos NT 4.0) CMD.EXE.

The other command interpreters central to this book (4NT [from JP Software] and CMD [from ReactOS]) should only be mentioned as add-ons or potential replacements for Microsoft's CMD.EXE.

Currently the verbiage used to identify which of the 3 is being referred to is haphazard. Additionally, CMD and ReactOS are used interchangeably, potentially confusing readers (like me) into thinking that MS CMD.EXE commands are being described when it's really ReactOS commands.

Also notations about which commands were new, available, changed, disappeared and reappeared through the different versions of Windows should be added. Possibly it might be wise to create separate books for DOS, Windows 9x, ME, NT, 2000, XP, Vista, 7, and 8.

In fact, I don't know why other Command Interpreters like FreeDOS and 4DOS should not also be mentioned, and given their own books.

Lastly, I believe that some of the explanations of the commands are FAR to in-depth, and would be more appropriately located on a Wikipedia page of their own. This book  should  be more than just a list of commands, but I think a short explanation of the command, maybe simple examples of each 'Mode' of use. (Take the NET and FOR commands for example. FOR could include an example of "for %%x (*.*) do", "for /f", "for /i", etc. But leave the page after page in-depth explanations of each command on *pedia. IMHO. Or at least until we have a better table of contents and overview of commands. Again, IMHO.

- BB -- BinaryBunny (discuss • contribs) 22:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Scope restriction
I have restricted the book to cmd.exe, as proposed at above on this talk page. Instead of planning to treat three separate command interpreters while treating none of them in any depth, the book should better focus on the most popular and most used command-line interpreter for MS Windows.

Here is my scope-restricting edit.

Furthermore, I have removed any links to the following stubby subpages: --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * /Batch File Scripting
 * /Environment Commands
 * /File and Directory Management
 * /File Commands
 * /Interactive Commands
 * /Tips and Tricks

Book title
I have renamed the book from "Guide to Windows Commands" to "Windows Batch Scripting". The book explains not only the commands of cmd.exe but also its other features such as environment variables, pipes, redirection, command-line arguments and the like. An alternative title I have considered in "Windows Batch Programming". --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 15:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Breaking into subpages
I object to breaking this book into subpages. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good for you! But please stop spamming the comment section! Without any reasoning this comment is rather pointless, so I would very much like to ask you at least to add a list of advantages regarding your choice. Thanks! --Albin77 (discuss • contribs) 07:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Addition: especially since the same topic has already been started twice!! Please move your comment to the appropriate discussion or remove it altogether! Thank you! --Albin77 (discuss • contribs) 12:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I ask you to leave "Breaking into subpages" thread alone. The subject heading captures the subject poorly, as does . --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Advantages of a single page, for you:
 * Easier search using browser's Control + F function
 * No need to create and update a printed version page
 * Snapshotting of book development: a revision of a single page is a snapshot of a book in time. Creating a snapshot in time of a collection of pages is far from that straightforward.
 * Advantages of multiple pages:
 * Smaller occupation of wiki database storage, as edits are made to much smaller pages
 * Better focus for readers with attention deficit
 * Shorter loading times, but not much really, I think. Depends on the length of a book. For a book under 100 KB, the loading time difference seems negligible. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Control + F is a good argument, although wikipedia has a funktion to search within multipaged books. I suppose thats a personal choice. Not sure, why you would want to read an "old version" of the book, but that's true, a single page would make that easier.
 * For now I would agree with you and stick to the single page version as long as possible as well (and since we are the only ones who care... ;) Although I don't agree with starting the third thread about "spliting the book" (in addition to and and . This makes a discussion quite hard! So I would either suggest we merge them or just delete the two old once (since they only have suggestions on how to do the split and weren't used for the past few years). Cheers! --85.177.167.42 (discuss) 09:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC) --Albin77 (discuss • contribs) 09:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not your business to manage discussions, deleting them or moving them. You are a non-contributor to English Wikibooks. Even actual content contributors do not run around Wikibooks deleting and moving discussions. I do not really want to discuss with you; I want to discuss with people with track record of actual delivery of results. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * (Years later) To track arguments in one place, I created Should all books in Wikibooks have subpages for chapters?. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Some errors/inconsistencies
It is stated under "Quoting and escaping" that "The percent sign (%) is a special case. On the command line, it does not need quoting or escaping.". This is not true, it does need to be escaped in some cases, as demonstrated by one of the examples: "echo %temp%", which does NOT print "%temp%" but the name of a temp directory.
 * Thanks. Is the correction I made in correct? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Registry not covered
MS-DOS Batch script is capable of modifying the windows registry via the REQ QUERY,REG ADD, REG DEL and the REG COPY commands. If you need a source to add registry modification to the book you can find a source for it at the tutorialspoint tutorial it discusses registry modification.
 * Thanks. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 06:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Stub for REG added. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 15:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Query : change?
Section "Variable substitution" includes, starting the second list element, "For variable specifications that name batch file parameters (i.e. that are non-negative decimal numbers) ... ".

Perhaps "non-negative decimal numbers" should be "a single decimal digit"? 94.30.84.71 (discuss) 19:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I rewrote "Variable substitution" section to be simpler and clearer, showing things as far as possible instead of describing them. I hope you'll like the change. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Reader statistics
As per pageviews.wmcloud.org: The raw data of page view per month: 2015-07: 20259; 2015-08: 19837; 2015-09: 20619; 2015-10: 20475; 2015-11: 21260; 2015-12: 20441; 2016-01: 22400; 2016-02: 23546; 2016-03: 23648; 2016-04: 22979; 2016-05: 24066; 2016-06: 26563; 2016-07: 26298; 2016-08: 27204; 2016-09: 22376; 2016-10: 20523; 2016-11: 19732; 2016-12: 16603; 2017-01: 18046; 2017-02: 18510; 2017-03: 19360; 2017-04: 17608; 2017-05: 17415; 2017-06: 18522; 2017-07: 16437; 2017-08: 16397; 2017-09: 16164; 2017-10: 16908; 2017-11: 16934; 2017-12: 15032; 2018-01: 19081; 2018-02: 20294; 2018-03: 23204; 2018-04: 21549; 2018-05: 22795; 2018-06: 21517; 2018-07: 22298; 2018-08: 24856; 2018-09: 22557; 2018-10: 20418; 2018-11: 18635; 2018-12: 15912; 2019-01: 18298; 2019-02: 18072; 2019-03: 15722; 2019-04: 14494; 2019-05: 15170; 2019-06: 14804; 2019-07: 14993; 2019-08: 15294; 2019-09: 15466; 2019-10: 17373; 2019-11: 16836; 2019-12: 14185; 2020-01: 14587; 2020-02: 13522; 2020-03: 11609; 2020-04: 12506; 2020-05: 11771; 2020-06: 11186; 2020-07: 10723; 2020-08: 9042; 2020-09: 10320; 2020-10: 10240; 2020-11: 10784; 2020-12: 10796; 2021-01: 11283; 2021-02: 11165; 2021-03: 11209; 2021-04: 9429; 2021-05: 8426; 2021-06: 7239; 2021-07: 8497; 2021-08: 8027; 2021-09: 8130; 2021-10: 8092; 2021-11: 6862; 2021-12: 6914; 2022-01: 6484; 2022-02: 6548; 2022-03: 8495; 2022-04: 6712; 2022-05: 6403; 2022-06: 6688; 2022-07: 6741; 2022-08: 6627; 2022-09: 6864; 2022-10: 7029; 2022-11: 7371; 2022-12: 7234; 2023-01: 8185; 2023-02: 8008; 2023-03: 9078; 2023-04: 6568.
 * From mid 2015 to mid 2016, the monthly page views were nearly always over 20,000.
 * From mid 2016 to Dec 2019, the monthly page views were nearly always over 15,000.
 * From Jan 2020, it trended downward and stabilized, in 2021 through 2023, above 6,500.

--Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Windows Batch Scripting


text:
Field Guide/Birds/Aquila chrysaetos

/Transcluded Modules

title: Field Guide/Birds/Aquila chrysaetos


text:
Wikibooks talk:Decision making/Archive1

missing word
Under the proposed policy, there is a sentence with a missing word that is needed to properly understand the proposal.

"Any wikibookian with 20 bona fide or more is eligible to vote on any issue"

20 bona fide or more what? Thanks, Gentgeen 01:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Good catch! the "what" in question should be "contributions". --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Do we really, really, really need that for consensus? It's so arbitrary, and it's not as if anything gets done with consensus without discussing the merits of the arguments made anyway. It just seems rather unwelcoming, especially since we're hopefully going to be having a lot more collaboration with wikiversity as things get going there.-- SB_Johnny | talk 17:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The important part here is that it's for voting on IMPORTANT things. I don't see how a user with 5 or 10 edits can be familiar with the way we do things here, and while 20 seems somewhat arbitrary, making twenty good quality edits at least shows a genuine interest in becoming involved.
 * Perhaps an exception could be made if the user's own contributions/status could be affected by the vote, such as a module they started coming up for VfD. There should also be provisions for allowing voting eligibility to be contested on a case-by-case basis, as someone could still have a hundred edits and not have contributed anything, or (as in the VfD case I just mentioned) might have a dozen edits on their project and should be able to defend it. Xerol Oplan 04:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

A minimum good faith contribution count gives two main benefits. First, it offers some protection against sockpuppets. It won't necessarily stop a determined sockpuppet, but largely it is the weight of the argument, not numerical count that decides things, so stopping determined sockpuppets doesn't tend to be a big problem. Second, it allows us to correct newbies unfamiliar with our ways in a way that they shouldn't take personally. I would hope that should a newbie offer a good argument, or should a page contributed to by a newbie be under discussion, the newbie's comments and vote would not be removed.

The figure of 20 is, of course, arbitrary. It could be 25, 30, 50 or 100. But it's good to try to keep it low enough not to put new editors off contributing to our discussions, Jguk 06:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

More changes
I've made some changes to the policy HERE. The new text removes all reference to the word "vote", which has been pointed out is not a good word to use when describing the consensus process. Also, I have removed all mention of minimum edit counts. The reason why I removed the edit count minimum clause is because I included text that says votes should be judged on a qualitative basis, not a quantitative basis. My vote isn't more important then any other vote because of my edit count alone. Even a first-time user can give a meaningful, well-thought-out opinion on a topic, and an old timer can give an insubstantial or unmotivational one-liner. A simple "yes" or "no" vote doesnt matter, regardless of who casts it.

I hope these changes are for the best, and that I haven't introduced any new problems to the policy. Because of all these changes, The previous straw poll (above) should be disregarded. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind keeping some mention of needing previous or planned activity on Wikibooks because that will keep swoop-in votes in check. I just want to see that the user has some establishment in the project before weighing in their comments. I don't think it's fair to the community for an outside voter to come in, no matter how profound their comments are. I don't vote in other countries' elections. I might know how to make a good decision in Germany, but it's still not my right. I want some Wikibooks "citizenship" and would like that included somehow. Ideas? -within focus 01:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if we include the 20 contrib limit, 20 contributions hardly makes a "citizen" here. A person who is making 1 edit a month over 20 months isn't conceptually any better then a "swoop-in voter". If a person knows our system, and can make relevant comments/observations within that framework, then that should be all that matters. Now, if a person says something that demonstrates a blatant disregard for our policies and our community, then we know that it isn't worth while. Also, i might want to mention that the vast majority of the wikibooks "citizenship" is most likely comprised of readers, not writers. People who have been readers here for a long time might find a discussion worthy for their first contribution. That doesnt mean that their opinions don't count, if anything, it's profound that their first contribution was input to our discussion processes. In short, people who know our policy and our community will demonstrate that knowledge, people who don't know us will demonstrate that as well. We should be able to pick out the differences, and make judgements accordingly. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hang on a sec
This proposal has, over time, expanded somewhat from being about general voting rules (ie when we vote, what are the rules, not when do we vote) to being about our decision-making process generally. This expansion of scope is making getting agreement difficult. Two possible routes - (1)contract the scope back down to voting rules alone; or (2) move the page to Decision-making and try to iron out all the new concerns. Personally I'd prefer route 1. Once that is complete, it would be possible to move to route 2 later.

If we are to go down route 2, I'd like to see the whole process section removed and replaced by the flowchart. The flowchart does need some amendments - replace "block" with "oppose/opposition" and replace "synthesize concerns" with "outline concerns". I'd also like to see that as a suggested, not a forced, route to getting consensus.

Finally, I'm still not sure about VfD. I'm not at all convinced that we look for consensus - I think we weigh up the arguments as to whether a module or book is consistent with our inclusion criteria. Comments unrelated to that point, whilst not quite ignored, are downgraded. Ultimately 3 votes for deletion and 8 votes against may end up with the article being deleted, depending on the nature of those votes. And compromise here is often impossible - either the text stays or it goes - there is often little middle-ground, Jguk 07:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Oh, I should add that I'd quite like a bit that says we should aim to follow the spirit of the policy, not necessarily the letter. Principle-based rather than rule-based policies are far better. Maybe even remove the 20 edit minimum and replace it with "regular good faith contributor" or something along those lines, Jguk 08:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Yup, I was wondering if the name of the page shouldn't be changed. I think both option 1 and 2 would be good, but is there really that much to talk about if we're only talking about votes on topics that already have established rules?
 * As far as the VfDs are concerned, I think consensus is more valuable than voting, especially as the criteria for keep and delete seem to be based on the debates held on that page (we seem to be precedent-oriented), rather than on more "formal" guidelines. -- SB_Johnny | talk 10:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I think that the option 1 is better as it simplyfies the discussion and allows for faster consensus. That being done, there could be another guideline/policy on the decision process which relies on the voting guideline/policy.
 * I agree with the following the spirit rather than the letter of the policy. As such, these should rather be guidelines than policies. Once the guidelines are up, they can be polished depending on how well they work. If they need to be enforced more strictly, they can be changed into policies.
 * As for the "20 edits" vs. "good faith editors", I stongly favour the second.
 * An editor may come to Wikibooks and study its policies before taking an active part in the project and finish his 20 "bona fide" (this very term is going to cause trouble) edits.
 * An editor may have been editing his quiet little corner of Wikibooks without any interest in policy.
 * Given that we are trying to reach consensus, it is not the sheer number of votes that counts but rather the quality of the arguments.
 * --Swift 01:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I am against making this a guideline, because I dont want to see people saying "We dont need consensus, it's just a guideline, and we can just use a majority rule here to make a decision if we want." I also don't want wikibooks to run on an oligarchy system, where older or more active users demand more respect and authority then other users. Every user, from 0 contribs up to 10,000 or more all get an equal oportunity to help shape wikibooks, and minorities should never be disenfranchised by the majority. The way of doing business here at wikibooks is through community consensus, and we should make this an official "policy" instead of simply a guideline, because this is the official way in which things should work: There are no acceptable alternatives. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

 * If there isn't a consensus and the majority pushes it's view on the rest, there will be a full out edit war (unless all the admins are on one side...). Consensus isn't just a good idea. It's a necessity. I think that will be a good part in "enforcing" the guideline. I do see your point. I'm just not sure it's a problem and think it would be better to start out with a guideline. If it doesn't work, changing to a policy shouldn't be too painful a process.
 * "I also don't want wikibooks to run on an oligarchy system[...]". Wholeheartedly agree!
 * "minorities should never be disenfranchised by the majority" Which is the reason for consensus, sure, but this can also be used to argue for a minimum numer of edits or "established user" etc. since it could place the "regulars"/"old-timers" in a minority if there were a rally vote of new users. That said, I do like the ideal of not barring newcomers from taking full part of the community, but I do eye some potential hasards (in a guideline, these could be addressed as needed).

 * But if "consensus" is only a guideline, people can choose do disregard it, in favor of other decision methods. It's a small semantic difference, but it is very important. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Exactly. I see this as a strenght. It does not bind us into a policy that may prove inappropriate in some (as yet unforseen) cases.
 * Perhaps our difference of oppinion comes from how we see the guideline implementation. I've always understood the policy/guidelines as the "must"/"should"s of IETF RFC 2119. A policy tells us what must be done, the guideline what should be done. As can be read in the RFC, the definition of should states
 * "'that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course.'"
 * According to this, no-one will be able to disregard the guideline without a very good reason. I don't see the guideline as a weak "this would be cool, but do what you like" (that's more what an essay is) nor as a "weak" policy. I see it as a ruleset for situations where there (may) exist exceptions and where the spirit of the law is more important than the letter.
 * I think it could be a very useful first step in adopting what will be a very important part in Wikipedia's decision making. The guideline allows us to learn from experience using different decision methods depending on the situation and, as I mentioned earlier, respond to unforseen situations. --Swift 06:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Okay, i'll accept your argument, on the understanding that if instantiating this proposal as a "guideline" fails, we can reconsider it as a policy. I am still unsure whether we can pass this as a guideline even, much less as a policy. Wikibooks currently doesnt have many (if any, at this point) "guidelines", so it might be good for us to put into explicit writing the relationship between policies and guidelines, perhaps on WB:WIW. I still don't think i quite understand why it must be a guideline and not a policy, especially with the inclusion of the "follow the spirit of the policy" text that has been included at the end. When following the spirit, the letter of the policy can be disobeyed, so long as the philosophical principles behind the letter are understood and obeyed. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 12:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Actually, we do have a number of guidelines (not all are explained with their own pages, though) and near the top of the page, the two terms are defined (though I find "guideline" to be rather poorly so).
 * "why it must be a guideline and not a policy". It's not that it must be. It is simply my oppinion that it may be too restrictive. I think the mentality should always be: "Why must it be a policy, not a guideline".
 * "especially with the inclusion of the "follow the spirit of the policy"". Especially with this, it should be a guideline, since this pretty much renders the policy as that. --Swift 19:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Every change that is made, it seems, makes a few users happy, and a few more users unhappy. I'm starting to wonder if this community is capable of creating a voting policy at all. As to your first concern, it has been pointed out to me that the process of making a decision via consensus rarely involves any actual "voting". To that effect, it's been my philosophy since we began this discussion that a voting policy (or, better yet, a "decision-making" policy, as you have pointed out) should be short, vague, and open to interpretation. All I wanted to do was specify consensus as the primary decision tool, not majority voting. By keeping it simple and general I think we can create an effective policy, but avoid too much instruction creep. Our "voting" here should be done by consensus, and any policy about it therefore should describe the consensus process (which is the "voting process"). Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it) "consensus" is a broad term, and latitude needs to be given for it.
 * I will add a bit about "the spirit of the policy" right now. I've already removed the 20-contrib minimum rule, and replaced it with text that prizes quality comments over quantity comments. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, as to your comments about the VfD thing, I still maintain that VfD is a "high impact" decision, although the rules outlined here for "high impact" decisions don't necessarily fit the way VfDs work. I don't think this is an issue however, especially not with the addition of the "spirit of the policy" text that you suggested. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll
Should Wikibooks:General voting rules Wikibooks talk:Decision making be an enforced policy?

Yes
 * 1) Bring it. -within focus  15:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) This is a step forward and allows for consensus decisions. RobinH 09:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No
 * 1) In a true consensus based system, these rules should not be needed. --Cspurrier 00:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The only way to specify that we are on a consensus system, and not on a majority voting system is to put it in writing. We need to specify consensus so that people don't try to do things another way. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Care to elaborate? Kellen T 09:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This policy works off of the idea that consensus requires a poll or a vote. A poll or a vote is probably the worst way to form consensus. Consensus should be formed by community discussion, in most case just discussing a issue in visible place is enough to determine if there is community support for an idea.--Cspurrier 16:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This policy specifically redefines the word "vote" to mean a discussion with multiple possible outcomes. In this sense, we aren't talking about "majority voting" as the word is commonly used to describe. Now, I conceed that perhaps there is a conceptual difficulty in using the word "vote", but we could change that word, and not affect the meaning of the policy. Polls and votes are described by this policy as possible methods for determining if consensus exists or not, but strictly speaking, decisions should not be made based on a poll or a vote only. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't think it's quite there yet. I've made some alterations see here, but I don't think the section on process is right yet. The process expounded is reasonable, but I'm worried that it is too dogmatic. Who did the flowchart earlier - could we replace the whole "process" section with that flowchart? I've also moved VfD from high impact to low impact. Largely the decisions are low impact - they don't affect the project as a whole. Occasionally, key points on how to interpret our inclusion criteria are raised. Where that is the case, I agree the point of policy may be high impact - but for most nominations, the decision does not have sitewide importance. I'd be prepared to support this proposal once my concerns have been addressed (and personally I still prefer version 4 out of the 5 versions), Jguk 06:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean VfD by majority rule? I don't think thats a good idea. The wikiversity folks are rather alarmed at our VfDs already, and are talking about archiving all the books just in case we decide to wipe them all out. -- SB_Johnny | talk 11:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Version 5 was supposed to be simply a prose rewrite of version 5, in an effort to use more "language" and fewer bullets. It was my intention that the text of version 5 should mirror the intent of version 4. I apologize if my goals were not met in this regard. Is there any specific text we can change on here to make it better reflect the points of version 4? If we replace the process with Kellen's flowchart, would that be more acceptable? I also disagree with you about VfD. Votes to delete can have a profound impact on our community. Look at the votes to delete the videogame guides. Look at the initial VfD to delete Wikiversity. Entire groups of people can be disenfranchised from our project if we vote to delete their books. Look at the growing debate on VfD right now, where we are discussing deleting a single page out of the Chemical Synthesis book: That discussion is helping to shape this very policy, in addition to testing our current deletion policy. I think that VfD discussions should stay high-priority for all these reasons. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's probably why I prefer version 4 - I think it's better using fewer words and being punchier. Why have longer prose if it doesn't add anything? On deletion (the proposal refers to deletion, not just to VfD), I think there are a number of clear-cut cases where deletion can be summary (ie speedy deletions). When we have a VfD discussion, we discuss whether the module/book meets our inclusion criteria. Many of these discussions are relatively humdrum - they do not have a sitewide effect. Others, as you note, are more important as they get down to the crux of what exactly are our inclusion criteria. We decide, and we should decide, deletion matters in a way that takes account of the relevant importance of that decision. Any comments on deletion in this proposed policy should take account of that, Jguk 08:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I did the flowchart and wrote the initial edit of the process (version 4). The flowchart is here: Image:Consensus2.png. It may not be a perfect chart for wikibooks as "blocking" doesn't really exist here and that has caused trouble in discussions in the past. I would be willing to make a new chart that is more wikibooks-specific if people would like that. Kellen T 09:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh I like that! Simple, easy to understand... excellent! -- SB_Johnny | talk 11:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I changed a bit of the process back, but hopefully it's clearer as to why it's in that form. Kellen T 09:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - way too narrow and restrictive of community-building and consensus-building. SB_Johnny  | talk 11:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weighing arguments is more important than weighing who makes them. If there's a VfD for "dirty jokes", for example, and 80 users with more than 20 votes say "keep... they're funny", vs 4 or 5 users (with however many editcounts) voting to delete and giving good reasons (fill in the blank: there's plenty of them), would we decide to keep? SB_Johnny  | talk 11:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's also good to keep in mind that wikimedians from other projects depend on our project for what we do here: write textbooks. Wikipedia needs us because articles can't tell the whole story. Wikiversitans (or whatever they're calling themselves this morning) need us for textbooks to support their courses and schools. And we need them to help provide content, context, and even PR for our project, not to mention adding content as new contributors on this project. -- SB_Johnny | talk 11:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess another way to put this is that Wikibooks aren't for the wikibookians, but rather for the people who will (hopefully) be using the books. While we should all hope that the enduser will also become a wikibookian and help write more books, it shouldn't be a requirement for them to do so, even when it comes to valuing their opinions. -- SB_Johnny | talk 14:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If i understand you correctly, you want to abolish the 20-contribs rule? I personally didn't like that rule either. Perhaps we should delete that, and see if we can get more support. Does anybody feel strongly that we shouldnt delete the 20-contrib rule? What if we removed it, but included a clause that says a minimum-contribution rule could be implemented in the future to combat suspected sock-puppetry? --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that's all that really needs to be said. Keep it simple, and thwack the sockpuppets when you know what they are (we really need an active admin with checkuser, BTW). -- SB_Johnny | talk 17:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If the specific number goes away, then something needs to be said for having at least some motivation to be a contributor here. We can't allow voters who vote and do nothing else. That opinion is useless. I've made a minor change reflecting this "current or future activity" which is general yet makes it known that there should be some activity here, not just swoop-in votes. -within focus 18:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's certainly fair. We'll know when this kind of thing goes on anyway... not too many dummies around here :). -- SB_Johnny | talk 18:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Even though this is not a legal venue of any sort, we still need to have some things "in writing" to provide a strong basis for decisions. All the users being created to vote on that great debate we're having over at VfD could possibly claim that their arguments should have equal weight even though they're not real editors here. There needs to be something on our virtual paper here to handle that. -within focus 19:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I like your addition. I don't think we should accept votes from people who don't care about our project, but on the other hand, we shouldn't bite the newcomers either. By specifiying that people should have at least some past or future contributions, we can get around this. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Let's make it a guideline. It seems that many are in agreement that there should be a certain degree of lenience and the spirit of the policy should take precedence over the letter. Even the policy as it stands now, says it will work "more like a series of general guidelines". I also support the recent suggestion that the decision part be taken out as they could well be a different guideline. --Swift 01:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Another Vote?
Can we get this in as a policy now? There seems to be only one user dissenting as of now and others' concerns seem to have been addressed. We need to have something put in place and maybe we can discuss a smaller point later, but let's at least get something going. It's becoming so complex with the minutiae of this topic that I'm not even sure how close we are to success. -within focus 19:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 * It is a good point. I'm going to suggest that we attempt to ratify this as a "guideline" instead of a policy, even though that's not the outcome that I personally want (I would prefer it to be a policy). I think that many members of this community would prefer to use the term "guideline" here, and that simple distinction should (i hope) gain more support for the policy. Let's try and start another quick straw poll, to see if there is enough support for making this a guideline. I'll advertise this straw poll on the staff lounge, and try to get some more users in here. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Are you proposing we just change to a guideline, or that we also go down either of Jguk's proposed roads? --Swift 22:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Mostly I am saying we should change this to a guideline. If we need to alter the title to be more reflective of the content, we can do that at a later point. Also, I think the current text of the policy is generalized enough that we shouldnt have to be more or less specific on any points: more specificity qualifies as "instruction creep", and less specificity would make this policy disappear entirely. I certainly don't think we need to add anything to this policy, because we don't want to prescribe what people must do, but instead we just want to show them the correct way to make decisions (and hope they do things correctly). --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree with Whiteknight, make this into a guideline. --Panic 15:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is dissenting, so i'm going to be bold, and use the fancy new guideline template I've created to make this one official. If people still have signficant disagreements, we can deal with them later. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing "Following this policy"
I think the section Decision making is now redundant. Firstly it's not a policy, so at the very least that should be changed. Secondly, this section was introduced as a compromise for those that thought the proposed policy too restrictive. This was addressed by making it a guideline. I suggest that we remove the section (possibly merging some content into other parts). --Swift 11:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Just in case this suggestion got lost in the chaos of the next section I'm just bumping the issue. If no-one objects in the next few days, I'll remove the section. --Swift 04:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Good point, i'm going to change the text right now to reflect the fact that this is a guideline. If you still feel the section should be deleted after i've made the changes, that's fine. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

 * No, I think it looks good after your edit, and quite possibly useful. --Swift 16:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Does this guideline give rise to a decision?
Swift has just removed the text that provides an end point to the decision making process (on the third repetition of the process a majority vote would prevail). Now, either we need a guideline for decision making or not. A guideline that explicitly does not end in a decision is fatally flawed; it is not a "decision making" guideline at all.

In the absence of an end point the guideline says discuss the problem, discuss it some more and if you cannot agree unanimously forget it. Of course, this just means that if one side feels sufficiently self important or is part of a gang they will just bully dissenters into accepting their view (see above). Alternatively, if none of the parties are inclined to gang behaviour there will be no decision. RobinH 11:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

 * "No consensus" generally does kill the action in question, yes. It's aggravating sometimes, but that's just how consensus works... slowly and very carefully. There can come a point in the discourse where the decision becomes rendered as "consensus with notable objections", and we'll know when it's time for that.
 * The kinds of decisions we're talking about are either (a) making a policy that somehow or another restricts all wikibookians, (b) removing a restriction that will change the traditional structure of wikibooks, or (c) deleting something a wikibookian worked on. Seems to me that these decisions should be difficult, and shouldn't have an arbitrary limit. -- SB_Johnny | talk 11:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree, there either is consensus or there is not. Consensus can be either positive or negative, such as "yes, we all agree" or "no, we all oppose". Either situation is a definative end-point to the discussion (at least until somebody later wants to reconsider the matter, and reopens the discussion). If there is no consensus, the discussion is not over; not, that is, unless people all say "we can't agree on this, so we will all drop it", which is effectively similar to saying "No, we all oppose". Barring this (if everybody doesnt "give up"), the discussion can continue ad infinitem until one of the 3 outcomes is acheived. Consider the US supreme court (for those of you familiar with it): The supreme court can choose to hear a case from a lower court and then pass judgement, or it can choose not to hear the case at all. This third option (judge "yes", judge "no", ignore) works like a tacit agreement of the previous ruling, which reduces the possible outcomes to "yes" or "no". If the supreme court then chooses not to hear a case (analogous to our being inable to acheive consensus), the matter never gets "judged" per se, but there is still a definate outcome where the status quo is maintained.
 * I think a trap that some people are falling into is thinking that matters can be decided by concrete metrics, and that once a matter is decided, it is over and done. Wikibooks policy is (or should be) a more organic process where people are free to discuss the issues forever, and to come to compromises. Also, once a policy is proposed, it should be harder to institute it then it would be to reject it. Changes to the status quo require that not only does our "supreme court" have to hear the case, but that they have to decide in favor of it. In essence, to institute a change, we must reach consensus on the matter, and that consensus should be in favor of the change. There shouldn't be a way to "force" the outcome one way or the other. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 12:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

 * OK, this may be a semantic problem. Certainly, absolute consensus would never work in practice (frankly, I don't even like it in theory). I understood it as implied that consensus should be used as an approach to a lofty ideal.
 * In my defence, I believe most others here who agreed with it had the same understanding. Perhaps this is due to interwiki-ing of concepts and practices. Wikipedia calls the method Wikipedians use to make most decisions consensus — and it works. Consensus driven debate drives people to compromise which brings people together rather than tear them apart. See simply the discussion on this guideline. If we had a certain percentage for decisions, many would bury themselves into trenches and we'd be voting on every single thing hoping to reach that magic number. There would be rallying, not of experienced users, but of like minded ones banding together to achieve each others goals. Consensus weighs the quality of the arguments, not just the number. I thought this was clear. I see how I was wrong and apologise.
 * "just removed the text that provides an end point to the decision making process". I removed text that was added after the proposed policy was accepted as a guideline. Yes, it was done rather hurriedly, but it had been under lengthy discussion and was an hindrance to other pressing business. Furthermore, even in your stringent understanding of consensus, it is no less an endpoint in a decision making process. It simply shifts the necessary portion of those in agreement to 100%. --Swift 12:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there are huge problems with semantics here.

SBJohnny said "consensus with notable objections" is required. This is a majority vote after lengthy discussion.

Whiteknight said: "Consensus can be either positive or negative, such as "yes, we all agree" or "no, we all oppose". This is unanimous decision taking. Why not call it unanimous decision taking?

I do not really understand what Swift means by consensus. Swift seems to be suggesting that consensus is 100% support for a proposal but I am not sure.

Everybody seems to be using the word "consensus" to support their own view without defining it. I propose that we stop using the word "consensus" in this discussion and assume that all participants would like the decision making process to be fair, take into account the views of all parties and not allow preemptive action.

A guideline for decision making should outline a process and describe an end point at which a decision is either made or rejected. (Rejection could occur because most people are against the proposal or because the proposal cannot be agreed). Can we define such a guideline?

The current guideline has no end point. Perhaps this is deliberate but in this case there is no real need for a guideline. Those inclined to obstructionism or bullying and gang behaviour will simply get their own way. RobinH 18:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I still disagree with you on these points (and frankly, i doubt that you and I will ever agree on this subject!). Let's consider the (admittely flawed) example of a VfD discussion. Some people want the module in question to be deleted, some want it merged, some want it transwikied, and some want it kept unscathed. In a majority voting, worst-case scenario, a given faction could make a decision on the fate of the module with only 26% of the total votes. Decision making based on a 26% "majority" is simply unacceptable. That rules out majority voting. Note also that "unanimous decision making" won't happen either: it is unlikely that 100% of all people will up and change their vote. Some of the deletes might change to transwiki, and some of the keeps might change to merge, but will 100% of everybody agree on what to do? I don't think a unanimous decision process is acceptable either: it is unlikely that anything would ever be decided. Remember, we want a decision-making process that actually enables decisions to be made, and unanimous decisions won't fullfill that role. Consensus can exist even in the presence of objections: people can agree to disagree, people can compromise, people can bow to the will of the community, they can ask that the decision be made on a trial basis, etc.
 * I also would like to point out that from my perspective, this guideline does have a specific end point, and that it is necessary for that reason and for others. This guideline has end points on step 5 (affirmative decision) and step 6 (bullets 1 and 5 lead to a "no consensus" result, which is an implicit "reject", and bullet 4 which is an "accept"). Discussions themselves do not need definitive ending points: discussion can be continued forever until a suitable decision has been reached, and discussions which have previously ended in a decision can be reopened for discussion at any time. Remember, the community must work harder to make change. Failure to come to a consensus is an implicit ending point: no consensus means change cannot happen.
 * Also, as to your "can we define such a guideline" comment, it's my full understanding and belief that this is such a guideline, and that it addresses all your concerns specifically. We could alter the text perhaps to make that more clear, but i don't agree that we need to make any substantive changes in the underlying principles. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * PS. Based on recommendations from several users, this was made into a guideline, and not a policy. While I feel the distinction is small (and perhaps unnecessary), the text of the guideline template states that this "should" be followed, as opposed to "must" be followed. In extenuating circumstances where this policy seems to break down, it is permissible to do things a different way (with the understanding that the spirit of this guideline be well understood, and the reasons for breaking from it be significant). --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

 * "Failure to come to a consensus is an implicit ending point: no consensus means change cannot happen." As you know, this worries me because it allows blocking and encourages gangs to take action if they consider that they are being blocked in bad faith.

 * Will the guideline be a problem in its current form? I think there is little risk this year that people will use it to block decisions. Perhaps in the future if Wikibooks becomes more popular. So I would be happy to "not oppose" the guideline and simply abstain for the moment.

 * Incidently, the current form of the guideline means that the paragraph on what users should do if they oppose a decision is superfluous - all they need do is oppose it and it will not occur! They certainly will not need to leave the project. RobinH 15:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

 * SBJohnny said "consensus with notable objections" is required. I didn't say that... I said that consensus might be said to be rendered, even if there are notable objections. It's not about 100% or nothing, n% or n+1% don't come into it at all really, because it's not a vote. It's weighing the arguments, and seeing what makes sense. When the adoption or repeal or a policy would end up changing the project so that it becomes a different project, it can be held up indefinitely, yes. And those who insist on the changes will just end up going to another project, because they'll want to do what they want to do. They'll probably get mad about it too, and stomp a bit. But that's how the project is preserved. -- SB_Johnny | talk 16:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

 * But suppose one user does block a decision. You believe this will occur indefinitely. But read the comments above about stopping people who do not "act in good faith" - a single user can indeed block the entire community until they gang up on him like in the school playground. He will then be beaten up unceremoniously and kicked out of Wikibooks. Your lone defender will not win even though he should win according to the current text of this policy. The text is flawed and encourages anarchic, bullying behaviour. The way round this is to have a proper decision point in the policy. RobinH 09:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

 * But I would consider you to be a "lone defender" in this situation (at least, the only one voicing a dissenting opinion at the moment), and you have been neither bullied nor kicked out of the community. The very fact that this discussion is still carrying on as it is, that we haven't stopped it arbitrarily and said "Whiteknight and SBJohnny versus RobinH, RobinH loses by majority decision" is proof that the concept works, and there is no bullying involved. You are allowed to continually speak your opinions, you are allowed to disagree with me all you want: We will likely never come to an agreement, consensus will not be acheived, and the status quo will not change. If we went through your process, and tried to acheive consensus three times (assuming you would continue to dissent) but failed, the matter would simply be put to a majority vote, you would lose, and it would all be a waste of your time: That kind of majority-rules BS is exactly the kind of bullying that we should be watchful of. However, under this system, "achieving consensus" cannot fail three times, because the process can continue, without resolution ad infinitem. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

 * In the UK we describe opposition parties as "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition". Even though I am a republican (anti-monarchist (inc. constitutional monarchy)) I still agree with the idea of loyal opposition. I can argue against a policy but still be a loyal Wikibookian, accepting the majority view.  As I said above, I am not opposing in this case, if it came to a vote/final decision I would abstain rather than block. But I do feel that this policy is missing an opportunity to define a real decision making process.

 * In normal circumstances I would indeed be prepared to accept a majority decision. I would encourage you to change the text so that on the 3rd attempt over 6 months the majority wins, I will then accept your majority decision(!) RobinH 13:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent)I definately understand you, and I would never accuse you of being disruptive or not "loyal". But, there is a difference between rational, "loyal", opposition and disruptive opposition. If you are acting rationally, it is assumed that you are dissenting with the best interests of wikibooks in mind, and that does need to be taken into accout. First off, I can't agree with your wording about "consensus being blocked 3 times", because that simply cannot happen: Even if a user opposes, we don't say "No consensus, we were blocked, let's try again from the beginning". The original discussion continues until a decision is reached (or until the idea is abandoned, which probably won't lead to an additional attempt). Now, the primary reason why I agreed to make this into a guideline, and not into a policy is to address such concerns as yours. Uner the guideline, people should try to do things this way, but if this method fails, especially over a long period of time, people can choose to make the decision in another manner (so long as everbody understands that a decision that is not made through consensus may not carry as much weight as one that is). If you feel that the consensus process isn't working, you can feel free to try an alternate method, if all parties can agree on that alternate method. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Just to clarify: I am not opposing this guideline becoming accepted. RobinH 09:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor change, addition
I've added the following text under the "Low-Impact Decisions":
 * Creating or altering the content, structure or scope of a particular book

I think that's precisely one of the kinds of low-impact decision situations that arise here on wikibooks, but one that strangely didnt make it into the text of this policy. I have been bold and added this text as I felt appropriate, although we can remove it again if there are objections. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wordiness
Maybe it's all those kid's books I've been working on, but this guideline seems overly wordy and long to me. Guidelines and policies should strive for brevity. For example, the second paragraph reads:
 * Issues at wikibooks can be divided into two different categories, depending on the extent to which they affect the wikibooks community over time. The decisions that have a large, long-term effect on wikibooks are called high impact decisions. Otherwise they are low impact decisions.

Couldn't this be rephrased:
 * Some decisions that have long term effects are high impact decisions, others with more limited effects are low impact decisions.

The text as it stands has a Gunning Fog index of more than 17 (indicating that a person would require 17 years of formal education to understand the text on the first reading.) It is also more than 1100 words. I reworked the document quickly and got it down to less than 840 words and a GF of 14.8 without changing the meaning of the document (or so it seemed to me). Surely we can do better? --xixtas 06:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

 * To be clear I recognize I'm something of a fanatic on this issue and will confess to having fallen asleep a few nights ago trying to figure out how to simplify "A is for Apple". I wouldn't block adoption of this policy based on this objection. --xixtas 06:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

title: Wikibooks talk:Decision making/Archive1


text:
Field Guide/Birds/Falco peregrinus

/Transcluded Modules

title: Field Guide/Birds/Falco peregrinus


text:
User talk:68.109.138.127

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. -- Jim Thomas (aka Jomegat) 03:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:68.109.138.127


text:
Cookbook talk:Mocha Icing

add about 1/4 tsp of salt to cut somw of the sweetness

title: Cookbook talk:Mocha Icing


text:
Field Guide/Birds/Buteo jamaicensis

/Transcluded Modules

title: Field Guide/Birds/Buteo jamaicensis


text:
HSC Extension 1 and 2 Mathematics/4-Unit/Conics

Tangent to an ellipse: Cartesian approach
The Cartesian equation of the ellipse is $$\frac{x^2}{a^2}+\frac{y^2}{b^2} = 1$$. Differentiating (using the technique of Implicit differentiation to simplify the process) to find the gradient:

Tangent to a hyperbola: Cartesian approach
The Cartesian equation of the hyperbola is $$\frac{x^2}{a^2}-\frac{y^2}{b^2} = 1$$. Differentiating (using the technique of Implicit differentiation to simplify the process) to find the gradient:
 * $$\begin{align}

0                          &= \frac{2x}{a^2} - \frac{2y}{b^2}\frac{dy}{dx} \\ \frac{dy}{dx}\frac{y}{b^2} & = \frac{x}{a^2} \\ \frac{dy}{dx}              & = \frac{b^2}{a^2}\times\frac{x}{y} \end{align}$$ We can then substitute this into our point-gradient form, $$y-y_1 = m(x-x_1)$$, using the point $$P(x_1,y_1)$$:
 * at $$P$$, $$m = \frac{b^2}{a^2}\frac{x_1}{y_1}$$.
 * $$\begin{align}

y-y_1 & = \frac{b^2}{a^2}\frac{x_1}{y_1}(x-x_1) \\ yy_1-y_1^2 & = \frac{b^2}{a^2}x_1(x-x_1) \\ \frac{yy_1}{b^2}-\frac{y_1^2}{b^2} & = \frac{x_1}{a^2}(x-x_1) \\ \frac{yy_1}{b^2}-\frac{y_1^2}{b^2} & = \frac{xx_1}{a^2}-\frac{x_1^2}{a^2} \\ \frac{x_1^2}{a^2}-\frac{y_1^2}{b^2} & = \frac{xx_1}{a^2}-\frac{yy_1}{b^2} \\ \end{align}$$
 * But we know that $$\frac{x_1^2}{a^2}-\frac{y_1^2}{b^2} = 1$$ from the definition of the hyperbola, so
 * $$\frac{xx_1}{a^2}-\frac{yy_1}{b^2} = 1$$

Normal to a hyperbola: Cartesian approach
The gradient of the normal is given by $$-\frac{dx}{dy}$$, i.e., $$-\frac{a^2}{b^2}\times\frac{y}{x}$$. Finding the equation,
 * $$\begin{align}

y-y_1 & = -\frac{a^2}{b^2}\frac{y_1}{x_1}(x-x_1) \\ yb^2-y_1b^2 & = -a^2\frac{y_1}{x_1}(x-x_1) \\ \frac{b^2y}{y_1}-b^2 & = -\frac{a^2}{x_1}(x-x_1) \\ \frac{b^2y}{y_1}-b^2 & = -\frac{a^2x}{x_1}+a^2 \\ \frac{a^2x}{x_1}+\frac{b^2y}{y_1} & = a^2 + b^2 \end{align}$$


text:
Starting and Running a Business

So you want to start a business? Perhaps, you want to make money. Perhaps, you want to change the world. Perhaps, you don't want to work the "typical" job. This book will guide you through the process of starting and running your own business successfully.

Table of Contents

 * /Introduction/
 * /Kinds of Business/
 * /Functions of a Business/
 * /Legal forms of a Business/
 * /Business laws and regulations/
 * /Laws related to raising capital/
 * /Other business laws and regulations/
 * /Management and ownership/

title: Starting and Running a Business