Agents lounge Annal 23

photoappsios musicappsios racinggamesios

    I accept confused the argument of the antecedent altercation to a new page at . Afterwards I created the page, i accomplished it would apparently be bigger of as Advertisement of the Division or something like that, so we can move the page to a bigger name if charge be. We can alpha alive out a accepted action for this being over there. -- () () 18:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    Ive been in talks with the ICD4T humans (from a antecedent discussion) apropos a donation of several of their books (they mentioned accepting at atomic 20) to wikibooks. Their books are currently appear beneath a Artistic Aliment license, and they are alive on transfering the actual to the GFDL so it can be appear here. Should the donation happen, they accept requested the conception of two added bookshelves accurately to authority the material. Because that the accession of 20 complete books or added to our library is a big deal, I anticipate it is apparently account our time to make these new bookshelves.

    I would like to ask humans actuality two things: (1) What you anticipate about creating new bookshelves to authority a donation of new books, and (2) if you would be accommodating and accessible to alteration material. Affective 20 books is traveling to be a analytic ample project, and volunteers would be appreciated. -- () () 19:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    : I would be animated to advice with the move. Howver, I acerb argue the conception of bookshelves to authority these books. Has the alignment advised categories, which would be a abundant added acceptable choice? 20 books is not abundant for one bookshelf, abundant beneath two (completion cachet is extraneous on bookshelves, admitting not on bookshelf templates or hot picks). Bookshelfs are advised for subjects, not for agreeable providers (which categories are ill-fitted for). In accession to confined readers, Wikibooks capital focus is the conception of different content. Alien plan should not be accustomed greater accent than our books of the aforementioned quality. Back the books are complete (or as complete as a page can get on a wiki), they will all be listed on bookshelf templates and , which in my assessment is the alone page readers should bother searching in and would accompany the absorption to these books that the ICD4T is apparently searching for. -- 23:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::That does create a acceptable point. I will ask them if it would be adequate to artlessly accept a sub-heading on one of the absolute bookshelves, if we accommodate added categories, and spotlight the activity in some way. I dont understand what alternatives this alignment has considered: their experiance with wikibooks is awful limited. It would be a actual difficult assignment to try and explain the absolute authoritative anatomy of wikibooks to them via email. -- () () 14:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

    : The aforementioned goes for subheadings. Again, that is not the way bookshelves work. Both our bookshelf arrangement and headings aural a bokkshelf are generally reorganized as Wikibooks expands, and adage you deceit blow this area goes adjoin wiki principles. We should not be bound into a assertive arrangement by an alfresco group. If their ambition is the advance of knowledge, I agnosticism they will care. If its just chargeless commercial theyre after, then maybe we shouldnt be ambidextrous with them. On that subject, the transwikied books should alone acknowledgment ICD4T in the authors/sources section. -- 15:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::That wasnt what i was talking about, specifically. The books that are getting donated (i accustomed a fractional account today via email) dont necessarily fit into any absolute bookshelves, or even any absolute sub-headings on any absolute bookshelves. Cipher wants to make a new area that is off limits, the donors are absolutely acquainted of the GFDL, and the actuality that their works are traveling to be edited accidental by bearding people. Some of the capacity that these books awning are: e-commerce, e-governance, advice economy, e-learning, Advice and Advice Technologies for Abjection Alleviation, etc. At the actual least, I anticipate that accustomed this list, it would be advisable of us to make a new Advice Technology bookshelf, or a appropriate Advice Technology sub-heading because these books cannot be analytic shelved anywhere else. These books dont all accept to go in the aforementioned locations (we could hotlink them calm via categories), but few of them fit neatly into our above-mentioned classifications. -- () () 17:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::PS. A advertisement of these books can be begin at:


    ::They are listed beneath the sections alleged ICT4D e-Primers and FOSS e-Primers. This should accord you a bigger abstraction of what these books are about, and how some books we are traveling to receive. -- () () 17:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


    About the conception of a book shelve...

    If the conception of a angle abandoned basis for the donated accumulating is the alone problem that prevents us from accepting some added content, Im for it, this will aswell accommodate an simple access to anyone defective to understand what books were donated and by whom, will accommodate an overview of all the accumulating for approaching merges and with time it will lose it usefulnesses and disappear/morph/be deleted, so I dont see a problem in creating this index...

    in the accommodating and accessible to alteration material...

    If an basis is wkibooks editors can accept an abstraction of what books they are alotof absorbed in allowance if its just a problem of affective the plan location, it can be acclimated as a abode to alike the move and vote on names and structural problems with the new works...

    Do bethink that afterwards a plan is beneath GFDL, we are chargeless to restructure/merge and deliver its agreeable (under GFDL restrictions), so any move bare to accept any book beneath this authorization should be accustomed by the community...

    -- 17:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

    This catechism comes from a altercation on .

    A user there is accessible to the abstraction of absolution a book he wrote to Wikibooks, but was accepting doubts about licencing issues.

    The book in catechism is The columnist has declared that it was appear beneath Accessible Agreeable License, the authorization acclimated by Senseis Library (see

    After some discussion, he stated:

    However, I would absolutely adopt to absolution my plan beneath , because I create not a individual cent out of my own work. (see the first link)

    Would that be possible?

    Are there restrictions to dual-licensing? If so, what are they?

    Since I would like to add added Go ability to Wikimedia projects, Im announcement this here. Hopefully Im not allurement in the amiss place, nor is this catechism already answered elsewhere.

    I will analysis this page from time to time, but I would acknowledge it if anyone larboard me a bulletin at , or replied to his doubts at the .

    Phelanpt 02:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

    I have, absolutely a while ago, appear my How To Play Go plan beneath a . I anticipate I am not acceptable to absolution it beneath the GFDL. unkx80 (author of How To Play Go) 12:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

    Why do we accept bookshelves? Categories are abundant easier to construct, as able-bodied as getting simple to cross through, if congenital correctly. Couldnt categories aswell serve as an easier way to archive (as against to Dewey, etc. (Dewey didnt accept a GUI, ha-ha))? -- | 12:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

    :That is a acceptable point. The class arrangement is absolutely expansive, and it can yield some time to acquisition books that you are searching for: you would accept to alpha at the top of the hierarchy, and boring bang your way down to the acceptable sub-category. Bookshelves are easier, because they abode all books that is in a accustomed acreage on a individual page for simple browsing. -- () () 14:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

    :For myself, I anticipate that categories are added a decay of time actuality on Wikibooks and dont action annihilation added above what Bookshelves and additional allocation systems aswell accompany to the table, and absolutely action some problems above just the accepted allocation systems as well.

    :Keep in apperception that the analysis arrangement in MediaWiki is advised accurately to accord with categories of album articles, and it aswell seems to plan awfully able-bodied with allocation of multi-media agreeable (like is begin on Commons). Aggravating to construe that to book development, however, is something that is a bit harder to accomplish.

    :We do use categories finer actuality for things like page maintainence and cleanup, as able-bodied as for alignment of capacity aural a book such as is currently done with the . I absolutely abutment those activities and anticipate there is even added allowance to advance class systems like this.

    :Otherwise, all I accede any accomplishment to make categories for books to artlessly be a way to accumulate humans busy, and as Jimbo has suggested, if they are active accomplishing being that doesnt do harm, they conceivably arent active aggravating to vandalize. While I anticipate there are bigger means to absorb time than developing book categories, that is a claimed assessment and it doesnt do Wikibooks abuse aggravating to advance categories. That is why I dont aboveboard backslide changes that are abacus categories even if I dont abutment accepting them in the first place. -- 14:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

    : I agree. Ive proposed alteration the arrangement to one area bookshelves act added like Wikipedia portals. The key affection is that with infoboxes (or DPLs now), allocation a book into as some categories as you wish would accept been automatic, and would accept abundantly bigger readers adeptness to acquisition the book they wish (for example: Category:All completed accretion books with a top academy account level). I aswell anticipate that the alphatetical, Dewey, and LOC classifications would aswell plan bigger as categories. Amuse see for more. -- 15:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::But couldnt the css be hardly adapted to create categories plan better? What if we chock-full using the chat category, and replaced it with catalog? Again, Dewey didnt accept a GUI, so he had to appear up with a after metalanguage to allocution about the agreeable of books. If the class (catalog) of all categories (catalogs) were presented as a catalog, it seems to me that it would be a abundant easier way to go about searching for the advice youre after. At atomic in theory, this could be formed into the seek action on wikibooks, which at the moment isnt a decidedly advantageous tool. For example, I just searched for affable cucumber, which defaulted to a seek after-effects page that didnt aftermath the alotof accessible result: . Is there any adventitious that we could abject the seek action on categories to crop added authentic hits?

    ::And I acerb disagree that analysis is a decay of time. Its a lot easier to add a class tag to an commodity than it is to add the name of an commodity to a bookshelf.

    ::As far as book abyss icons (commenting on the old altercation affiliated by Hagindaz), it strikes me that it wouldnt yield too abundant tweaking of the software to artlessly create those arise on the class (or (again) catalog) lists. Software is appealing simple to adapt for little things like that, and as abundant as I enjoyed arena with my dads rolodex if I was little guy, Im not traveling to transcribe all the numbers in my cellphone assimilate 3x5 cards just so my babe can see how things acclimated to be.

    ::(Warning: abstracted thoughts follow): I anticipate a acceptable end aftereffect to be aiming appear would be something like this: rather than the seek window on the larboard of the screen, accept a hotlink to the capital archive (using a account of a good-old-fashioned-wooden-drawered-catalog as an icon). Accept the capital archive page a appealing abode (with added chargeless yet historically signifigant photos of libraries and catalogs), and create the page interactive, in the faculty that it interrogates the clairvoyant on what theyre searching for, and sends them in the appropriate direction. Use nice icons in the directional pointers too, to create readers feel welcome, and portray a faculty that we bother with details.

    ::The adorableness of this is that books, chapters, and even stubs (which I anticipate ability be bigger called outlines, scrapbooks, or worksheets in the WB context) can be categorised in assorted categories. Appropriately affable trout ability accord a aftereffect arch to recipes for trout, gutting a trout you just caught, a affiliate or page in the book on Daniel Boone about the trout he ate and how he adapted them (assuming, of course, that there is a book about Daniel Boone, and that he admired trout), and a affiliate on trout in the book on angle agriculture (again, bold there is such a book, etc.).

    ::The Dewey arrangement and all additional bookshelf systems (including the arrangement I use to adapt my own books on my own bookshelves) are about advice technologies. I would like to advance that we wikibookians accept a abundant added appalling and able technology at our disposal! -- | 17:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

    :::Just an abrupt abstract note: I advised Dewey at the new Academy (which he co-founded). He believed in amelioration, not idealism: acceptation that story moves foreward appear the bigger and better, but can never be accepted to accomplish the best. If he were animate today, Im absolutely assertive that he would accept adopted Amazons seek engine to his own decimal system. -- | 17:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::::One affair that I would like to see with any allocation arrangement is the adeptness to attending at abreast by books that are somewhat abutting topically, with books that are added abroad getting added dissimilar.... just like an absolute bookshelf in a dead-tree advertisement library. I acquisition Google searches and additional agnate affectionate of seek accoutrement absolutely dont do this actual finer and instead asphyxiate in absurd details. The catechism I accession is how to do this finer in an on-line environment?

    ::::I would like to point out that Dewey and LOC allocation systems are actual beeline in nature, and accept that all ability can be classified forth one arbor (hence, the allocation number). I would altercate that ability can be classified forth assorted axes, area contemporary accurateness would be a amount of how abutting it would be in an n-space of assorted contemporary axes. The problem is then how to allocate agreeable forth assorted axes. Establishing allocation guidelines for a individual arbor is complicated enough. -- 19:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

    :::::Yes, its complicated, but not backbreaking in a wiki environment. Adjacent books appealing abundant sums up what I was alluding to above: not just the exact affair your searching for (i.e, a compound for trout), but things that accept to do with affable trout (like a adviser to trout fishing, Daniel Boone (Im not abiding of that advertence is clear... he was a Colonial Era avant-garde in what is now the Affiliated States), and Aquaculture.

    :::::Now, it is in actuality a bit complicated, because these disparate books/chapters charge to be somehow interconnected, and for one being to create those arrangement would be a rather alarming task. However, this is wiki! Its not as if anyone has to get on a mission and affix all the dots (well, Jguk or I ability do it, but we wouldnt be answerable to do so), it will just appear calm over time as readers and editors create the access one at a time. Its absolutely not an affair of establishing guidelines for assorted axes, but rather giving a affable nudge appear a anxious use of the catagory system, and absolution things abound adapt by edit.

    :::::Wikipedia insists that all pages be categorised. Theres not so abundant aggregate of new abstracts actuality that we couldnt rather calmly accomplish 100% categorisation with basal effort. And if the categories can be formed over to create them absolutely useful, added editors would become absorbed in accretion their utility. Again, I just anticipate its a able (and altogether appropriate) technology, and we should use it for a acceptable cause. -- | 21:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

    :::::Based on what ive apparent of it, the Wikibooks Accepted Book Amount arrangement that was discussed beforehand seems to accept the adeptness to appearance the accurateness amid books. Ethics on the left-hand-side of the amount are rough-grained (sorting amid bookshelves and accent codes), while numbers appear the right-hand ancillary appearance the accord aural the beyond categories. Conceivably this is something we could altercate here? -- () () 18:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

    :(resetting indentation): Area was the WSBN discussion? | 11:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

    I attempted to add a hotlink to a allotment page to accommodated the claim that we accept ten registered accent users to authorize the final abiding namespace for the English accent users. The page claims it is protected. Thanks. 07:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

    According to Alexa, the boilerplate user browses alone 2-3 pages afore abrogation Wikibooks, so we should do our best to create the best consequence possible. I approved replacing the hot picks area on with our 32 completed non-BotM books, but it create the arrangement too disproportional. I would accordingly like to add a 100% amplitude table a la the PDF box advertisement these books on the capital page. The hot picks can be acclimated for our acceptable Wikibooks. Not continued ago we had all our books on the capital page, so I anticipate the awning amplitude will be put to acceptable use. Comments? -- 04:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

    :Thats a acceptable idea. We definately should put our best bottom advanced on the capital page. -- () () 20:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

    I wish to alarm the absorption of all wikibookians, abnormally alive admins to the altercation about the new voting policy. Wikibooks currently does not accept a accurate voting action in effect, so the adjustment of this action will potentially make actual differences in the way business is conducted here. Due to ample amounts of discussion, changes, and dissention, there are several versions of this action getting considered:

    Also, there are added issues getting discussed, such as the admittance of a minimum contributions clause, that will absolute users with beneath then 20 votes from editing. Also, there is a proposed article that would acquiesce this 20 vote minimum to be aloft in acknowledgment to abuse.

    I will be sending a adaptation of this bulletin to all currently alive admins as well, because assertive versions of this action may appoint added responsibilities on admins (such as mediation/arbitration, etc.) We are currently akin primary altercation to , although we can advance out to additional pages should the charge arise. -- () () 20:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

    :We assume to accept accomplished a basic accord on authoritative the adaptation 5 the official alive adaptation of this proposal. We accept confused the argument of this action to , and can abide the altercation there. -- () () 15:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::I threw a vote on the page so that we can get it enforced, so vote (about voting) at . - 15:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

    I was woundering if the English Wikibooks had something like (Wikibooks:Wiki Accepted Book Number) on the Dutch Wikibooks. It is acclimated on as an another adaptation of ISBN for wikibooks. A WSBN contains the afterward information: language, capital discipline, study, (specialized study), book amount (5 numbers). For example: nl-01-08-00-00001 stands for Dutch, Accustomed science, Computer science, -, first book. nl-02-07-01-00002 stands for Dutch, Amusing science, History, Antiquity, additional book. 10:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    :No, we currently dont accept annihilation like that. We did, previously, accept a abbreviate altercation on the achievability of creating a new analysis arrangement for our books, because the Dewey-Decimal arrangement is non-standard (though broadly accepted, in alotof parts), the Library of Assembly arrangement is based on the US, and ISBN numbers arent global. It is a acceptable abstraction to accept a connected adjustment for calculation and anecdotic our books here, and is something that we as a association should plan on. --() () 17:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    :Actually, if you could accommodate us with a basal adaptation of your system, conceivably we can vote to accept it here. --() () 17:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::You can acquisition a adaptation . 18:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

    :::This sounds like a appealing air-conditioned idea. Accepting it on would apparently be the best way to deliver it. I achievement we can aswell move to about added adapted as well. - 00:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::I dont see the complaint adjoin Dewey Decimal or LOC classification. Any allocation that we would appear up with would be non-standard, not broadly accepted, and not all-around in any sense. Why should we apprehend that we can create a something better?

    :: And why should we adios LOC just because it comes from the US? The LOC arrangement enjoys use throughout the English-speaking world, such as at the Australian Civic University and at Cambridge University libraries.

    ::Anyway, it isnt bright to me that we charge a allocation arrangement at all. We accept a seek tool. Can anyone actuality say that they browse the analysis pages if they wish a book? Personally, I consistently adopt to do a search. -- 05:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::: You can do a seek then. The analysis arrangement isnt adverse and is accessible to some users.   13:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    :::Dewey Decimal Arrangement was created in America, and assertive sections, (specifically the christianity) sections are actual over-reaching, while some additional religions get relegated to a across-the-board additional religions and behavior section. In some additional countries, abnormally area christianity isnt the capital religion, the dewey decimal arrangement is adapted to accomodate the big adoration of the area. This is, a baby complaint, but one that is account considering. The LOC arrangement is awful useful, but it is alone absolutely accustomed for use in some locations of the english-speaking world. Endure I arrested there are added languages then just english with a wikibooks project, so it doesnt create faculty to use a arrangement that accurately caters to english.

    :::We can consistently try to acquisition a better, added over-arching arrangement then Dewey or LOC, and if we fail, then we can consistently resort aback to them if needed. I dont see a cause why we wouldnt wish to try, however. --() () 14:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    : Doesnt this just alike the absolute bookshelf system? Language, capital discipline, study, (specialized study), book amount is absolutely just Accent subproject > > position on the list. The bookshelf arrangement is aswell added meaningul to readers than a number. We already accept 5 allocation systems in use, and while Im not adjoin using added systems if they advance Wikibooks for readers, I dont see a cause for traveling with this accurate one. -- 22:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::There is addition arrangement which is broadly acclimated in Europe: , the problem with both Dewey and UDC is that they are copyrighted and you charge a license, which costs money. As Wikipedia is so succesfull in ambience new standards, and sisterprojects as well, why is it not accessible to set a new accepted for non-copyrighted chargeless accessible all-embracing classification? It would be nice if we start-up a altercation page at meta so we can plan internationally on this. On nl.Wikibooks we accept formed allready to aggrandize and accept looked at additional standardsystems to advance that. But we would like to set a accepted at atomic for wikibooks all over the apple (and who knows in what this could develop). Any absolute or abrogating comments on that? 19:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::: We dont use Dewey and LOC allocation just to accord a book a number, but rather to acquiesce readers to browse and seek for agreeable on a book advertisement using a arrangement they are accustomed with. Alotof users havent memorized the absolute accepted calculation systems, so I agnosticism nl-02-07-01-00002 will beggarly added to them than PK 570. I just dont see the point in giving a book a amount for the account of giving a book a number. Alteration the unordered lists on bookshelves to ordered lists will accept the aforementioned effect. Am I missing some big advantage book numbers have? -- 22:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::::They are beneath and can be acclimated to acquisition a book if you dont understand the title. For example: if you would seek for WSBN nl-02-07-01-00002 on Google you will alone get two hits: and . If accomplishing a seek on Google for Koningen aan de Nijl you will get 79 hits. So thats the advantage. 18:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

    :::::For wikibooks in the accompaniment that it is in now, I dont anticipate that WSBN numbers are a admired thing. As hagindaz acicular out, we already accept 5 allocation systems getting acclimated currently, and we dont charge to convention a sixth unless it brings something new to the table.

    :::::However, If the Wikipress or the Advertisement of the Ages initiatives yield off, It would be a acceptable abstraction to make an identification arrangement that will cover the activity of agent (en.wikibooks vs nl.wikiversity, for example), the specific afterlight that the advertisement is based on, the URL of the books capital page, etc. I dont think, however, that such advice could anytime be abundantly bidding in a individual number. Plus, we may not consistently accept bookshelves: They may actual able-bodied advance into additional entities, or be replaced entirely. I dont anticipate we should create an absolute calculation arrangement that is based off an approximate architecture on our accurate project. -- () () 22:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

    Jimbo appear at over the weekend (August 4th-8th) that Wikiversity has been formally accustomed by the Wikimedia Foundation lath of advisers as the next Wikimedia sister project. Im abiding added data can be begin elsewhere, but , and Ive apparent additional announcements that were in accepted columnist publications elsewhere.

    It has been a actual long, continued alley for the participants of that project, and it should be acclaimed that it is still traveling to be on a beta-trial base like Wiki new s was for the first few months, but Wikiversity is now traveling to be a absolutely absolute activity from Wikibooks.

    A big acknowledge you should go to all of the humans who helped in putting calm the assorted proposals and aggravating to appear up with the abstraction that has been complex with Wikiversity. In a way, this is absolute the that was started about absolutely one year ago to the day. Wikiversity has been a allotment of Wikibooks for so continued that it is traveling to be absorbing to see what will appear with the Wikiversity participants infact accepting their own amplitude to advance and abound on their own.

    Just guessing, but I anticipate this hotlink will anon be valid:

    as will:

    The abstruse ancillary of things actuality ability get a little interesting, but it will be exciting. -- 19:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

    :Thats acceptable to know. Ita about time that something happened with this project. Unfortunately, I forsee wikibooks accepting to host a ample amount of redirects to confused wikiversity material, in the future. -- () () 02:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

    :I put a agenda up on the page about the conception of this project. Actuality is the argument of my note:

    ::This weekend (August 4th-8th) appear that the wikiversity activity has been clearly accustomed by the board, and the activity is traveling to be confused to its own server aural the month. Initially, there will be 3 languages, and the activity will be in a beta adaptation for a 6 ages balloon period. altercation about how/when/where to move actual can appear in a bounded altercation page, or at . Actual not in the Wikiversity: namespace should not be deleted off this server unless it has undergone an official transwiki.

    :Basically, I dont wish humans to annul bona fide wikibooks actual to the new server and annul it actuality if we are using it. If actual is angled amid wikiversity and wikibooks, we will charge to adjudge if it belongs on one or the additional site, or if it can be adapted to abide on both. Basically, I dont anticipate that we actuality at wikibooks charge to do alot of plan to create this move happen, I just dont wish to lose alot of agreeable because of it. -- () () 02:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

    Congratulations to the Wikiversitians! Or is that Wikiversityites?

    On a applied note, we now charge to decide:

    :#What agreeable will move to Wikiversity and be deleted from Wikibooks

    :#What agreeable will be angled on Wikiversity but abide on Wikibooks because it is a arbiter or annotated text

    :#What agreeable will not move to Wikiversity

    To aid this, I advance traveling through all modules alpha with Wikiversity: and categorising the pages as such:




    Once this exercise is complete, the categories can be advised and transfers/deletions made. Accordant images and templates will aswell accept to be added to these categories.

    Well apparently charge a axial abode to acquiesce discussions and adviser process. Maybe a committed page, perhaps, would be best ill-fitted to this, 07:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

    Should pages that are added to the three categories listed aloft (, , ) be removed from ? This would be a book befitting ambush that would create it easier to understand which onli new riting accept already been recategorized. It ability aswell be advantageous to accept a arrangement that could be acclimated to mark pages that accept been recategorized and that would absolute editors to the axial altercation page () in case there are questions about the recategorization of accurate pages. -- 15:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

    I was searching over some of our advice pages, and I noticed that the page contains argument that is inaccurate:

    :Administrators are Wikibookians who accept sysop rights. Accepted Wikibooks action is to admission this admission abundantly to anyone who has been an alive Wikibooks contributor for a while and is about a accepted and trusted affiliate of the community. This should be no big deal, as Jimbo has said.

    Current wikibooks convenance is not necessarily to admission sysop privledge liberally, and not to any being who is about known. Humans who are nominated at are frequently appropriate to accept a close ability of accepted wikibooks action and practice, be alive on pages like and agents lounge, and plan appear the accepted good. I adduce we change the argument of this page to mirror the absoluteness of the situation, to something that is beneath misleading:

    :Administrators are Wikibookians who accept sysop rights. Accepted Wikibooks convenance is to admission this admission to wikibookians who are able-bodied known, trusted, and demonstratably knowledgable in affairs of accepted wikibooks action and practice.

    The alone cause I accompany this up is because some contempo accept centered about the nominees action and knowledgability in affairs of policy, and their plan on added then just a few baby alone policies. It is aswell frequently frowned aloft for a user to seek admin rights alone for the ambition of allowance their own pet projects added efficiently. -- () () 02:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::What you say would bigger reflect accepted practice. Its a abashment we dont chase what is currently said - but as we dont, we shouldnt say it, 07:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

    :::What is currently said does complete like a added advanced and accessible arrangement - is there any cause we shouldnt change the practice, and accumulate the words the same? Or conceivably some affectionate of compromise?

    :::I dont see why using sysop rights to advice pet projects is a abrogating affair - as continued as theyre infact allowance something, and using their admiral for acceptable :).-- 13:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

    : Why did the association about-face abroad from the advanced practice? Were there specific instances area administrators abundantly abolished their rights on annual of benightedness of WB practices? If not, then Id advance abiding to the old practice. -- 16:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

    In reality, the convenance hasnt changed, in that nominations for RFA are still acquaint on , and orginary users are accustomed to vote and altercate the affair either way. However, if you attending through the old RFA discussions, you will see that some users casting votes based on assertive metrics. Some users will alone vote abutment if the nominated user has a cogent adapt count, is active, consistant, and has approved a ability of policy. At the moment, these metrics are not defined as getting required, but alotof users casting votes as if they are absolute requirements. It is aswell not accessible to acquaint voting users your vote isnt valid, because you are barometer the candidates adjoin an invalid metric. I anticipate that we should change the action to reflect the actuality that -to-be admins are subjected to a assertive bulk of scrutiny, and are captivated up to a assertive accepted whether its defined or not. -- () () 20:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

    :Id adopt not to see the action afflicted - absolutely we shouldnt change a acceptable action to reflect not-so-good practice. Rather we should seek addition solution... Conceivably the addition to RfA discussions should point out what the action is. I accept this agency that the being requesting or nominating for adminship makes a absolute advertence to the advanced policy. Whether or not humans accept to chase the advanced access in their voting is up to them.

    :If it continues to accomplish this way, and if we dont change the action through the adapted voting procedure, then it should be mentioned on that this is what happens, but that its a aftereffect of the way humans accept to vote in RfAs and not as a aftereffect of policy. -- 06:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

    I infact like the accepted delivery for the alotof part. A accessory change Id like to advance is changing:

    :Administrators are Wikibookians who accept sysop rights.


    :Administrators are Wikibookians who accept sysop tools.

    Its absolutely beneath about getting an accustomed wikibookian than it is getting a accurate being who wants to advice out. For those of you who are aswell wikipedians, you ability be acquainted of the rather awful tensions that accept been architecture up about adminship and community, and Id abhorrence to see us echo the aberration here. If youre not accustomed with this, see and youll see what I mean. -- | 11:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

    :Hopefully we dont accept the aforementioned problems as wikipedia has in this matter. Weve already included diction on that an ambassador can be desysopped if they are abeyant for 2 months or so (i deceit bethink the exact timelimit). Also, admins can be alleged in for a abatement vote on a per-nomination basis.

    :I am a close accepter that admins and b-crats are just accustomed users who are trusted abundant to accept some restrictions removed. However, because admins are axial credibility of action (admins haveto act to annul pages, behindhand of abatement policy, for instance) it is accepted that an admin is able-bodied acclimatized with the behavior that they are traveling to be accepted to enforce. An admin who isnt watching VfD discussions, and who isnt alive to action and block vandals is, in my opinion, not an alive admin, and doesnt deserve priveledges. As such, we should acknowledgment on that admins are accepted to accept action because they are the key enforcers of policy. Also, users shouldnt be adopted to be admins unless they accept apparent a demonstratable charge for the aerial restrictions. Personally, I would like to abstract an action to abode all the issues apropos admins and bcrats, and create their election, actions, and abatement absolute locations of our policy. I accept little acceptance however, that such a action would be accustomed by the community, and currently the accomplishments of admins are guided by some bare curve in the advice pages. -- () () 13:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::PS. to abode s apropos directly, I just wish to point out that this isnt an official action apropos admins, it is artlessly a advice page that describes the admin action and lays out some accepted guidelines apropos administrators. It is, and i echo this, alone a advice page. I would like to change the argument there to reflect the actuality that administrators are not adopted agilely nor liberally. The numbers of administrators are small, and the association expects them to infact use their accoutrement for the acceptable of the community. Those arent unrealistic, or even ambiguous expectations.

    ::Also, as a ancillary note, the accepted argument says that sysops are accepted rights as per policy, if there is no such action on the books. Either we charge to make a policy, or we charge to change this text. -- () () 13:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

    :::Fair abundant - apologetic for not communicable that earlier. I still adopt the advanced approach, but if its not absolute policy, then Ive got no base to advance for a advertence to it getting included in the advice page. -- 14:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

    Looking over contempo changes, it seems there are still a lot of these books getting formed on. Was a action anytime decided? -- | 13:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

    :The alone action that governs this is the proposed action of . So I assumption the acknowledgment is, no, there isnt a action that has anytime been decided. It is about accepted that video bold walkthroughs are now adjoin Wikibooks policy, but above that it is still broadly up in the air. BTW, this action pre-dated the altercation by Jimbo, and was something that the Wikibooks association was affective toward, so it isnt that big of a surprise. All that create me agitated was removing agreeable based on this proposed action and actually no altercation above-mentioned to the agreeable removal. Those discussions are now accident on the VfD page, although humans are still invoking the name of Jimbo from time to time with these discussions. -- 21:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::Robert, do you anticipate Jimbo would be accommodating to cede an assessment on this? As abundant as I acknowledge the affection of the contributors to those books, I absolutely dont see them advancing anywhere abutting to getting textbooks. | 21:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::I accept to accept that my first acknowledgment actuality is God, I achievement Jimbo leaves us alone! I dont apperception Jimbo advancing actuality and delivery his assessment on the subject, but we are aswell abundantly able and compassionate accepted attitudes of the WMF that I anticipate we can appear up with behavior and not accept Jimbo appear actuality for micromanagement of policies. Jimbo has rendered an assessment on the subject, and he can allege for himself on the matter. My argument is mainly that the assessment is cryptic abundant that annihilation and aggregate can be deleted using the textbook-only aesthetics that is abaft the idea. -- 16:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

    :: IIRC, the problem was that activated behavior werent getting enforced. To some admeasurement thats still happening, with data collections (which was proposed for back no projects is for this affectionate of information) getting kept and additional pages getting kept artlessly because users like them admitting their violations of these activated policies.

    :: Those discussions are now accident on the VfD page, although humans are still invoking the name of Jimbo from time to time with these discussions. - I dont see annihilation on the VFD page for either comment. Are you apropos to annihilation in particular? Acknowledgment in advance, 22:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

    :::I anticipate a big allotment of it, was that jimbo came aerial in actuality from outer-space one day, and declared that videogame manuals were bad. Now, im absorbed to accept if Jimbo speaks, but the No Videogame manuals affair was never absolutely create into a community-enforced policy, because it alone exists as a acknowledgment of Jimbo. If the account was made, alot of freaking out happened, and some books did get moved. Unfortunately, even if we say that videogame manuals can now break on wikibooks forever!, alot of accident has already been done, and we wont be in any bigger a situation. We would do acceptable to infact accept an official discussion, and make an official action about this amount with abounding association participation. Maybe then we can achieve all this already and for all. -- () () 23:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

    :::Jimbos name is still invoked from time to time, but it is acceptable beneath frequent. My capital argument is if agreeable is deleted because it is not a arbiter (see and dig through the athenaeum for details) you charge to do added than artlessly absolve its abatement on those grounds. Ive complained abundant about that accountable and I do accept that some agreeable has been deleted that conceivably shouldnt accept been removed. That said, we absolutely do charge to appear up with a academic action on this affair and create it actual abundant that admins can infact understand if a page care to be removed or not and not tie up the VfD pages with rehashing the aforementioned arguments over and over again. -- 16:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::::Good alarm rob. There is a page that conceivably we charge to focus some absorption on now:. We should appear up with a abstract of accurately what a arbiter is (or at atomic a array of examples of what textbooks accept been). Such a page apparently should become a action and not a guideline, because the analogue that we accommodate is traveling to accept a abstruse affect on the actual administration and approaching of the project. If our mission account says Wikibooks is for the conception of open-content textbooks, then such a analogue on our allotment is integral. -- () () 18:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

    Id like to advance a allotment action or guideline for :

    This action is based on maximising the learners acknowledgment to the accent while still acceptance simple aeronautics and analytic for all users.

    Just capital to put that out there... Im not too arbitrary about these points, but would like to see a guideline in place. -- 06:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

    :In general, page names should be descriptive, and should not be artlessly Assignment 1, or Affiliate 5, unless the agreeable of that page is so different beneath any branch that a individual anecdotic name cannot be given. The use of english-titles, or even translations is generally absitively on a per-book basis, so i dont anticipate we charge to create it accepted for all books. Authors are accustomed a assertive bulk of breadth to make books in the address that they see fit, and I alone dont wish to appropriate on an authors appropriate to architecture his book, by assuming a action that makes everybody do things in a assertive way. However, I aswell dont wish to appropriate on your right, as a wikibookian, to go into these books, and create any changes that you see fit. be bold, and create the changes yourself, if you anticipate they are warranted. If cipher objects, the changes stay. -- () () 12:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

    One capital problem in account and using Wikibooks is that its harder to get to the next page of a topic. To advance on the acceptance of the website and affluence at acquirements from the project, I anticipate that aural one activity all the pages should be angry together. A command at the basal of the page to next page or even a box advertisement all additional sections in the book would be a abundant accession to the accepted activity and advice to cross amid assorted topics.


    : I accept created accurately for this purpose. It should be added to the basal of anniversary affiliate in a book. A lot of agnate templates accept been created, but alotof are alone for use on the top of anniversary page, area they do no good, back beat the aback button takes the aforementioned bulk of time as scrolling up or acute the home button.

    : This should eventually be congenital into the software, but until then templates will accept to suffice. has been proposed as a solution. -- 19:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::If this is used, its important that any time adjustment of the pages are changed, or a new page is added in between, the templates of accordant pages (either ancillary of a change) are updated. It would be nice if it were automated, but I deceit see how that would work, unless pages could be assigned some affectionate of paramter according to area they arise on the agreeable page. So if we use this template, conceivably we could advance some automatic apparatus or bot to analysis that afterward these arrangement links leads us through every affiliate of a book. -- 03:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

    :::I am currently alive on a bot that is able of afterward links and aeronautics templates (or, added specifically, Im alive on a reusable library that can do these things, and a alternation of front-ends advised for specific uses). Its traveling to yield alot of time to get my bot ready, but potentially it could accomplish a assignment like this. -- () () 14:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::If you affliction about this, you ability wish to vote for the . Afterlight aeronautics links is a pain. I use to minimise this affliction (auto aeronautics avoids you accepting to blazon in the book name because it assumes that the book is in ..), but what would absolutely be simpler is some affectionate of wikimedia-supported page-order construct. -- 20:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

    Ran beyond some adversity categorising in the how-to breadth because of assorted capitalisation usages in the class names. Specifically, I create the class , which now has a subcategory for (which is both a book appellation and a class absolute the books chapters).

    Id like to adduce that categories acclimated for accountable areas use basic belletrist alone for the first word, while categories acclimated to tie in the pages of a accurate book be all or mostly capitals (with the accustomed barring of prepositions and articles).

    Further, Ive acclaimed that some pages and books use bombastic categories, such as booktitle category, subcategory, and supercategory. In adjustment to accumulate the capital categories streamlined, Id like to adduce that

    I ability anticipate of more. | 23:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

    :This raises a acceptable point that there arent alot of acclimation rules apropos the use of categories. Conceivably what we charge is to abstract an official guideline (i dont anticipate it should be a policy) as to the use of categories. There are alot of inconsistancies in the class arrangement that apparently should be addressed. -- () () 12:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::Ive been patching calm a angle at , if you affliction to accommodate a duke :). -- | 15:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

    Just as schools sometimes accept separate agents rooms, does Wikibooks accept a action of auspicious subject-specific questions to be acquaint in specific places rather than here? If not, I anticipate its account considering.

    Would this be best done by creating a new page, or using the accordant bookshelf allocution page? (e.g. for languages). Im absorbed to favor the bookshelf allocution page.

    If thats agreed on, then a baby box could be placed on all the allocution pages, and class pages, saying: For altercation accordant to all (Language) books, go to . A box with links could aswell be placed at the top of this page.

    I anticipate this would advice altercation to action in the alotof adapted places, and appropriately advance collaboration. Any objections or comments? -- 03:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


    I for instance dont like that idea, this breadth is for accepted altercation or to break above disputes if this is burst advantageous advice will alone be harder to acquisition and make a barrier to get added accord from users.

    Can you accord me an archetype of a problem that deceit be apparent on the bounded activity and needs a altered appointment ?

    Most problems that deceit be addressed locally apparently should get acquaint here, using bookshelf adjustment or even book relations to make additional forums will not abode any problem we are accepting in wikibooks, heck, Im accepting problem now just blockage the few pages Im working/interested or debating being on.

    -- 04:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

    :It would be advantageous for any affair that affects assorted languages - e.g. annihilation you currently see on . That page is already operating the way I suggested, in a de facto way, but it could be done bigger if we create it official.

    :Another example: noone has commented on my , aloft - if there were a abode that lots of languages humans were watching, then this ability be different.

    :I anticipate this would infact create it easier to accumulate tabs on discussions in areas were absorbed in, as they wouldnt be abstruse calm here. It would aswell absorb humans who dont wish to chase Wikibooks-wide discussions, but would appropriately put this languages altercation page on their watchlist. -- 04:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

    :Another issue: Humans ability feel shy about announcement a languages-specific catechism on the agents lounge, as it feels like the amiss abode - I understand that was my antecedent acknowledgment with assertive questions I had.

    :Heres a basal box we could use, if we accept acceding - we could alarm it :


    Read for advice on alteration accent books.

    For altercation accordant to all (Language) books, go to .


    :Likewise for Physics, etc, as applicable. (I dont anticipate we could create a accepted one, as the page names dont announce which bookshelf to hotlink to.)

    :I aswell added a hotlink to the Advice page (which I anticipate should be beneath controversial).

    :A box with links could aswell be placed at the top of the Agents lounge. -- 05:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::BTW, I dont apperception announcement a bulletin on Agents Lounge in adjustment to allure absorption to a above topic, but advance chase up comments to addition page. This has been done frequently in the past, and that can be done even for contemporary issues like something that would affect alone accent books.

    ::As far as using the bookshelf allocution pages as contemporary altercation areas, this is something that was done historically on Wikibooks but has achromatic abroad due to the huge amplification in the amount of bookshelves and their closing abatement as arresting appearance on the foreground page. In some respects, the bookshelves, as originally conceived, were declared to be aperture pages to accompanying Wikibooks and something affiliated to the Wikiprojects on Wikipedia. Im not absolutely abiding how to get this alive the way it was (see for an archetype of all-encompassing discussions in the past) but I havnt apparent any absolute attempts to do contemporary discussions afresh except for action discussions. There accept aswell been some semi-abortive attempts to set up absolute Wikiprojects here, but those arent actual able-bodied organized either. -- 07:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

    :::I dont anticipate therre are abundant humans complex to absolve added than one allowance (I accept were talking about something agnate to the assorted affair areas at the ?) Its harder abundant to authority absorption on just this one page.

    :::I hadnt accomplished that bookshelves were declared to be acclimated as projects. Thats a acceptable idea,

    ::::(Pardon me breaking your acknowledgment mid-sentence, but I wish to focus on the first allotment of your comment.) Im a bit abashed - you dont wish added than one altercation room, but you anticipate that bookshelves as projects are a acceptable abstraction - in my apperception thats adverse as the two account are inseparable, and youre acknowledging one and opposing the other. Conceivably you could explain what you mean?

    ::::My acknowledgment to your first point is ::::::::::::See my hardly adapted angle at the end - I would acknowledge your response, and achievement we can boldness this. -- 06:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

    :::but it does point to a problem Ive been accepting with WB all along, namely that aggregate is altered from WP, in a way that makes it assume like a moral assumption (Thou shalt not challenge Wikipedia). IMO we could and should yield added from the anatomy thats developed over there, and conceivably even absence to WP rules if we deceit get bright accord on rules actuality (for instance, as there has continued been a agitation actuality over (which rather banned any additional decisions we ability wish to make), we could for the time getting just absence to ). | 08:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::::I disagree with that appealing strongly, for a amount of reasons. This may not be the abode to get into data about my opinions, but as far as im concerned, we can apprentice acquaint from wikipedia if we wish to, but ultimately wikibooks is altered fromw wikipedia in about every way. As to the additional matter, subject-specific questions dont absolutely accept a home on wikibooks yet. The agents lounge is conceivably an adverse catch-all, but with the bound readership we accept here, I would rather column all letters actuality with the hopes that added readers will see them and respond. The bookshelves could absorb questions that are specfic to their accountable matter, but there arent abundant humans ecology the bookshelf allocution pages. There accept been times that ive responded to letters larboard on bookshelf allocution pages (bookshelfs that i am not alive on), and ive had to alter the questions actuality so that bigger eyes could apprehend them.

    ::::In summary, Wikibooks is not wikipedia, the agents lounge is the best abode to ask questions, and cipher absolutely reads the bookshelf allocution pages. Now, alotof of these credibility are accidental on the actuality that wikibooks has a actual bound accumulation of alive editors. If the wikibooks citizenry (or at atomic the wikibooks faculty of community) increases, some of these things will charge to change. Conceivably we could accede accomplishments like over at wikipedia to access our faculty of community, and accordingly get added humans alive in added things. That would be good. -- () () 12:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

    :::::I assumption my point is that the way WB works is a bit wikipedian-unfriendly, in that a abeyant contributor advancing over from WP isnt traveling to acquisition what theyre assured to find, and there absolutely is a bit of an anti-wikipedia activity bidding actuality and there. Ill try to address something up (?) to antidote that a bit (it could be included in the conceivably it could be affiliated in the ((welcome)) tag).

    :::::As a solution, I advance accepting a big, acutely arresting box on the top (and conceivably aswell on the bottom) on the agents lounge page administering editors to accepted proposals. Looks to me like alotof rules and guidelines charge to get a square-one analysis (for example, is tagged as enforced, but the agitation over acceptance never came anywhere abreast consensus). | 15:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::::::There is definately a concerted accomplishment to differentiate ourselves from wikipedia. We are a separate activity and (for bigger or for worse) we do things a little abnormally actuality and there. Some humans ability anchorage abrogating animosity appear wikipedia, but its not institutionalized. Our action cannon is still a little bit behind, but we are alive on it. I dont anticipate that we can create any big changes until we get our voting action formalized (the actuality that this was never done was a big oversight, but it deceit be helped now). Because we accept never had a voting action on record, some additional behavior may accept gotten activated through actionable means. Auspiciously for us, cipher is absolutely accusatory about the allotment policy, and about all new books are using the advanced carve policy. A page Wikibooks for wikipedians would apparently do alot to advice explain what we are all about, and possibly even boom up some abutment for our little project, so If you wish to abstract a page like that, that would be a acceptable idea. -- () () 16:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

    :::::::Well, got a alpha on the wikibooks for wikipedians page. Problem arises afresh in that there arent guidelines and behavior to hotlink to area a wikipedian would wish them linked. Able-bodied get there.

    :::::::As far as tha carve assemblage is concerned, I (me, SB_Johnny) acerb object: both on assumption (because there was no consensus), and in accurate (because I dont like it). -- | 18:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

    :::::Regarding the issues of area to column questions & discussion... I like the abstraction mentioned by , of announcement actuality and administering responses elsewhere. So heres an another angle to what I originally suggested:


    :::::How does that sound?

    :::::Re the baby amount of humans responding - I anticipate that accepting acutely apparent subject-area-specific areas for those who are absorbed in those accountable areas will create it easier for humans to accumulate clue of these topics, but after accepting to chase a lot of being which is not of interest. So hopefully that will advance to added involvement, in the continued run. I acknowledge Im speculating, but whatever is the case, we should create things added acutely marked, so humans understand area to ask questions. -- 17:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::::::There is annihilation endlessly humans from allurement questions on the specific bookshelves, and in actuality that is apparently the prefered adjustment of allurement subject-specific questions. Agents lounge, ultimately, should be a abode for discussing capacity that deceit be discussed on additional pages. I would say that you shouldnt animate humans to cross-post questions both on agents lounge and on subject-specific pages. There is no charge to fragment a altercation like that. If you wish the accepted association involved, ask at the agents lounge. If you dont, ask about else. -- () () 20:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

    Too some indents, so Im traveling aback to the larboard ancillary of the page...

    Hmm, no accord here, but the cachet quo (no guidelines as to area to post) isnt good, so it would be acceptable to boldness this:

    A band-aid ability be that above issues accordant to a accurate bookshelf are mentioned briefly actuality (in band with Rob Hornings suggestion). Generally, however, bookshelf-specific discussions are kept on that bookshelfs allocution page, while cross-bookshelf issues are discussed here. This doesnt accomodate SB Johnnys & Panics concerns, which anon belie Whiteknights and my ideas... - I dont absolutely accept Panics apropos (see my acknowledgment above) and Im aswell acknowledging to SB Head answer why I disagree; but I aswell dont wish to abolish these concerns.

    I feel absolutely acerb about this but Im not absolutely abiding how to boldness it. Id acknowledge added responses by Agitation and SB Head to the aloft suggestion. -- 05:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

    :Well, Im not abiding what you beggarly by administering comments from/towards altered conversations. You beggarly you wish the accomplished chat transliterated assimilate both pages? If so, that seems a bit cumbersome.

    :I do accede (very acerb and occaisionally defective to besom cream abroad from my mouth) that its harder to get a conversation/debate started here, but I dont anticipate there can absolutely be a abstruse fix for that... its the attributes of the community, not the structure.

    ::(Warning: waxing metaphorical) Let me point out that I dont anticipate theres annihilation amiss with the associates of the wikibookian community... its just the way we are actuality due to the attributes of our project. If I lived in the city, I was allotment of the boondocks watch, said hi to 20 or 30 neighbors every day if casual them on the street. and enjoyed the hustle and bustle. I reside on a acreage now in the average of nowhere, and while I alone see maybe 1 or 2 of my neighbors anniversary day, I understand them a lot better, and we advice anniversary additional out from time to time after accepting any organised activity to accouterment this or that issue.

    :So maybe a added adapted apparatus we could use would be some array of advice board page, area some of the added alive editors could account themselves and their interests (theres something agnate at WP... Ill try to acquisition a hotlink to it), and if anyone (like you) needs humans to animation account off of, they can either ask on that page, or ask the volunteers on their talks.

    :Off to acquisition that link... complete acceptable so far? -- | 14:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::Ah, actuality it is: . Not that this is necessarily a cleanup issue, but I like the anatomy of the project. -- | 15:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

    :::I dont anticipate I accept been decidedly bright about my opinions, as apparent by s account above. I am adjoin the analysis of the agents lounge into sub-rooms. I am neither for nor adjoin boxes (at the top of agents lounge, or whereever) that can alter accountable specific questions to the accordant bookshelf allocution pages. I dont anticipate that there is abundant cartage on the bookshelf pages to get questions answered in a appropriate manner, but thats no matter. -- () () 15:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::::What do you anticipate of the taskforce idea? (Ill advance if at atomic one additional being does). -- | 17:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

    :::::Im not absolutely abiding what you beggarly by taskforce. I haveto accept absent that allotment of the altercation (and now i deceit acquisition it). -- () () 18:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::::::Its that wp hotlink just aloft (), which seems a acceptable anatomy for organising a allowance out gang. -- | 18:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

    :::::::SB Head (1): You beggarly you wish the accomplished chat transliterated assimilate both pages? Ye gods, no - that would be awful. My advancement was that if a above altercation affair is starting on a bookshelf allocution page, it could be mentioned here, but the altercation would yield abode absolutely on the bookshelf allocution page. (Id beforehand appropriate that all bookshelf-specific questions be acquaint in both places, but the altercation takes abode on the accordant bookshelf allocution page... but that would be excessive). Re abstruse fixes and the attributes of the community... Ive appear to accept that abstruse fixes can advice a lot (after all, area would we be after wiki software?) but yes, ultimately humans accept to be involved. As I acknowledgment below, I anticipate signposting will help; and it atomic it wont aching even if Im wrong.

    :::::::SB Head (2): I anticipate the assignment force abstraction as you declared it could be actual helpful... I like the abstraction of a abode that humans can add their name (perhaps aggregate by accountable area) and/or say something like For issues of accent learning, esp XYZ, feel chargeless to . Then even if its a quiet altercation room, humans can use it to acquisition help. (I wouldnt be watching the page, but Id be blessed to be contacted.)

    :::::::Whiteknight: accede that authoritative subrooms is a bad abstraction - I aloft it as a (less adopted option) but I should accept been clearer in auctioning that and suggesting the bookshelf allocution pages be acclimated for this purpose. Abridgement of cartage could be an issue, but with acceptable signposting (appropriate boxes actuality and on anniversary books capital allocution page) cartage ability increase.

    :::::::Sounds like were afterpiece to acceding now (I think). -- 23:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

    (resetting indentation)) Ill try to body up a skeleton for it tomorrow morning and see how it feels. Amuse accommodate some input! :) -- | 00:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

    Draft a box, or some affectionate of arrangement that we could use to alteration subject-specific questions to added adapted places. you could use somethign like:

    :Language questions, go to: . Science questions go to the ...

    You would apparently accept to create it beneath bombastic then that, and maybe create the chantry a little smaller. We accept alot of bookshelves, and advertisement all of them could yield up a not-insignificant bulk of amplitude in a template. We could column such a arrangement actuality and at the association aperture and the advice desk. If the arrangement looks good, we can alarm a vote whether to cover it or not. -- () () 00:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

    I just capital to draw everybodies absorption to a account artical I begin today on wikipedia:

    According to this artical, they are alive on a individual user annual arrangement that will handle users from all wikimedia projects. Of primary agenda is that humans who accept assorted accounts, one on anniversary wikimedia activity (such as accounts on wikibooks and wikipedia, or on assorted languages, etc) will accept their accounts merged. In essence, there would be a individual login aperture for all wikimedia projects. Also, all separately-named accounts with the aforementioned acceptance email addresses would be affiliated calm (if i accept it correctly).

    If there is a battle amid two separate users with the aforementioned username on separate projects (a User:jim on both wikibooks and wikipedia, for instance, that accord to altered people), the user with the accomplished adapt counts will get to accumulate the username.

    It would behouve humans then to analysis some additional projects, and ensure that your username is either a) unique, or b) that additional humans with your username are beneath alive then you. -- () () 20:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

    :PS. Actuality is a adduce from the artical that should acknowledgment some questions as to the action of unification:

    ::During the transition, user accounts from all wikis will be added to a acting database. In cases area alone one annual exists for a accustomed username, that annual would be called the all-around account, acceptable the appropriate to use that username throughout Wikimedia projects. Area a battle exists (either assorted users with the aforementioned username, or one user with accounts on assorted projects), the annual with the alotof edits would in alotof cases be called the all-around account. Next, all accounts with the aforementioned accepted e-mail abode would be akin up. All accounts with no edits would be re-assigned to the all-around account. For accounts still unmatched, aloft login, passwords would be stored and matched.

    :So according to this text, it would be a acceptable abstraction for everybody to go about to all their username and pseudonyms broadcast beyond wikimedia, and ensure that every annual has an identical countersign and acceptance email. This will advice you during unification. If anybody is accepting a conflict, and would like to change their usernames afore the unification, I will be able to advice you. -- () () 20:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::Im traveling to accept a bit of a problem with my user accounts, as I accept being beneath altered user names and some additional absorbing problems. Alive users like myself who are on assorted Wikimedia projects are likly to be the ones that accord the alotof headaches. My annual on Meta is the one that is traveling to accord me the better fit appropriate now, as I would like to accumulate the user story I accept there. Conceivably I can get a Meta admin to advice me out afore the big day comes. -- 22:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

    :::Its my compassionate that usernames with identical acquaintance email addresses, and identical passwords are all traveling to be lumped together. In essence, if you accept assorted usernames, you will accretion all-around admission to use all your usernames on all projects (unless there is a conflict, in which case you ability lose one of them or another). For instance, I am User:Whiteknight actuality on wikibooks, but I am User:Wknight8111 on wikipedia. I accept I am traveling to accept all-around rights to both usernames on all projects. I went about to all my user accounts, and create abiding all the passwords and email addresses were identical. I aswell took the alternative of creating new placeholder accounts on projects area I am not active, so that addition user deceit make an annual with the aforementioned name as me on addition project. I anticipate of this as getting a accessible thing, because anybody who creates an annual User:Whiteknight in the next few weeks is just traveling to lose it. -- () () 23:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

    I capital to create a few points. First off, Users should accompany the commitment account for wikibooks (I dont accept the hotlink to it appropriate now, but ill get it in a minute). Also, there is a wikibooks chatroom at irc:// that (i think) we could use for accomplished real-time chats. Ive just abutting the commitment account myself, and I am aggravating to be added alive on irc as well. -- () () 22:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

    :Does anyone understand of an irc applicant for mac OSX? (I havent acclimated irc back the mid 90s, if I acclimated to log on from a shell). -- | 11:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::Nevermind, assuredly begin one that seems to work. -- | 11:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

    The mailinglist can be active up to from: . -- () () 16:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

    I am alive on a abstract of an official action apropos admins, bcrats, and checkusers. I alone feel that wikibooks needs such a policy, but i wish to absorb some altercation and see what the association thinks on the matter. The abstract of my new angle is amid at:


    I dont wish to alpha alive altercation on this absolutely until we agree the voting policy. but I do wish users to appear yield a attending at it, and see if there are any audacious problems with this draft. I accept carefully kept locations of this abstract ambiguous and accessible to interpretation, because I dont wish to put too some adamant restrictions and guidelines on admins. I do create appropriate agenda that admins can be removed if they are inactive, or if they breach policy. Alot of the credibility actuality were aerial from , but it is my assessment that we charge an official action on this matter, and not just a bending advice file. -- () () 15:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

    For those that are interested, Brion just started up the English Wikiversity wiki:

    For those that wish to advice participate, feel chargeless to go advanced and annals an account, dig in, and advice accord this activity the addition that it needs.

    Unfortunately, my advancement to angle Wikibooks didnt happen, so instead we accept to do a added acceptable of the capacity from actuality to en.wikiversity.

    Thanks afresh to everybody who has create this appear about an get started. -- 15:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::BTW, Congratulations to you Rob!. Acclimation the antecedent activity angle vote was absolutely a above key accomplishment to closing success. 08:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

    :OK, I arrested out . It seems to accompaniment absolutely that it is not for use amid altered wikis to accept the archetype and paste. Is this out of date? If so is there a move by move action about that shows how to advance the story log? We accept a lot of data to move from the ancestor wikibooks Wikiversity to the absolute . It would be nice to do it correctly. Do I accept to appeal Wikibooks adminship to do this or can a approved user do it? 08:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::That is absolutely not accepted anymore. We can anon acceptation pages from meta and wikibooks through (sysop cachet required), which preserves the change history. 12:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::: has never formed for me, and absolutely all I get is that the affection has been disabled by the developers. I ambition there were some additional way to alteration agreeable from one Wikimedia activity to addition that would bottle the histories through additional than archetype and paste, or using a bot that does the archetype and paste. The bulletin I get from MediaWiki is: No transwiki acceptation sources accept been authentic and absolute story uploads are disabled. That doesnt complete too encouraging. does work.... array of. Even then, it doesnt cover the abounding story or do a page dump of aggregate it should, but instead is a stragely formatted adaptation of the webpage and annihilation else. About of little amount abnormally back it deceit be acclimated with the import. -- 13:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::::Youre correct, it has to be enabled specifically. On Wikiversity, both meta and wikibooks accept been enabled as acceptation sources. And it works like a charm. All you accept to acquaint is the name of the page you wish to import, in which bounded namespace it should be placed and if adaptation story should be copied. Analysis my contributions and chase the links to Wikiversity on some of the pages Ive imported. The adaptation story is intact. 16:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

    :I accept created a for pages that accept been confused to Wikiversity. As mentioned elsewhere, these will all be pages about acclimation Wikiversity, not absolute textbooks. If there is a charge to accept them categorized automatically, amuse change the arrangement to clothing your needs. 12:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

    Seems to be advancing up a lot these days... anyone wish to help? See -- | 15:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

    :It is about time we got this analogue nailed down firmly. Ill appear advice out later, couldcause im apprenticed for time appropriate now. -- () () 16:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::Yup, should get done with top priority... the wikiversity association are a bit afraid about our VfD arrangement here. -- | 16:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

    The accepted argument of the accepted voting rules action is up for vote. This is the aforementioned adaptation of the argument that we accept been discussing for several weeks now. A accord vote to accept this action will couldcause it to be apparent , and for the rules and regulations to go into aftereffect immediatly thereafter.

    Some key credibility about this action that are account understanding:

    If this action alcove consensus, these rules go into aftereffect immediatly, and will be acclimated to adjudge all currently accessible and votes. Back this angle will accept such a big appulse on wikibooks, it is awful recommended that all users appear in and altercate the affair on the allocution page, and vote in the poll. -- () () 17:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

    :In acknowledgment to some comments and criticisms about this policy, I accept create the afterward changes:

    :#Added a area about getting bold.

    :#Removed all acknowledgment of the chat vote except area we are anecdotic that wikibooks does not accomplish by majority vote

    :#Removed all minimum addition requirements. Any user can altercate on any topic.

    :#Noted that comments should be advised on their quality, not after quantity. Sockpuppetry accordingly is useless.

    :I achievement that these changes are adequate to alotof wikibookians. We can altercate these changes on the action allocution page, and hopefully the association will accede on it. -- () () 21:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

    Is there a arrangement actuality for tagging something unsourced? If not, anyone item if I transwiki/fork ? -- | 18:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

    I would like to advance we accept a blocking policy/guideline. In accession to allowance anticipate admin abuse, it aswell advice accord admins a clue of is and is not acceptable. I accept affected Wikinewss blocking action (my claimed favorite) to . -- 21:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

    Certain Wikipedia onlinewriting hotlink to Wikibooks using templates listed on . Ive created a new arrangement to absorb all of the ones currently in use.

    Please accept a attending at and the (rather quiet) altercation over at . -- 02:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

    :I like it. I understand that ive had problems aggravating to aces which arrangement to use amid all the altered options they accept over there. -- () () 02:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::Ack! Dont ... its acclimated by a lot of books, conspicuously the cookbook, which is coloned. See for added on that. -- | 11:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

    :::There is a cookbook arrangement on wikipedia, that is acclimated to hotlink anon to the cookbook modules. We can change the wikibooks arrangement however, and not affect the cookbook too abundant (hopefully). Also, the cookbook has its own namespace, so the allotment rules for it are traveling to be a little altered from the allotment rules for approved modules. -- () () 13:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

    :::: OK, the Cookbook should apparently get its own arrangement then. -- 23:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::::: Actually, the Cookbook could aswell be transcluded using . -- 23:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

     is a 69 year old french scientist able-bodied accepted in France not alone for his plan but aswell for a ample set of didactical comics (see : aggregate but the Livres area are comics) that acclimated to be awash in book food until recently. These comics awning some (mostly scientific) capacity and usually get to concepts advised in colleges and universities. See for example.

    Some years ago, if his arrangement with his administrator ended, he chose to action these books for chargeless download on the internet and aggregate a (still growing) aggregation who does a abundant job at advice these comics in as some languages as they can. As of today, on his website , 22 comics are offered for chargeless download in 22 languages (select a flag) totalizing 118 books. BTW, for whomever is interested, these comics are aswell accessible in textless adaptation for anybody volunteering to construe them

    A brace of canicule ago, he apparent Wikipedia and admired it (who doesnt ? ;-). He then ( is a backup) on the Advice Desk, proposing to accord abroad all those comics so that they can be placed on Wikipedia, alms accurate ability to as some humans as accessible . Abundant !

    Problems :

    My assessment is that he has some additional things to do than to apprentice all these concepts and he would acknowledge a able coaching. Even bigger : if anyone actual accustomed with Wikipedia could do the job on his account (uploading every book to the appropriate place, abacus the adapted license, descriptions, crosslinks, ...), Im abiding it would additional him a lot of black troubles. If you wonder, no, I can not be this hero (I dont understand wikisource/wikibooks and I absence the time) but, if necessary, I could play as a advocate back Im french and I accept a fair butt of wikipedia culture.

    I achievement his action will absorption you. Regards. , 04:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC) (PS: JP Petit doesnt understand me, Im autograph this on my own just because I abutment his abstraction of Ability after borders)

    :Nice books! Apparently wikisource... admitting anyone should explain the GFDL to him, as he ability not like the abstraction of anyone abroad affairs them. -- | 11:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

    :Id be absorbed in advice some of those comics, but I deceit acquisition those textless versions. -- 20:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

    :: ? -- 21:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

    :::Indeed. Ive just beatific him a (lengthy) mail about licence issues. This may be a affair back JP Petit has not acutely declared that he allows his books to be advisedly modified/translated/sold. I create him acquainted that anyone is volunteering for Finnish/Swedish translations (great!)., you can aswell acquaintance him anon via to action your help. , 22:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

    I wrote that bulletin at aliment too.

    Hi. Afore i abide it at meta. Aliment is a athenaeum of files, but for users bigger will be activity such as Wikialbum, if picters will be bigger and description will be beyond (in their accent only). So attending for archetype at - a lot of pictures, acceptable plan with sections but photos are actual baby and describtion is week. If I wish to attending for Jasna Gora monastery, I attending for class . So, after description. I can create new page in capital for Jasna Gora only, but it will be something like .

    But attending here: . Atramentous background, ample description, alone in pl (good for pl users), big photos, alone acceptable quality... (not all at that archetype are Superior Images, but I anticipate absolutely about QI. We can use these images (QI) to create Wikialbum - as a new page amplitude in aliment or as a new Wikimedia Foundation project). Indywidual preferences - accomplishments (white, atramentous or other), argument - accustomed or italic...

    That activity appeal cooperation amid aliment and wikiboks, I think.

    With commendations 12:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

    :I anticipate I adopt the aliment format. -- | 12:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

    : See aswell the altercation which Przykuta started on . -- 17:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

    There was a beachcomber of abuse this morning, that consisted of several sockpuppets. The first one, recreated some of the abuse templates and categories that were ahead deleted. The others, and confused pages in a WoW appearance attack, some of the pages were PENIS PENIS, etc. I changed the moves (most of them, at least), but I begin a few instances area again moves overwrote redirects with redirects, and then the page story bare to be undeleted. If anybody finds a page that seems to accept been hit with vandalism, and deceit be reverted, let me or addition admin understand about it.

    Also, I edited the argument of some of these templates with the afterward note:

    :This class or arrangement has been deleted as per association consensus. It has been adequate from recreation. For any questions, amuse go to , or as

    and then I adequate all these pages from alteration and moving, so that they deceit be recreated. It seems to me that the vandals are artlessly aggravating to acclaim themselves by creating these templates, and putting them on non-vandal user pages. If anybody has any questions/comments about this, let me know. -- () () 13:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

    : Just to analyze so that others wont be as abashed as I was: the defacer has the username , not . Brilliant, though! -- 18:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

    : Does this accept annihilation to do with the story blow on ? The story doesnt appearance any edits above-mentioned to this morning, UTC.-- 18:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::It does, unfortunately. that page got confused assorted times. I changed the moves, but it seems that I changed one too some times, and deleted the page to backslide it with a redirect. I was able to deliver the aboriginal argument from afore the vandalism, but the story seems to be gone now. Luckily, it is alone a allocution page, but it shows how abhorrent the abuse was today.-- () () 20:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

    We are traveling to try and accompany this one aback to a decision, because it seems that all above apropos accept been addressed from the endure harbinger poll. Actuality are some of the above changes that accept been create (and are apparently traveling to couldcause added problems this time around):

    #All acknowledgment of the chat vote has been removed, and added accent was put on the account of altercation compromise, and consensus.

    #The minimum addition claim was removed, all users may now participate in any discussion

    #Comments are to be advised based on their quality, not on the after quantity.

    #The accommodation authoritative action accomplish are traveling to be replaced with a nice flow-chart (but havent been afflicted yet)

    #We are traveling to apparatus this as a guideline, not a policy. Argument has been added that we should chase the spirit of the policy, not the letter of the policy.

    It is my achievement that the association can accede on this, and that we can assuredly get some affectionate of official controlling accoutrement in place. The accepted altercation is accident at . -- () () 20:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

    I started a wee book a few months ago. I can cross to it with Categories, but it doesnt appear up if I put words from the appellation into the seek box. Whats traveling on?

    :Wikibooks titles are case-sensitive. what is the appellation of your book? -- () () 03:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

    Ive been afterlight Wikipedia Fortran and, as allotment of that, beat on links to see what is infact affiliated to. Beat on Wikibooks Fortran, begin the Fortran book with argument such as the following:

    Functions are added simple than subroutines. A action can alone handle one variable, and can be invoked from aural a address statement, central an if declairation if (function) then, etc. A subroutine handles some variables and can alone be acclimated as a stand-alone command.

    An amazing accumulating of errors for so few words! My time is traveling into Wikipedia, Im not demography on a Wikibooks project.

    My affirmation is that the accepted Wikibooks Fortran argument is so bad that it can not do any acceptable and possibly does accident - should anyone accessory the superior of that argument with the superior of Fortran in general. Id like the book removed from accessible access; either set so that alone its editors accept admission or absolutely deleted. How can that be done?



    : Conceivably others can accommodate them, but I dont understand if we accept any behavior on quality. If you acquisition erraneous information, Id advance you either fix or annul the passage. You dont charge to yield on a Wikibooks project, just fix what you see. -- 07:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

    :You can consistently just abolish the hotlink from wikipedia...-- | 09:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

    :Ill put a cleanup apprehension on the book, and conceivably a admonishing that there are some errors in the text. It absolutely isnt our action to adumbrate projects that charge advice from the public: Its the accessible that is traveling to create that book abundant eventually! -- () () 12:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

    :While I ability accede that if such a book became a Book of the Ages applicant or infact recieved such a acumen that it would be inappropriate (think featured commodity on Wikipedia), Wikibooks is absolutely a abode for alteration and developing content. I would altercate that if something is so ailing accounting that it wants to create you acquittal actual functions, there is a top likelyhood that somebody will appear forth and try to fix it and create a huge improvement, or even decidedly adapt it to the point that it is bugged from the antecedent content. Ive apparent that appear both actuality on Wikibooks as able-bodied as on Wikipedia. If you wish to mark this as a plan in advance and put cleanup notices on every page to appearance its in advance nature, that assume appropriate. - 14:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

    I am aggravating to alpha a bounded affiliate of the counter-vandalism unit, or WBCVU. Abutting is easy, all you charge to do is assurance up! The WBCVU associates adviser for and adjustment vandalism. You dont charge to be an admin, all you charge is a admiration to advice out the project. If you are absorbed in abutting the group, appear to the new page, and assurance up. -- () () 21:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

    :What is the point?

    :Since the day I started accidental to wikibooks Ive been angry vandalism, that accumulation doesnt accommodate added ability to its associates nor does it appoint any duties, so whats the point, labeling humans and amid them into baby groups alone brings trouble...-- 16:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::I accept what you are saying, but the point isnt to get bigger at angry the vandalism, necessarily, but instead to body a faculty of community. Wikipedia has such a unit, and even admitting we arent wikipedia, we can still apprentice some acquaint from them. Wikibooks has appealing poor association at the moment. That doesnt beggarly that the alone humans are bad at what they do, it just agency that we arent as accessible as we could be. At the moment, wikibooks is a large, faceless community, and by authoritative things added personal, we can get added users added involved. We arent amid humans into groups so abundant as we are acceptance humans to move up their akin of involvement.

    ::Ideally, we could accept all sorts of such groups, that humans can get complex in. Wikipedia has some such groups: humans handing out barnstars, humans sending out blessed altogether letters to users, humans acclimation articals as groups. I would like to accept all these things actuality at wikibooks, but we accept to alpha somewhere.

    ::If you dont wish to join, thats no big deal. Some humans will, some humans wont: we all get to adjudge our own akin of involvement. -- () () 16:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    : I anticipate its a abundant idea, mainly for the organising factor. By ambience up a accumulation about a project, we bigger coordinate, apprentice from anniversary additional and body up a knowledge-bank which is advantageous for angry vandals. This weekend we had a appointment from Tojo who Whiteknight fended off appealing abundant on his lonesome. Accepting a way to acquaintance those who are accomplished at waging wiki wars instead of anybody jsut accomplishing their own buisiness would be a abundant asset. -- 17:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    Could an admin amuse annul . I created it accidentaly, cerebration I was in WikiSource. Thanks, 04:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    :Done. -- | 10:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    Folloing s suggestion, Im bringing up an affair accompanying to a advancement I create on . I proposed that the be put in the aeronautics box. Afterwards all, the Cookbook has its own namespace which definately sets it afar from Wikibooks added accepted books. The Cookbook even has its own on Wikipedia.

    What are peoples animosity about this in particular, and the catechism in this sections attack in general? It ability aswell be a acceptable abstraction to breach the aeronautics box up into specific books (Cookbook, Wikijunior, ..., Wikiprofessional) and accepted accessible links (Main Page, Help, Books

    :Alot of humans apply their efforts in the cookbook, and I would adventure to say that a ample allocation of the absolute wikibooks association focuses their absorption there. So I say that we should create a hotlink to the cookbook a arresting allotment of our site. Yes, put it in the sidebox. -- () () 18:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    :I anticipate that the Cookbook is a aces addition, and that it is something that actual about is a seperate activity forth the calibration of and . With it accepting its own namespace and some cogent absolute behavior and appearance that pertains just to this one book, it ability be account accepting here. Id still like to see what some additional users anticipate of this abstraction first, however. If it is added, I would like to put it amid Advice and Wikijunior. -- 10:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

    :Sounds acceptable to me. -- | 17:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

    :I absolutely disagree. There are some accepted books actuality and Cookbook is alone one of them. I acquisition it abnormal that it even got its own namespace if additional categories of books could aswell use one yet no one seems to wish that. The links aleady on the aftereffect are blame it in my opinion. A page of Accepted Books should be created and then links will go from there, but I absolutely dont wish to see the Cookbook accept its own capital link. This is an arbitrary advantage that several additional beyond books wont even have. - 18:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::Advantage... huh? -- | 18:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

    :::Being listed on the capital page gives you far added acknowledgment and accessibility. To be listed on every page is even added powerful. Not every big book can be listed on the sidebar, and those unlisted books are getting advised unfairly. Some of the already-listed items arent actual accepted to activate and I dont anamnesis it getting abundant of a accord to accept them listed there either. I anticipate a website like Wikipedia is able in what its advertisement and weve listed way too specific and overhyped sections of the site. - 21:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::::While we are on the subject, I definately anticipate that wikistudy and wikiprofessional shouldnt be on the aftereffect (they arent about important abundant to be in the sidebar, but they could be on the capital page). Also, I anticipate we are accepting abutting to a time if we should abolish the wikiversity hotlink as well: Put a alter hotlink on the capital page if we charge too, but wikiversity isnt a allotment of this activity anymore (except in a acting accumulator capacity). Abacus the cookbook makes faculty to me, because it does draw a decidedly college admeasurement of the wikibooks association then any additional books here. It was accustomed its own namespace as a aftereffect of its astronomic popularity, and I anticipate we are appropriate to breeding projects that are cartoon absolute absorption to our site. In the sidebar, and in additional high-profile places, we wish to put our best bottom (or feet) forward, so that humans can see what we can do here. -- () () 22:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

    :::::I accede that those sections should be removed, but conceivably this is a time to advance that additional namespaces be created by the developers. Were affective out of it now due to NP, but I anticipation it was a abundant abstraction to accept namespaces by bookshelf or addition high-level class like Programming. I alone anticipate Cookbook is old and thats why it got the namespace, not by popularity. Accepting discrimination for assertive books isnt fair to me, and I anticipate we should just hotlink something like Book / Accord of the Ages or Acceptable Books or whatever the page is. I absolutely just dont anticipate the Cookbook is that important. - 01:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

    :::::: I anticipate we should be accurate with clearing WB with namespaces. What I see as their capital advantage is that one can absolute searches to them. Afar from that, categories do a acceptable job at grouping. Is there annihilation abroad that speaks for namespacing books?

    :::::: The OTM hotlink is an abstraction account considering. -- 07:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::::: Area can we see Book usage? Had a attending at , but saw nothing. Id be afraid to accord specific books such promenance on the sidebar, though. I see the cookbook as a appropriate case due to its appropriate nature. Im not bound on that though.

    ::::: seems to be demography on the Wikiversity cleanup. Conceivably he can alter if he starts, and annul if he has accomplished moving? -- 07:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

    Yes, addition RFC :-). Could those absorbed accept a attending at and accord their thoughts?

    When searching through the Cookbook recipes I begin no subpages, so I didnt accouter the arrangement with that functionality. Does anyone understand if there are any recipes with subpages? -- 18:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    :I like it. If we had a bigger angel for our cookbook, it owuld be better.-- () () 18:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    :: Yes, it would be nice to be able to analyze the Cookbook a bit, but Im not aesthetic or artistic abundant for demography on that assignment ... -- 21:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    :::Im analytic acceptable with my archetype of photoshop, but alone at affecting up images, not at creating them. Not everybody can be an artist! -- () () 22:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

    : There are a brace of subpages in the cookbook in accepted (you can analysis by searching at the ), but no compound or additive should be using them.   10:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

    I accept created a amount of templates that will be advantageous in anecdotic guidelines as against to policies. Apartof these are:

    I accept put the arrangement on the few pages that already were in .

    Now, there are a amount of proposed behavior and drafts of this or that lying about that the wikibooks association (as far as i can tell) already acquire as accepted sense. I would like to move some of these from to , if for no additional cause the to abutting the books on issues that never absolutely became policy, but that are advantageous nonetheless. Apartof these pages are:











    there is a angle on the table for some of these drafts to be removed in favor of , a vague, over-arching angle which says in a few curve of argument which the others say in a few pages. I would like to change to an accustomed guideline as well, although not in lieu of these additional guidelines.

    Also, I accept create into an official guideline, and accept confused the argument of that guideline to .

    If cipher altar to any of these changes, Im traveling to alpha authoritative them. -- () () 22:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    : Are you afraid to get these done? I havent been actuality too continued and wouldnt apperception traveling through anniversary one. I dont apperception it if you go appropriate ahead, but what do you guys say about accomplishing one a week, one afterwards the other? Able-bodied be done by then end of the year and anniversary one will accept gotten a brainstorming ... but then again, conceivably they already accept had all the absorption they need.

    : One affair Id like to do is apparatus the account I mentioned on on (essentially absolutely advertence that action haveto be followed, but a guideline should be followed). See if you are interested. -- 03:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::Im way advanced of you Swift, Ive afflicted the argument of the arrangement to say haveto instead of should. Ive aswell created the arrangement that says should. What ability be a acceptable idea, however, would be to abode a arresting hotlink to that RFC on the WB:PAG page.

    ::Also, Im not in any bustle to create any changes, necessarily, but I feel like some of these proposals accept been sitting in limbo for far too long, and it is about high-time we create a accommodation on them, yes or no. Your abstraction of spending a anniversary on anniversary alone angle is a acceptable abstraction in my book, and it will ensure that humans who wish to get complex can, that changes arent create too radically or too quickly, and that anniversary angle will get a fair allotment of attention. Starting on monday then, howabout we focus our absorption on . There is an outstanding alarm that some of our additional behavior (no profanity, no abhorrent usernames, no claimed attacks, etc) should be alloyed into the Be nice policy. We can attending at that angle first, and then adjudge at a after time if the argument of additional proposals is bombastic or not. -- () () 16:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::: No-one will allege you of getting apathetic on your anxiety :-). As for the RFC and , Id like to see a must/should defining article on the page, but Im not abiding about referencing the RFC back it is alien to this project. Not that the IETF isnt to be trusted, admitting ;-). I was traveling to codify this, but got aberrate by account old discussions on the allocution page... (come on: break on track).

    ::: Good. Then on Monday its Be nice week! -- 08:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

    Im traveling to alpha locking down the pages that accept been alien to wikiversity. Im in blow with the admins (Custodians) over there, and will be alive carefully with them during this process.

    Rather than deleting appropriate away, Im traveling to just assure them for now... I amount we should delay until they are out of the balloon aeon (6 months) afore traveling advanced with the deletions. This will be a apathetic process, because were creating abiding alter pages on wikiversity for bond from the pages here. Should be done in a brace weeks. -- | 18:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

    :Admins: amuse use arrangement if you lock pages. -- | 20:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

    There is about a anniversary larboard in the ages of august, and the BOTM and COTM votes for september accept fatigued a pitifully baby amount of votes. The COTM page has admiring alone 5 different voters (I voted twice), and the BOTM page has alone admiring a individual vote, appear a individual nominee. I will attending through the account of myself tonight, and see if there are any additional acceptable choices for either of these categories. Alot of our BOTM and COTM choices afresh accept been computer related, so conceivably we could create a acquainted association accomplishment to aces a added bendable subject. -- () () 22:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

    :I would cartel say that conceivably this next ages we shouldnt accept a BOTM? I havnt spent abundant time afresh aggravating to analysis Wikibooks that conceivably deserve the honor, and my problem I accept with the accepted BOTM is that none of the books I acquisition to be aces of the distinction. There haveto be something actuality on Wikibooks that has create signficant advance and account agenda on the foreground page. Conceivably even a antecedent BOTM book that has apparent ample advance from if it was endure recognized? There absolutely has not been a assorted champ yet. -- 15:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::I accede with you that if there are no aces candidates, that conceivably we should put off BOTM for a month, or even admit an bogus Focus of the Ages instead. For instance, I anticipate that wikibooks absolutely needs a stronger faculty of community, like what wikipedia has with all the wikiprojects, and the CVU, and Esperanza. Conceivably we should try and make a assertive bulk of association infrastructure, and use the ages of september to advance it?

    ::We could alter both the COTM and BOTM (neither has some votes) sections on the capital page with advertisements for additional initiatives like those mentioned above. Also, it was mentioned about abroad that conceivably we could alpha spending a anniversary anniversary on some of the old action proposals that accept never been absitively one way or the other: altercate anniversary for a week, appear to a quick accommodation whether to create it policy/guideline, adios it, or save for later. In this way we could tie up alot of apart ends of that sort, and get added humans absorbed in wikibooks administering (in the faculty of allowance to run the community, not RFA). -- () () 18:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

    The PDF Adaptation arrangement has an absurdity - on the Appropriate Relativity book it brings up Wikijunior Solar System. 08:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

    : It wasnt the template, but the hotlink it referred to. The book does, for some reason, hotlink to a book on the Solar System, while links to the appropriate docuement. Appropriate Relativity seems to accept started out at Appropriate Relativity ... which may be the couldcause of the confusion. -- 10:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

    Can some admin move to . It seems that was confused to which is apparently why s allocution page didnt get affected over. -- 11:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

    :Yeah, by it seems it was moved, you absolutely beggarly Whiteknight messed up, and confused bits to all the amiss places. Im apologetic for that. Ive angry into a alter for . This is just a acting band-aid to the problem (and not even a acceptable one, really), but I will accept time to fix it after and actual all the after double-redirects that would be created from the page move. -- () () 12:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

    We should apparently accept archival templates to put on debates already theyve concluded. Wikipedia has a amount of those at , but Im not abiding which ones wed need. Instead of getting adventurous and creating a few which will get duplicates that will alone abash affairs for users, I deceided to about-face to the Lounge for discussion. -- 12:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

    :I dont anticipate it is all-important to advance these discussions accurately on the allocution pages, or even in annal pages. I anticipate that such discussions, abnormally if they are decidedly old can artlessly be deleted, because their argument will be preserved in the page history. Also, discussions that are decidedly old and anachronistic (discussions area a accommodation was create that was after superceeded) dont even advice to explain the action that went into the accepted accompaniment of policy. Also, It is important to agenda that some important locations of a altercation appear on the , or on , and cannot be accurate actuality anyhow (unless we archetype argument from these alien assets assimilate our servers, which seems a abominable decay of time to me).

    :Discussions that should be kept can be confused to a specific annal page, and we can use a accepted This page represents an annal for page } for the time aeon } till } Amuse do not adapt it. This way the allocution pages we are using dont ample with ataxia and become unweildy. -- () () 18:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

    I would just like to column a quick bulletin afore I go abroad for the weekend about the accepted elections for checkuser rights at . There are a amount of humans beneath application for these rights currently, and we charge at atomic two candidates to accept 25 votes or added afore anybody can get them. Actuality are some credibility to consider:

    I would like all wikibookians to at atomic be acquainted of this, and humans who are in abutment of it should appear down and casting votes as they see fit. -- () () 21:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

    :Ill bandy in some votes. Im not alive actuality so I dont understand how abundant weight they would backpack but Ill put them in anyway. 21:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

    ::At this point I anticipate it is just numerical, so every vote has according weight. The 25 vote absolute is absolutely cool alfresco some of the bigger projects. en.wikipedia can apparently cull calm 25 votes afore anyboyd announces that there is even a nomination, but en.wikibooks needs to scrape for every adored vote that we can get. One day our activity will be bigger (hopefully) so we dont accept these problems. Acknowledgment for the votes! -- () () 21:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

    , a steward, has just accepted and I () checkuser rights. Acknowledgment to everybody who has voted. -- () () 22:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

    Theres been several abhorrent page moves today. -- 14:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

    :There has been a ample bulk of abuse this morning. The afterward users were all complex (that I can see):

    Also, all these accounts originated from the aforementioned IP abode that larboard this admonishing message:

    I accept blocked that IP address, and all these accounts, and I accept changed alotof of the page moves. I am traveling to go through and alpha deleting the atrocious redirects. Anybody who is absorbed in allowance can feel free. If i accept absent anything, amuse forward me a bulletin and I will fix it. -- () () 16:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


Tags: added, create, account, acceptable, additional, accepted, actual, ability, appropriate, important, understand, things, articles, address, access, getting, software, bigger, generally, active

 august, wikibooks, policy, books, think, pages, wikipedia, people, discussion, wikiversity, project, bookshelf, categories, community, template, perhaps, users, system, category, bookshelves, cookbook, content, really, general, questions, seems, discussions, admins, place, specific, projects, voting, rules, languages, having, jimbo, subject, probably, current, staff, problem, things, templates, point, lounge, active, classification, commons, multiple, special, search, change, currently, accounts, changes, history, policies, dewey, language, certain, create, arent, account, proposal, interested, wikimedia, administrators, moved, information, example, admin, created, working, votes, removed, version, consensus, official, actually, guidelines, rights, links, deleted, attention, thats, guideline, little, standard, problems, issues, anything, different, opinion, suggest, decision, specifically, practice, month, knowledge, start, vandalism, listed, looking, appropriate, readers, systems, english, namespace, comments, mentioned, message, material, creating, issue, wikibookians, single, username, trout, shouldnt, useful, added, simply, matter, draft, sections, trying, together, small, naming, towards, particular, based, catalog, relevant, involved, proposed, started, easier, editors, license, provide, comics, anyone, quality, found, thing, existing, pretty, points, cleanup, redirect, process, numbers, sysop, given, sidebar, unless, enforced, following, global, creation, worth, import, needs, textbook, delete, large, usernames, section, major, helping, quite, concerning, areas, moves, decimal, didnt, email, hopefully, reason, result, wouldnt, navigation, maybe, whiteknight, anybody, nature, strongly, discuss, jasna, moving, library, thanks, technical, scheme, topic, suggestion, space, title, question, several, chapter, address, places, support, develop, listing, johnny, index, instance, parts, later, redirects, topical, ideas, focus, editing, technology, names, person, response, restrictions, wrong, fortran, concerns, addition, proposals, additional, elsewhere, appreciate, reverted, images, groups, somewhere, important, categorization, everybody, placed, details, archive, advantage, access, necessarily, liberal, mention, worked, nobody, science, linked, relativity, offer, software, prefer, group, removal, debate, accepted, actual, senseis, directly, topics, check, solution, personally, stuff, changed, structure, weekend, helpful, entirely, progress, havent, image, wikijunior, statement, adminship, reflect, taskforce, common, trusted, happening, sound, clearly, understand, decided, learn, makes, posted, generally, morning, savoir, petit, unfortunately, frontieres, basis, months, local, ahead, conflict, coming, identical, textbooks, everything, significantly, discussed, warning, expected, lists, disagree, moment, further, similar, according, definately, theres, clear, assume, function, youre, works, articles, table, myself, posting, aware, suggested, numerical, level, theyre, personal, especially, named, standaard, considering, complete, study, widely, previous, publication, minimum, released, effect, transfer, marked, involvement, popular, wants, description, subpages, namespaces, directing, bigger, conversation, build, worthy, artical, authors, traffic, members, sources, donated, offensive, barrier, receive, anywhere, przykuta, collection, addressed, future, getting, prominent, portal, ultimately, messages, saying, learning, resolve, related, wikiprojects, cannot, times, addresses, unique, organization, sebmol|sebmol, taking, paste, weeks, imported, certainly, willing, sebmol|, picks, french, status, available, pierre, copied, designed, bookshelfs, contact, exist, fighting, wikisource, ensure, reasonably, donation, considered, entire, limited, creative, unification, highly, heading, acceptable, public, passwords, temporary, edits, couple, icd4t, correctly, period, giving, transwiki, reference, server, earlier, exactly, interesting, larger, modules, complicated, boone, daniel, recipes, grant, essentially, direct, tools, central, google, protected, forward, gebruiker, improve, dutch, negative, berry|evil, berry, numbering, world, anyway, familiar, boeknummer, clause, versions, noted, trial, brings, limit, allow, koningen, state, liberally, chapters, understanding, sounds, videogame, manuals, couldnt, waste, effectively, actions, mediawiki, exists, navigate, wanted, stated, clicking, comes, asking, affect, construct, september, definition, completely, vandals, cooking, words, replaced, modified, matters, article, photos, required, propose, candidates, reading, included, changing, adding, watching, feature, wikipedians, means, ability, wikibookian, needed, , 2006 utc, august 2006, wikibooks talk, think that, staff lounge, dont think, bookshelf talk, dont want, main page, voting rules, general voting, dont see, utc there, user talk, change the, category wikiversity, specific questions, policy and, new page, administrators are, people who, decision making, subject specific, books that, fact that, wikibooks and, utc the, classification systems, pages that, bookshelves and, special relativity, policy wikibooks, looking for, wikibooks org, wikipedia has, books are, project and, org wiki, voting policy, current wikibooks, own namespace, naming policy, wikimedia projects, dont know, http www, ive been, wikibookians who, community and, policies and, frontieres com, over there, dont have, policy but, policy that, official policy, wikibooks for, dewey decimal, jasna gora, wikibooks wiki, wiki standaard, wikibooks community, utc that, sans frontieres, savoir sans, utc what, dewey and, wikiversity org, wikibooks but, sysop rights, www savoir, wikibooks policy, page and, page but, people can, discussion page, admins are, book number, scheme that, language books, point out, decimal system, wikiversity and, certain amount, concerning admins, cast votes, user jimbo, admins can, videogame manuals, global account, user accounts, ensure that, email addresses, user whiteknight, wikibooks that, quality not, removed all, user sebmol|sebmol, accounts with, languages bookshelf, people are, vfd page, discussions are, page that, dont mind, discussion and, relevant bookshelf, seems that, probably should, 239 157, books here, wikipedia org, utc for, time but, net wikibooks, xmp net, think there, jimbo has, daniel boone, utc just, books chapters, changes that, categories that, senseis xmp, http senseis, creative commons, categories are, utc ive, policy for, moved the, templates and, existing bookshelves, utc this, information technology, system and, bookshelf system, towards the, loc classification, wikibooks project, familiar with, worth considering, one that, utc you, koningen aan, dont need, content will, template that, wikiversity page, think this, noted that, berry|evil berry, evil berry|evil, ive seen, perhaps this, think its, utc yes, multiple axes, made the, used for, gebruiker evil, standaard boeknummer, users with, think the, pages and, bookshelf talk page, general voting rules, wikibooks talk general, bookshelf talk pages, subject specific questions, savoir sans frontieres, www savoir sans, dont think that, wikibooks talk languages, pages that have, relevant bookshelf talk, dewey decimal system, user talk sebmol|, evil berry|evil berry, gebruiker evil berry|evil, wikibooks wiki standaard, wiki standaard boeknummer, image special relativity, wikibooks decision making, user jimbo waies, vandalism this morning, policy concerning admins, wikibooks talk decision, page although people, jimbo from time, time with these, languages bookshelf|the bookshelf, vfd page although, links could also, official policy concerning, conversation transliterated onto, transliterated onto both, onto both pages, knowledge without borders, whole conversation transliterated, wikipedia cleanup taskforce, przykuta album jasna, think this would, bookshelf|the bookshelf talk, sysop rights current, main discipline study, language main discipline, discipline study specialized, study specialized study, study book number, specialized study book, boeknummer wikibooks wiki, standaard boeknummer wikibooks, creative commons attribution, information technology bookshelf, commons attribution noncommercial, dewey didnt have, utc resetting indentation, standard book number, english speaking world,   user talk, staff lounge archive, category wikiversity textbook, rights current wikibooks, current wikibooks policy, current wikibooks practice, grant this access, fork category wikiversity, wikiversity fork category, category wikiversity page, user talk kellen|t, wikiversity page category, page category wikiversity, category wikiversity fork, users cast votes,

Share Agents lounge Annal 23: Digg it! Google Bookmarks Yahoo! MyWeb Furl Binklist Reddit!   Stumble Upon   Technorati   Windows Live   Bookmark

Text link code :
Hyper link code:

Also see ...

Article In : Reference & Education  -  Book