Wikibooks:Reading room/Projects

Replacement filing cabinet.svgArchivesWikibooks Discussion Rooms
Discussions Assistance Requests
General | Proposals | Projects | Featured books General | Technical | Administrative Deletion | Undeletion | Import | Permissions


Welcome to the Projects reading room. On this page, Wikibookians can talk about subjects related to books, book projects, and other tasks here on Wikibooks that require discussion and organization.


New Project ScienceEdit

Dear All, I would like to start a Wikibook entitled:

My idea is to have a guide to the terminology of an analytical laboratory. This Wikibook will have terms of laboratory technology and related areas and illustrations assisting understanding. The dictionary will contain terms from the following fields: fundamental of laboratory, application and use of laboratory instruments, international standards, legal requirements for laboratory instruments, accuracy. This will be organized in the form of an index, facilitating thus rapid location of the terms.

Any interest in this?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Sgiani (discusscontribs) 17:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

This could be a valuable resource; keep in mind, we should carefully tailor the concept to maximize its difference from a "general-purpose dictionary", which is the subject of an item in "What Wikibooks is not". --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 20:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Pi zero for your comments: here you can have a look at the "A" entries. This shows the concept Sgiani (discusscontribs) 20:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I know I like this topic, a useful addition, if created. Peyton09 (discusscontribs) 13:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
About this topic, I actually am concerned about people with little Science experience, without a good Science background, opening Chemistry textbooks seeking dangerous information, or instruction on how-to-build-a-bombs, or make a-illegal-home-drug-lab. Consider this a general warning because people have seen problems while watching "The Sons Of Anarchy" on cable TELEVISION.
I think a better approach is to teach people general Science, offer Science lessons they can practice from home, while using common laboratory techniques. Can guides teach Chemistry by teaching people about common cleaning supplies that help clean our houses, using chemicals that are commonly purchased at grocery stores? I learned about [legal, after I turned 21] recreational "drug creation" by purchasing a "beer kit" that included yeast, some lab equipment, and a Chemistry booklet. Offer people useful, common yet informative lessons, or "educational kits" that allow people to safely use lab equipment while they learn new techniques. Good idea? Peyton09 (discusscontribs) 13:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

New book : Making a Programming Language From ScratchEdit

Hello everyone! I previously co-wrote the book 'QBasic' and I am going to be writing a new book(title given above) which basically covers the process of language creation. It is going to cover basic decisions, advantages and disadvantages of each technique of language creation, equivalent low level statements of some common high level statements and the process of parsing and lexing. It is be written based on the C-model compiler. Any help or suggestions will be welcome.Thanks! Debanshu.Das (discusscontribs) 16:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Videocasting?. Only an idea.BoldLuis (discusscontribs) 09:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

New Category:Original_Creations_Of_Literature...Edit

Hey, I acted bold, and started a new category. I hope that people do not take this bold act as a sign of a aggressive EGO, or as indications of a new ego-trip, because I don't believe I started a new category for egotistical (or self-centered) reasons. I know this category will make the process of creating a book easier for some people, this may be better, or actually worse, because if a complex process was too simple, how would people learn to pay attention to each step-of-the-process? Who may benefit most from "Original Creations of Literature?" I think people in departments like the Humanities, Art, and Literature departments, will definitely benefit, as well as people interested in Simulations, computer avatars, or Philosophy. There maybe certain branches of Religion and religious studies that can use this category. People interested in monsters, angels, demons, simulations [like The SIMs] and characters in Philosophic allegories [such as Everyman].

This may help people interested in learning, especially if other editors and writers leave better guides.

I hope this creation of a new category is open for discussion. Peyton09 (discusscontribs) 13:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

End-user Computer Security book, and whether it is appropriately hosted on WikibooksEdit

Hello all,

I've written a book on End-user Computer Security for individuals, sole traders, and small businesses. The book is more based in ongoing, never-ending, democratic collaborative research, than a treatise on an established subject. Can people please advise as to whether it is fine for it to be hosted on Wikibooks.

Thanks.

MarkJFernandes (discusscontribs) 13:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@MarkJFernandes: yes looking good I think. Looks suitable for a move to mainspace. I think you probably know how to do this, but I would recommend Special:MovePage/User:MarkJFernandes/End-user Computer Security. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 08:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


@Mrjulesd: thanks for your opinion. Was just reading about the NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) Wikibooks doctrine, and was wondering whether I should tag parts of the content with the non-NPOV tag as much of the content at the moment, is on subjective issues espousing just my point of view. Perhaps at some point (and hopefully), such content can be converted to NPOV content after further discussion with others (it's why I referred to the material as ongoing research). What do you think?

MarkJFernandes (discusscontribs) 11:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


@MarkJFernandes: (ping didn't work some reason): The main thing is if you state something controversial you should try to balance with alternate ways of looking at things. I think as long as you do that it shouldn't really be too problematic. For example if you say "Ghosts might exist" you should also list reasons for believing otherwise. But if you get feedback that someone disagrees with you then tagging might help while you discuss; but it is meant to be a temporary measure while discussions are ongoing, not a long term approach. If you think your content doesn't meet NPOV you should just fix it or remove it really, only tag if you're meaning to fix it quite soon. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


@Mrjulesd: thanks for your further guidance. I'm thinking that this book should be transferred to another Wiki. You see, the work is littered with subjective POVs, and trying to add other POVs would seem only to confuse the material. For example, I advocate Qubes OS 4.0.3 as being one of the most secure Linux distributions[EndUserCompSecurity 1]: this is "...a particular viewpoint on a subjective issue..." not balanced by any other POVs in the writing. It's unclear as to how I would add other points of view for such statements without introducing an element of confusion into the material.
What do you think about possibly transferring the book to the Wikiversity research portal? It seems like it might be an appropriate place for such a work.

Thanks,     MarkJFernandes (discusscontribs) 09:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@MarkJFernandes: I think you're probably being too hard on yourself. Even Wikiversity has an NPOV guideline: Wikiversity:Wikiversity:Disclosures. Offering advice isn't POV, it's more when that advice is suspect, yet no attempt has been made to balance it with alternative viewpoints. If I was you I'd hold firm, and try to get feedback, and adjust it accordingly. What I've read of it doesn't seem problematic. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 10:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


The Practical Chemist Cookbook?Edit

Hello, I maybe suggesting this book: The Practical Chemist Home Cookbook,
or (after a market trend),
The Violent Peaceful Anarquista Cookbook, a unusual book with recipies for bath bombs, violent cocktail drinks, and other common household products.

I am suggesting this type of book because I want to find and use free recipies that follow the latest trends, such as bath bombs.
Although the books online are not expensive, and many are already free to read with special communication devices, I think Wikipedia should start this type of home-Chemistry Wikibook, for people interesting in books, chemistry, and applied Chemistry.

I think this type of recipe book may become popular on Wikibooks.
The Wikibook recipies, are currently popular. Why not a home-chemist book with recipies / instructions for mixing interesting household products?
This idea is similar to the Wikipedia ABC book [a developing collection about mixing drinks using alcohol], and Wikibook recipies, a current and useful section of Wikibooks that people seem to enjoy.
Without people actively using their learning to develop new products, there would be few recipies instructing people, so they may learn how to make bath bombs, or other novelties. Chemistry can be a fizzling, bubbling, and sometimes violent (in a peaceful way) exploration of the known world as introduced by people who like Science, and want to share what they found.
If this idea goes in the wrong direction, people may experience a shortage of common supplies like cider vinegar, or baking soda. Peyton09 (discusscontribs) 13:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)