ArchivesWikibooks Discussion Rooms
Discussions Assistance Requests Announcements
General | Proposals | Projects | Featured books General | Technical | Administrative Deletion | Undeletion | Import | Permissions Bulletin Board

Welcome to the General reading room. On this page, Wikibookians are free to talk about the Wikibooks project in general. For proposals for improving Wikibooks, see the Proposals reading room.

Wikimedia Canada survey edit

Hi! Wikimedia Canada invites contributors living in Canada to take part in our 2024 Community Survey. The survey takes approximately five minutes to complete and closes on March 31, 2024. It is available in both French and English. To learn more, please visit the survey project page on Meta. --Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA) (discusscontribs) 00:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA), Thanks for posting.
Can you tell us a little bit about this survey - what is the purpose of running it, for example. I folowed your link to META and it appears that one of the questions you ask there is whether one lives in Canada which seems to be a contradiction of what you say here. Ottawahitech (discusscontribs) 14:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Ottawahitech, thank you for your reply. Wikimedia Canada is running this survey to understand what contributors in Canada want/need to be able to contribute to Wiki projects so we can ensure our programs are helpful. Once the survey results are analyzed, we (WMCA staff) will be using the data to help us tailor our programming (existing programs or new ones) to suit the needs of contributors in Canada. For example, people may reply saying they want scholarships to attend WikiConferences. We do already offer scholarships but maybe people aren't hearing about it through our current communication channels so we can then plan alternative methods of communicating our scholarship announcements.
The survey does include a question about whether or not one lives in Canada. We are sharing the survey on public forums (like this one) where anyone can see it but the focus of this particular survey is contributors in Canada. So, we added this question to ensure the responses we collect are from contributors in Canada. Could you clarify for me where you find the contradiction? I want to make sure the way we've been communicating about the survey is as clear as possible. Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA) (discusscontribs) 17:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA): Great hearing back from you! It is not every day I get an answer to posts announcing WMF initiatives.
I have always wondered how the wikimedia movement arrived at the decision to have wikis separated by language and not by country. I find that many Canadian topics are poorly covered in the ENWP, FRWP, Simple,and ENWQ (not sure about FRWQ), and are more likely to face deletion. I don't know enough about other wmf-projects to form an opinion. I agree that a common language is a good way to group topics and volunteers, but I find that small countries, such as Canada, New Zealand, etc, do not get the same kind of coverage.
Take for example, w:Nortel and one of its CEOs, w:John Roth. Nortel had humble beginning in Montreal, Quebec in 1895 as a Canadian company but became an w:International corporation after many name changes and ups and downs. In the early 2000s, under John Roth it was so big that it "accounted for more than a third of the total valuation of all companies listed on the w:Toronto Stock Exchange". However, by 2009 "Nortel filed for w:bankruptcy protection in Canada and the United States", and a hundred thousand employees lost their coveted jobs. In a few years Nortel and John Roth went from being the darlings of Canada to a big void. A similar story unfolded at w:JDSU and its CEO does not even have a page on ENWP.
Unfortunately, the sum of all human knowledge (or is it the sum of all American and British knowledge:-) does not explain how this came about, even though the events took place after 2001 when enwp was already in existence. In the chaos a wikipedia project w:wp:wikiproject Nortel was deleted (wikiprojects are rarely deleted at enwp), and the article about John Roth "the most successful businessman in modern Canadian history" is in shambles (not even a date or place of birth or education info) and is rated LOW importance on wikiproject Canada. The wikidata item about Roth. is not much better.
Just wondering if this sort of thing is of concern to Wikimedia Canada? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (discusscontribs) 18:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi Ottawahitech,
I may take a few days to reply but I'm always happy to answer questions! Also, just to clarify, the survey I announced here is from Wikimedia Canada, not WMF. Wikimedia Canada is an affiliate chapter but we are independent of the Foundation :)
Regarding the coverage of Canadian topics on Wikipedia, absolutely we want to see more Canadian topics on the sister projects. However, our mandate is more so to support editors, institutions, WikiProjects, events, etc that seek to increase the amount/quality of content on Canadian topics across the sister projects rather than determine what specific Canadian articles/content should be included or their priority. If you're interested in topics like the ones you mentioned in your example, I would encourage you to post on the Wikipedia WikiProject: Canada discussion board or the Wikipedia Village Pump to see if there are others who may share your interests. Alternatively, if you ever want to organize a wiki-related event to boost the coverage of Canadian topics, leave a message on my talk page and we can chat more.
P.S. Thanks for the ping about Wikimania scholarships. I'll take a look! Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA) (discusscontribs) 22:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA)
Re: "I'm always happy to answer questions! Also, just to clarify, the survey I announced here is from Wikimedia Canada, not WMF. Wikimedia Canada is an affiliate chapter but we are independent of the Foundation :)"'
I wonder if you would take the time to explain to the ignorants around here (I am talking about me) what the difference is between WMF and WMDE and WMCA. I am asking because I saw a notice on Wikdata "online event Wikidata Leveling Up Days" advertised by someone who uses (WMDE) in their userID. I am assuming they are employees/contractors of Wikimedia Deutschland and not the WMF? Is the WMF the ultimate employer of employees of the different chapters?
Note: I hope you and others here do not mind my hijacking of this thread to ask some questions that are only indirectly related to wikibooks? As someone who views themselves as a member of The Wikimedia movement I can't think of a better place to discuss this (?): Ottawahitech (discusscontribs) 19:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes of course! The structure of the organizational side of the movement can be very confusing so it's a fair question. Wikimedia Canada (WMCA) and Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE) are both affiliate chapters of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) meaning they are independent non-profit organizations that represent the Wikimedia movement on a regional scale, usually specific to a single country. As an an affiliate chapter we (WMCA) have a name that links us to the movement (Wikimedia Canada) and we are able to use Wikimedia trademarks for our work, to fundraise, or for publicity. Affiliate chapters are also able to apply for funding from WMF. However, we are independent of the WMF in the sense that we are not governed, owned or operated by the Wikimedia Foundation. ie) the Foundation doesn't really affect our day-to-day operations or hiring. So yes, any time you see a user with WMCA or WMDE or WMUK, etc in their user name, they are most likely an employee, contractor, or volunteer for that affiliate chapter (like me!). Employees of the Foundation will have WMF in their user name.

There are also other types of Wikimedia movement affiliates, including user-groups, thematic organizations, and hubs. To my knowledge, hubs are a newer addition (or will be a new addition if the new Movement Charter is ratified later this year) to the Wikimedia movement affiliates model and there are two types: Regional and thematic. Regional hubs support volunteer communities across multiple regions, like the Central and Eastern European hub (CEE hub) or the Eastern, Southeast and the Pacific regional cooperation (ESEAP Hub), while thematic hubs support volunteer communities that focus on specific themes, like language.

Does that help clarify things for you? There is an FAQ page for Wikimedia movement affiliates as well, in case there are things you're still curious about. Have a good weekend :) Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA) (discusscontribs) 22:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Just happened to see that the subject of wikimedia scholarships to attend WikiConferences is actively being discussed on w:User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Wikimania_scholarships. Ottawahitech (discusscontribs) 16:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA), thank you for promising a more elaborate response later. I, and I hope others, are keenly interested in hearing the perspective of someone who is involved in a Wikimedia-affiliate.
Re: "our mandate is more so to support editors, institutions, WikiProjects, events, etc that seek to increase the amount/quality of content"
  • Do you believe that in order to support "editors" (I call them users/contributors), the individuals running the affiliates have to have at least a basic understanding of the issues that such contributors face? Many / most(?) contributors do not participate in real life events (such a wikiMania), or even local events organized by their own wikimedia affiliate. Most participate online only in one wmf-project, such as the English Wikipedia (enwp).
In my experience, you are more likely to encounter multi-wiki-contributors on the smaller wikis, such as this one (the English Wikibooks). I have not been here Long enough (I just started participating here more actively in the last few weeks) to figure out if regular (non-admin) contributors also participate in other wmf-wikis. Maybe someone else can provide their perspective? I myself have been around wikiland since 2007, the first 10 years or so, almost exclusively on enwp where I was rather active until I was indefinitely blocked. I then moved on to Simple where I was indef blocked in 2020, and META where I was infinitely blocked also in 2020. Since then I have participated actively in some of the smaller wikis managing, barely, to stay out of trouble.
If you, or anyone else here, are interested in the experience of other members of the movement who have been shunned by this community check out this current Global Ban META-RFC. Ottawahitech (discusscontribs) 19:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC) Updated: Ottawahitech (discusscontribs) 00:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi Ottawahitech,
Apologies for the delayed response. I see where you're coming from. The survey I announced in my initial post is a way for WMCA to ensure our basic understanding of the needs of contibutors in Canada is up to date. Every contributor will engage with local events differently, if at all, and that's okay. If you are based in Canada and you feel there is a way WMCA can support your activities as a contributor aside from local events, I invite you to take the survey if you haven't already. It is open until March 31, 2024. Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA) (discusscontribs) 22:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

"recipes as out of scope [on ENWP], but there are some very good ones on Wikibooks" edit

I found this quote (and others about wikibooks) in the ENWP SignPost. It appears that at least a few wikipedians are aware of some of the good work done here.

Some other comments:

  • "I think cooking would in theory be covered by WikiBooks"
  • "why don't we encourage people to write how to on Wikibooks, and then link them from the Wikipedia page?"

What do others think? Do we want to have more eyes on us? Ottawahitech (discusscontribs) 19:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Certainly. In practice, the way that Wikibooks works is like our daughter project Wikiversity, which is that in principle, editors can collaborate together on things, but in practice, books and learning modules are passion projects (or platforms for crankery, depending) that are written by one person. Having actual collaboration here on more work would be a good thing. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
re:"Having actual collaboration here on more work would be a good thing"
I agree. I just discovered Category:WikiProjects which was originally intended for the purpose of coordinating content building by topic, I think. Has anyone been here long enough to shed light on what went wrong and what went right with the idea of creating wikiprojects on wikibooks? Ottawahitech (discusscontribs) 18:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Very hi overhead to write a book versus an encyclopedia article. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

WB Notability edit

I want to write a book named "Infraction of Vienna Convention: The Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy". Does it fulfill notability criteria of Wikibooks? Doostdar (discusscontribs) 21:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure it's in-scope. From the title alone, it sounds more like a thinkpiece or article rather than an educational/instructional book. What's your proposed outline and chapter breakdown? —Kittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 23:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't even consider adding such a book here unless you also intend to discuss the other side of the argument. Wikibooks is not the place for one-sided politics.--Xania     talk 05:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
It would fall foul of original research rather than notability, plus the title indicates it is not intended to be a textbook. A book that was about various infractions of the Vienna Conventions over the last 50 years might be in scope, a one pager on one incident wouldn't be. MarcGarver (discusscontribs) 12:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
In 2017, when I asked here about notability, a user said that notability policy is specific to Wikipedia and in Wikibooks we have our own Inclusion Criteria. In 2018, the answer to me was that different Wikibooks in different languages have different inclusion criteria adding that neutrality and original research parameters should be considered. Now you give me different opinions: you say that a thinkpievce or article doesn't fit WB but we have already a book here like Professionalism which surveys cases and ideas in professional ethics. The parameter of let's call it "instructionability" is hard to define when it comes to books like Computational Creativity. Doostdar (discusscontribs) 18:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Officially, our policy is that "non-fictional books that aren't instructional aren't allowed on Wikibooks", but you're right that the "instructibility" criterion can be somewhat of a grey area. For whatever it's worth, I'm honestly not convinced that Professionalism falls within our scope, and I'm not sure that Computational Creativity is great either, especially since it's poorly developed. One relevant aspect could be temporality—very recent global events alone strike me as more suitable for Wikinews, while an in-depth book about the topic over time seems more suitable here. Either way, I would love to know what your proposed book outline would be and how you believe it to be instructional—that will help us assess it properly. Cheers! —Kittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 20:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
"Infraction of Vienna Convention: The Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy" is not suitable for "Wikinews" because it aims to analyze deeply past and current diplomatic status of the world and Israel in the region. "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" started about a century ago and continues today as "Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (2023–present)". As you see it has a long history and fulfills "temporality" parameter. As well as, it is not a "fictional" book but evidently "real". It also fulfills "instructibility" on humanity area and diplomatic affairs. Doostdar (discusscontribs) 07:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Could you lay out your proposed book outline so we can assess it with more context? —Kittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 12:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, the subject is not for me. I want to see how Wikibooks rules function when creating a new book. Doostdar (discusscontribs) 19:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Scientific writing guide (student thesis edition) edit

Dear Community,

I'm only slowly grasping the scope of Wikibooks, Wikiversity & Co., and have a question (quite a few actually, but keeping it to one for now):

Would Wikibooks be a good place to compile a "How To" guide for scientific writing, to be used and expanded by Bachelor and Master students and supervisors alike?

I have long thought about how to best construct such a project to have it accessible, and I now think Wikibooks might be the place. Does something similar exist already?

(If we extend the circle of questions a bit, I'd love to get in contact with an experienced user who has an overview about where to Wikiversity, Wikibooks and Co individually shine, since for me some lines are still blury, and I don't want to disrupt established workflows that I am unaware of.)

Thanks alot and best regards, TimBorgNetzWerk (discusscontribs) 09:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think a guide to how to write properly would be a real asset and perfectly in line with the mission here and I do not know of any existing content like that. If you are having trouble structuring it like a book, but instead have some essays, some exercises, maybe some interactive material where someone could post writing and others could edit it, etc., that's more of a Wikiversity thing. Wikiversity spun out of Wikibooks as a place to host material that is general learning modules of some kind but not strictly like a book or guide that is a more-or-less static work (and can be printed or used otherwise used offline). —Justin (koavf)TCM 11:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you Koavf, greatly appreciated, also & especially the additional insights. I think for this case, a book would really be the best basis. How & where would I best start? a) in my User:TimBorgNetzWerk/sandbox, or b) follow Using_Wikibooks/Starting_A_New_Wikibook -> Help:Pages#Creating -> start writing there?
Best and thanks, TimBorgNetzWerk (discusscontribs) 12:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would recommend using your sandbox to start some outlines, drafts, etc. Without having looked at your global edits, it seems like you're a new user and I'm overjoyed at that, but starting out diving into writing a textbook is the deep end. :/ Also, I will state that unlike, e.g. Wikipedia, where most everything is kinda/sorta edited by everyone, in reality (but not in theory or principle), books here tend to be personal passion projects and if Person A wants to write a book, it's likely that he will do 90%+ of the heavy lifting. There are just too few editors here and the topics end up being too niche. —Justin (koavf)TCM 12:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Alright, Sandbox it is. I've already outlined a LaTeX template, so I'll be building on top of that. Since I'm currently a PhD student and aim to walk down the academia lane for the forseable future, being the "sole editor" is not much of a hurdle - I'll have to formulate each and every advice once already, and together with the students we should eventually have more and more structured knowledge about the do's and dont's. We've also founded an NPO ([1]) for those kinds of projects, so we can coordinate the resources to what little topics we can cover and where to join if one might be interested.
Right now we're more at the mid-point of an ongoing 2-year project, worst case I'd have build it from the ground on an isolated MediaWiki instance, but now that I grasp Wikibooks & Wikiversity better and better, I think building this resource here will be much more productive.
All in all (I've noticed I started every sentence with "so", so... changed that.) thanks for the starting points, will read up and get working asap. Also, for a lack of a thumbs-up-feature, assume every message I don't reply to as "read with thumbs up" :D TimBorgNetzWerk (discusscontribs) 12:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hey, if you can finish a thesis (congrats!), then you have the discipline and project management skills to write a book here. And if you can actually end up getting academics to write clearly, you'll be doing God's work. I'm not necessarily a bullesye on who is an ideal contributor, but please let me know if
Ican help you. —Justin (koavf)TCM 12:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree that this is within scope as a guide and that it could be very helpful! I also second the suggestion that you start building and workshopping in your sandbox. Reach out if you need any help! Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 12:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is Wikibooks multilingual? edit

Wikibooks is a project which its different versions share the least number of interwikis specially for subpages of the books. In this situation the qusetion is if Wikibooks is considered as multilingual website? Doostdar (discusscontribs) 20:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is the case solely because Wikibooks is in general a very small and obscure project. There is no reason why in principle books and subpages shouldn't exist in multiple languages. Note also that there is no Wikibooks equivalent to the multilingual Wikisource which is the only Wikimedia Foundation wiki that has works that are themselves multilingual (or also, I guess Commons). —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
You mean Wikisource is multilingual but Wikipedia is not multilingual? Really? Doostdar (discusscontribs) 07:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Multilingual Wikisource is a rare exception. --SHB2000 (discusscontribs) 13:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wikibooks:Annotated texts says that Wikibooks is a multilingual project. Doostdar (discusscontribs) 09:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Doostdar! I have two questions. 1) what do you mean by multilingual, and 2) is there a reason you're asking? Is there something specific you're hoping to do? Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 12:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
User:MarcGarver explained the concept I tried to explain. Doostdar (discusscontribs) 18:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think you are asking if collectively all the different language Wikibooks projects consider themselves as a single multilingual project given the relatively small number of interwikis - e.g., between the French, English and Norwegian language projects. If so, the answer is that we do not consider it to be a single project in multiple languages. This is the same as, for example, Wikipedia. Each project is independent and does not, for example, contain the same books translated into the relevant language. Within this project - the English Wikibooks - it is monolingual. We do not accept a French book, for example. MarcGarver (discusscontribs) 13:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Vote now to select members of the first U4C edit

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear all,

I am writing to you to let you know the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open now through May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 20:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Book scope evaluation: October 7th Massacre edit

I noticed that the book October 7th Massacre was recently created. This struck me in the context of the above discussion (Wikibooks:Reading room/General#WB Notability) about whether a theoretical book titled "Infraction of Vienna Convention: The Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy" would be in scope. I think that if we say that this theoretical book is not in-scope, then October 7th Massacre would definitely not be in-scope either. Conversely, I think that if October 7th Massacre is in-scope, then the theoretical book could be in-scope. As it stands, I'm personally still not sure that either one is in-scope—since they are related to ongoing sociopolitical events, they would both need significant investment and effort to ensure NPOV and to make sure they have 1) a nuanced historical and political lens and 2) a very well-outlined set of instructional aims to be considered an instructional book in-scope here (consider what a classroom textbook on the subject would look like). Plus, October 7th Massacre seems potentially encyclopedic and redundant to w:2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Would appreciate people's thoughts here. —Kittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 14:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thing is, you could have a book on a massacre. The question is more of whether we can have a book on an ongoing event, and I think that's kind of untested. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 15:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
A fair point! This may come down to "instructibility" criteria again, which seems like a recurring issue. I just made a proposal at Wikibooks talk:What is Wikibooks#"Instructibility" criterion elaboration to get at some of these issues. —Kittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 15:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi, since I have only started work on this book, that’s why it doesn’t have that much content in it yet. I don’t see how this book is worse than other history books found in Shelf:History. All of them also detail events that have their own pages in Wikipedia. The book is intended to describe the events that happened during one of the most important days in Israeli history. Also this isn’t an “ongoing event”, as it isn’t a book about the ongoing war in Israel, but a book about the October 7th massacre. Describing the massacre and the battles that happened isn’t a POV. -D1n05aur5 4ever (discusscontribs) 17:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
For whatever it's worth, I do think a lot of the books on the history shelf have issues with being "instructional" texts—like I mentioned, I go into more detail at Wikibooks talk:What is Wikibooks#"Instructibility" criterion elaboration. To avoid this issue, my personal recommendation for you with this book is to include discussion questions and other exercises to make it more instructional. Cheers! —Kittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 23:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi, it was pointed out in the discussion you linked that instructional can also mean “intended for teaching”. I’m not entirely sure what you mean by “discussion questions and other exercises”. Could you please elaborate on that? Thanks in advance, -D1n05aur5 4ever (discusscontribs) 09:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi @D1n05aur5 4ever. My personal opinion is that instructional books should engage the reader in some way on the information given, rather than just presenting facts and leaving it at that. In my view, a good instructional book will have exercises that ask the reader to apply the information. In a cookbook, recipes are a way for the reader to apply what they've learned about ingredients, techniques, etc. In a math/science book, practice problems help reinforce the concepts and theorems presented. In a music book, there may be songs or scales for the reader to play/sing, as well as other exercises. In a history/sociology book, "why" and "how" exercises, as well as analytical essay prompts will help the reader make connections and analyze the information presented. This is not currently policy, but it is what I think makes a high-quality instructional book rather than a simple collection of facts, which can be educational but not necessarily, in my view, instructional. Happy to elaborate more on what I think would improve your book specifically. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 12:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I appreciate the detailed response. I haven’t managed to come up with any questions that would actually improve the book, though I would gladly have such questions added. -D1n05aur5 4ever (discusscontribs) 15:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
The book seems fine for me but the scope should be clearer.--Xania     talk 03:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

How does wikibooks differ from wikipedia? edit

How does wikibooks differ from wikipedia? Does it allow for things like multiple books on roughly the same topic? Is there some way to make a draft book and have people look it over to ensure you aren't making bad books? (discuss) 19:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Books are limited in scope, with clearly defined aims, and their chapters are interrelated and connected to each other. Wikibooks does allow for multiple books on the same topic, provided that they are sufficiently different from each other. For example, they may be aimed at different audiences, have slightly different goals, etc. I would recommend drafting a book in your personal sandbox, then transferring it to the main namespace. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 12:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's one of the first questions many newcomers ask as I did several years ago. In my opinion Wikipedia and Wikibooks are so similar in many cases as you can import pages from Wikipedia to Wikibooks. As a general rule, Wikibooks has less interwikis between its different language versions. Doostdar (discusscontribs) 07:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sign up for the language community meeting on May 31st, 16:00 UTC edit

Hello all,

The next language community meeting is scheduled in a few weeks - May 31st at 16:00 UTC. If you're interested, you can sign up on this wiki page.

This is a participant-driven meeting, where we share language-specific updates related to various projects, collectively discuss technical issues related to language wikis, and work together to find possible solutions. For example, in the last meeting, the topics included the machine translation service (MinT) and the languages and models it currently supports, localization efforts from the Kiwix team, and technical challenges with numerical sorting in files used on Bengali Wikisource.

Do you have any ideas for topics to share technical updates related to your project? Any problems that you would like to bring for discussion during the meeting? Do you need interpretation support from English to another language? Please reach out to me at ssethi(__AT__) and add agenda items to the document here.

We look forward to your participation!

MediaWiki message delivery 21:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Feedback invited on Procedure for Sibling Project Lifecycle edit

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear community members,

The Community Affairs Committee (CAC) of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees invites you to give feedback on a draft Procedure for Sibling Project Lifecycle. This draft Procedure outlines proposed steps and requirements for opening and closing Wikimedia Sibling Projects, and aims to ensure any newly approved projects are set up for success. This is separate from the procedures for opening or closing language versions of projects, which is handled by the Language Committee or closing projects policy.

You can find the details on this page, as well as the ways to give your feedback from today until the end of the day on June 23, 2024, anywhere on Earth.

You can also share information about this with the interested project communities you work with or support, and you can also help us translate the procedure into more languages, so people can join the discussions in their own language.

On behalf of the CAC,

RamzyM (WMF) 02:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Table of Content Depth and related Template Issue edit

Hello everyone,

I was working on the Thesis Writing Guide when I realised the Table of Contents is 6(+?) layers deep. I wanted to change it, but realised that Template:Toclimit does not exist.

Two questions:

  1. Can someone (hopefully someone else, potentially I myself?) create that template? I don't want to mess with existing template conventions.
  2. What are said conventions, particularly on TOC depth? I'd just go from an academic / TeX perspective and reduce mine to 3-4 (Section, Subsection, Subsubsection, Paragraph maybe), but maybe there is a reason people want all sections accessible in Wikibooks - hence: Is There a convention on TOC depth?


TimBorgNetzWerk (discusscontribs) 15:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @TimBorgNetzWerk! I imported Template:TOC limit—let me know if this works for you. —Kittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 12:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Am I allowed to sell something I wrote here as an ebook or in physical copies? Also are opinions or conjecture acceptable? edit

I have been working on a book already, and I want to self publish it. I want to do this primarily so if somebody really likes the book they can buy it, and so that I can put it in my resume as having written such a book, without having to explain what wikibooks is. I want it in creative commons attribution anyways. Also in the one I am writing, I have instances of opinion or conjecture, so is that acceptable too, or do books hosted here have to strictly follow scholarly consensus? Immanuelle (discusscontribs) 21:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The site license allows you to sell the material but you must attribute it to the original authors if you didn't write the words yourself. I see you are copying text from Wikipedia. In a printed book you would need to correctly attribute the work to every person who contributed which is very difficult to do in a printed work. Secondly, you cannot place any further restriction on the book. That is, you may want to license it as CC-BY-SA 4.0, but even if you didn't want to you MUST do so. That is the restriction in the license. This also means anyone else can take your book, copy it, change it a bit and sell it themselves. Books here cannot contain original research but there is slightly more discretion than on Wikipedia in respect of following consensus. Incidentally, you would be much better to request pages are imported from Wikipedia rather than copying them. MarcGarver (discusscontribs) 16:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@MarcGarver how do I request imports? Can I do it to get the history of a page that already has had substantial edits? I have used mediawiki importing earlier and know how when you import the xml into a page, it results in the revision history changing without corrupting the history (but only for one page). For example can the history here be imported into User:Immanuelle/sandbox/Chokaisan Faith? Immanuelle (discusscontribs) 18:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
You request imports at WB:RFI. Once imported the history can be merged no matter how extensive the edits you made subsequent to copying here. In some cases the import won't work if the source page history is very large. In those cases we just import one version and merge it so there is a link to the original source on Wikipedia and its history there. MarcGarver (discusscontribs) 07:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have imported and merged the example you gave above. You can see the full history in your copy here now. MarcGarver (discusscontribs) 07:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@MarcGarver is it recommended to request import for multiple pages when they are going into one page here? That would make the history incomprehensible but have everyone's names present to my understanding. Immanuelle (discusscontribs) 10:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply