Wikibooks:Reading room

/General help /Discussions moved to other pages /Discussion summaries Ideas for Projects for Bookshelves for Books

Welcome, newcomers and baffled oldtimers! This is where Wikibookians raise and answer Wikibooks-related questions and concerns regarding technical issues, policies or other aspects of our community. New issues are entered here, with the most recent at the bottom of the page. Please review the Table of Contents to see if your issue has already been raised; also check the archives (see below) in case it was discussed some time ago.

To facilitate ease of browsing and replying, please:

1. Place your question at the bottom of the list;
2. Title the question (by placing the title between equals signs thus: == title ==);
3. Sign your name and date (by adding four tildes thus: ~~~~).

Post a comment

if you use the title box, you don't need to put a title in the body

Archives
August 2003 – June 2005 June 2005 – August 2005 July 2005 – October 2005 October 2005 November 2005 November 2005 November 2005 November 2005 – December 2005 December 2005 December 2005 – January 2006 January 2006 – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006 February 2006 – March 2006 March 2006 March 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 April 2006 - May 2006 May 2006

Policy on deleting inactive modules

Is there a policy on deleting inactive modules? I have a great example here, Supervisor_Nuts_and_Bolts: There is basically one real contributor, with no user page, who wrote all of the content in one day, 2 February, 2006. I think this should be deleted, but is 3 months a long enough time to wait? I think it is. DettoAltrimenti 02:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

There isn't any content; it's just an outline, a stub. Perhaps the stub macro should be added to it to alert people that there is work to do. I'd like to know why there is so much interest in deletion these days, perhaps I'm just hypersensitive but it seems as if that's all people talk about here lately. I think we should ask why anything should be deleted, is disk space that expensive? It can't be bandwidth because pages that are not accessed don't cost any bandwidth so why the interest in deletion? This particular module is an outline for a book on a very important subject so surely it should remain. Anyway what does 'inactive module' mean? I have written a number of modules (with content not just an outline) that have been inactive for longer than Supervisor_Nuts_and_Bolts if by inactive you mean that there have been no edits in that period. I'm sure I'm not alone in that. --kwhitefoot 11:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The interest in deletion is for two reasons:

1. Jimbo has clarified some policies which mean that large chunks of content on wikibooks should not be here. Some of it is from transwikis, some of it home grown.
2. We have not (for the past 3 years) been very good about pruning inactive or abandoned books, so we have a build up of cruft, which certain users have taken the initiative in cleaning out.

Kellen ^T 14:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a mistaken notion. Huge chunks of Wikibooks have been deleted or pruned recently, and the move to do so has been accelerating for some time. Indeed, if you look at the total module count on Wikibooks you would have noticed that the total number of Wikibooks modules over the past several months has been going down, even with many new Wikibooks being started and significant expansions of several books occuring. Debate over what should and should not be on Wikibooks has been ongoing, and quite a bit of progress was being made well before the fiat decisions by Jimbo as well. Indeed, I believe that most of the results of Jimbo's pronouncements would likely have happened anyway, just on a slower timescale before it came to a head. Indeed the problem I have come across is when I try to delete something like the Wikimania proceedings (clearly not a textbook or even a book) where after I deleted the content it was restored due to political pressures to keep the content.

This is an old debate, although due vigalance should happen to try and review content regularly on Wikibooks to make sure that the content that is here relates to the general guidelines of this website. Far too often there have been people treating Wikibooks as a free public website where anything and everything can be published.

BTW, if you see a book like the one listed above, you can either add the {{delete}} mark-up tag or add it to the Wikibooks:Votes for deletion page for review by the community. In some cases, simply by adding the book to the VfD page will get the attention of somebody and cause some meaningful content to be added that helps out all of Wikibooks as well. If you want to really help out here, do your part and try to dig out these lost or forgotten modules. --Rob Horning 09:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Fictional Books

Can Wikibooks be used to make fictional books, imaginary ideas? And if yes, where, in the All Bookshelves shall I put it? — Mastermind 007 09:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No. Please see WB:WIW, which explains this. You can put these on wikia, I believe. Kellen ^T 14:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Novelas which is likely what you're wanting. There are also wikias for Alternative History and various other fiction idea-sharing environments. Garrett^Talk 04:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Redirects Having Semantic Significance

Noticing a major cleanup effort in the deletion logs, I can see a lot of sense in most of these deletions, as many appear to have been technical (e.g., ":" → "/").

Some redirects, however, can carry meaning and their deletion removes more than a technical flaw (now). Consider Color/Orange versus Fruit/Orange, and the deletion of Fruit/Orange. If Orange deserves two separate modules because it is both a fruit and in a different context, a color, then we might just have two modules. A redirect from one to the other is unlikely, and it is unlikely deleted. OTOH, what if subject X has aspects pertaining to both A/X and B/X? Chances are then that the X description includes all aspects of X, and that one of A/X or B/X is deliberately redirected to the other.

I see two solutions in the latter case: create a dummy module for all but the complete X module, and then either transclude or redirect. Right?

Follow this from the perspective of a textbook user skimming the index. The index may offer a redirect, so that the reader is enabled to find a reference to the (differently named) item.

What's the best way to deal with this situation such that

• Modules can refer to one aspect of X specifically using links
• The X module is comprehensive as regards X (all aspects)

Is redirecting a no-no in wikibooks?

gb 17:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Redirecting is fine. We do (or did), however, have lots' of redirects left from book moves and removed books. Some useful redirects have likely been deleted in the process. Kellen ^T 21:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

CC and GFDL compatibility

I was looking at this free microeconomics text http://www.introecon.com/ released under the Creative Commons license. I was wondering, is this license compatible with the license used here at wikibooks? Can I use any of the information? DettoAltrimenti 21:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. :( The licenses have some key differences that make them incompatible. And even if they were the author has chosen a nc (non-commercial) restriction which the GFDL doesn't have. Garrett^Talk 04:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Could we have a Wikinovel on wikibooks?

You know the drill. Lots of people want to use wiki software to write collaborative works - and wikibooks is a great place to do it. Free, high quality novels? It's not "free knowledge" in the Wikimedia sense, but it's "free books" in the Wikibooks sense, and hell I think it would contribute to the world. Obviously there would be rubbish books and good ones, but like all of these wikiprojects, it's the good stuff that you work by.

So how about a bookshelf for Wikifiction? --w:User:Alfakim. --131.111.8.97 14:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No. Wikibooks is for textbooks. A novel does not fit that description. I do believe, however, that there are other wikis for the writing of novels, Jguk 17:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

See Wikibooks:Staff lounge#Fictional_Books, where we gave fuller answers. Kellen ^T 20:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a very old argument that came up some time ago. There was a very interesting Wikibook called Aarvard the Arrdvark that was very well written and intented to be a beginning reader for children. After some considerable debate over the whole idea, and some serious discussion within the Wikibooks community, it was decided to remove this book and make a formal policy statement that Wikibooks is only for Non-fiction works.

This has much more to do with something you need to know about the Wikibooks community. Besides the whole textbook/non-textbook argument, you need to keep in mind the kind of people who are working here on Wikibooks. This whole website is setup and organized to help you to write non-fiction books, with policies being set up to fact check the material and to do critical review of the content. Writing fiction requires a very different environment, and it also opens up the potential to edit wars over content, where one person's opinion over what should be there is just as valid as anybody else's.

The other problem is that allowing fiction, even in a limited form, opens up far too many other problems with content as administrators as well. Just as you can't resolve fights over content, it can also be used as a loophole to add content that otherwise would be removed from even straight textbooks.

I have worked on Wikis for collaborative fiction writing, and it is a really neat idea, both in theory and in practice. Wikibooks is not the place for this sort of content, however. For futher details, please see Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks. This is something that has been brought up many times in the past. --Rob Horning 10:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Research related to Wikibooks

Has anyone else got an email asking them to do a survey about Wikibooks? Gerard Foley 00:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Not I. Should we have? Is someone trying to gain information? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 04:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

My name is Suthiporn Sajjapanroj. I am a second-year doctoral student at the Department of Education in Indiana University, Bloomington. My professor, Dr. Curtis J. Bonk, and I are conducting a research related to a Wikibook. The purpose of this study is to find the potential of an instructional strategy, the creation of a Wikibook, to support learning collaboration and social interactions across classrooms in different educational institutions. You are invited to participate in this research study. Your responses will help us understand online collaboration in the creation of a Wikibook. This survey consists of 35 questions and will take you about 15 minutes to complete. Please answer these questions to the best of your knowledge. Thank you very much. Your participation is greatly appreciated. The survey can be found at:

http://www.surveyshare.com/survey/take/?sid=36753

(If you are unable to click on the link, copy and paste it into your Web browser.)

This survey will be collected anonymously on a secure server provided by SurveyShare. Your survey responses will be kept confidential. Any questions or problems can be sent to ssajjapa@indiana.edu.

Suthiporn Sajjapanroj

Ph.D. Student in Curriculum and Instruction

Indiana University

800 N.Union Street,

Bloomington, Indiana 47408

812-857-0009

Curtis J. Bonk, Professor

Indiana University

Instructional Systems Technology Department

School of Education: Room 2220

Bloomington, IN 47405-1006

(812) 856-8353 (work); 322-curt (cell)

E-mail: CJBonk@indiana.edu

812-856-8353

http://mypage.iu.edu/~cjbonk/

Gerard Foley 16:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Real concerns about Wikibooks environment

I could go on endlessly debating if we should or should not have stars on our bellies. That is not the point here, and if this was meaningless debate over nothing here on these pages, I would care less.

Here to try and sum up what my major gripes are right now over what is going on with Wikibooks can be expressed with just a few short statements:

1. I have no idea any more what is or is not acceptable on Wikibooks. So much is being deleted at the drop of a hat, and repeated deletions even if undeleted, that I am tired of trying to fight individual battles.
2. If I or anybody else tries to write content here, I have no idea if it will be here in six months, much less for any other substantial length of time. This is significant as content for Wikibooks sometimes takes six or more months to even put together. Going back to point #1, the policy landscape is shifting so much right now that anything I write may be gone simply because one very active admin doesn't like it. This even seems to include pages that are beneficial to the whole project, like WB:CCO, that clearly don't violate any existing policy standard.
3. Wheel warring is going on too much. That is deletions and undeletions or sysops fighting each other with admin-only functions rather than trying to resolve things in a civil manner and trying to come to a concensus first. This is something that really shouldn't be happening at all.

A very hostile environment has taken hold of Wikibooks recently. I don't mind if I am overrulled or told I'm wrong occasionally, but some rather significant policy changes have happened where all I can do is complain well after the fact that the policy has become enforced and acted upon. This is flat out wrong under any circumstance, especially when up until now there was a general community concensus procedure for trying to change policies on this large of a scale. Such concensus was never achieved, particularly with the video game guides, even though the bookshelf is now gone for all practical purposes. "Jimbo says...." is not enough to simply make a policy change, even if you want to give his words significant weight. And Jimbo can be wrong on occasion.

Generally speaking, I have tried to work on educating new users to Wikibooks, operating on the philosophy that if they understand what this website is all about, that they will be making generally acceptable contributions. I've also tried to step in before significant contributions have been made, so they aren't wasting their time here on projects that may be deleted in the future. After huge efforts have been put into things like the Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter, only to be put up for a VfD for the second time, it seems like a total waste of effort. And this isn't even the first book to have been put up for VfDs multiple times.

This is an awsome website and has the potential to do some incredible things that can be good to everybody. I hope that inexpensive books can be produced from the effort here, including textbooks. This is going to take time and effort to happen. I just wish there were more patience with those of us who actually like to write books than those who want to get rid of them. --Rob Horning 15:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I know what you are talking about, but there are factors here that we need to consider. "Jimbo Says..." is good enough to make policy, so far as I am concerned. Wikibooks was set up with a specific charter in mind, and putting all manner of nonsense on here can invalidate the wikimedia charter. Last thing I want is to open my browser one day and see a message like "The wikibooks project was abandoned, because the database was filled with all sorts of crap, there was no focus on education as was intended, and the admins weren't doint their jobs." I doubt that it will ever come to that, but we need to draw some lines in the sand to prevent things from ever getting that bad. Wikibooks needs to have a clear focus, or else it will never be able to acheive anything good. That focus is on textbooks. This is not to say that we can't take a liberal interpretation of the word "textbook", but that does mean that things like the videogame guides don't belong here. And I wish they did belong. I wish that I could click a link, and edit a videogame guide without having to leave the project. However, it isn't to be. I wish that I could read news stories on on collegehumor, or download linux distros from gamefaqs, or even browse pornography on on hotmail, but these things won't happen because those websites have a focus and are sticking to them. Nobody wants all this chaos, but wikibooks is changing: We have been given a focus, and now we need to conform to it. I think we as a community want the Harry Potter book to stay, but maybe we need to test the boundaries of what does and does not belong here before we just keep or just delete anything. It has nothing to do with the fact that it survived a previous VfD or not, it has to do with determining what materials belong and what materials need to go, as per the new focus that we have as a community. If you want to give up on this place, and declare these changes to be too much, or too sweeping, then I understand. It would be a shame to see such a prolific contributor and administrator go, but I know what you are feeling. However, if you want to stay, and help lead us through this dark and uncertain time, then more power to you. I know that I choose to stay. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 15:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Whiteknight that there has been a refocusing towards textbooks. When Wikibooks was set up, and throughout its life, it has always set itself up as a home for textbooks. It is true that for a prolonged period, it has also accepted books that are not textbooks, although these were never officially within its scope. It is only now, after Jimbo has given clear instructions, that we are now moving all books that are not textbooks off Wikibooks.

"we are now moving all books that are not textbooks off Wikibooks" - books take a long time to write. You should only move substantially complete books off Wikibooks after a proper discussion in the staff lounge. Jimbo has not given clear instructions. Mr Wales is the head of this charitable trust and a reasonable man, if he were to look at the debate on this issue he would probably agree that it is not absolutely clear cut and needs debate, probably on each substantial book in turn. RobinH 09:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe this will have long term benefits - in particular it should help us attract more writers, and then more readers, in. In particular, one area where Wikibooks really could make a difference is by having complete textbooks for the most popular school syllabuses (which is easier for some countries and states of the US than for others). Costs in purchasing copyrighted textbooks are a large part of students/schools budgets. By reducing those to the cost of printing out a free book, or by having textbooks free for commercial exploitation without the costs of copyright, we can make a real difference. Of course, we have many great textbooks on Wikibooks that are not geared towards specific exams, but it is the ones that are so geared that can be the most valuable in financial savings.

I have been bold and started something which I suggested some time ago. Wikistudy, for school textbooks geared to specific examinations, Wikiprofessional for textbooks geared towards professional and vocational examinations. It is only when doing this that I have appreciated what the FHSST and COTSP projects are about (search for them on google or wikipedia and you'll see what I mean). There is a lot of goodwill for these books - we need to make the most of it. I'd love to get things organised on here soon so that we can go to the WikiProjects on Wikipedia, or approach teachers in schools, and make this happen. I believe we'll soon be ready to do this, and this will help maximise the value of Wikibooks, Jguk 18:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Useful, even only financially useful textbooks notwithstanding, wikibook is given the exceptional opportunity to do more than compete with dedicated and existing textbook publishers. We can add to the set of standard textbooks wikibooks on subjects that had spurred our particular interests, that would never make it into the plain old school curriculum, but that nevertheless keep learners in supense. A most desirable goal for a textbook. Those subjects for which no examination comes to mind immediately can nevertheless be most valuable. Learning is not by itself bounded by utility in examination, in school, or in the shop, and I strongly believe that this broadness and openness is what sets wikibooks apart.

Please, keep an open mind about the possibilities of a world wide wikibook cooperation, one that may or may not go beyond the necessary viewpoints, ways, costs, regulations, topics, restrictions, etc. of a conventional perception of a high school textbook project. Kids, e.g. are not made just for those textbooks! Adding strict school rules is certainly limiting, and it does by definition exclude subjects and styles of presentation. Why should we want but this?

In sum, please don't stifle the good work by getting mechanically formal, or by following someones personal views too closely. I for one wouldn't want my personal views be followed too closely. Could be dull! gb 20:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, by "valuable", I really did mean in the financial sense, and nothing more. Of course we should encourage textbooks on all subjects in wikibooks (although we do have a problem that very few of our books get completed). We very much should be looking beyond the school curriculum. We should also make sure we do cover the core school curriculum well, though. This is important - it also provides good background knowledge for further learning in other areas. I certainly do not seek to inhibit the breadth of textbooks that wikibooks has - however, I also wish to see us excel in the core basic subjects that most schoolchildren learn, Jguk 20:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I cannot understand why people are getting so rule oriented on the subject of what should go in Wikibooks. This is a library of textbooks. Textbooks are manuals for courses of instruction. If we have textbooks that seem to have no courses then we should stick them at the back of the library. How much does disk space cost? Almost nothing. So why not just tuck away the books that have no courses in a separate bookshelf ("Guides and manuals that have no current course of instruction") and forget this issue of "What is a Wikibook?".

I would suggest the following compromise. If a book is a bona fide guide or manual of instruction then it belongs here (yes, even if it is a game guide). If there is no course anywhere in the world for the guide then it goes at the back of the library. If there is at least one course then it goes in the front along with everything else. RobinH 09:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I am old enough to remember when moves were made to ban Media Studies from academic institutions (in both the US and UK). Media is now a major part of both countries' economies. Please don't put Wikibooks in a straight-jacket, all that will happen is that we will become a backwater prowled by pedantic librarians. Please let us breathe. If you don't some other, more liberal site can just copy all the "straight" textbooks from here to complement its avant garde approach and kill us stone dead. RobinH 09:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't get hung up on my semantics. I believe any textbook can have a place on Wikibooks - and I would use a wide definition of textbook (although I would not stretch it beyond its usual English meaning). I do agree that it is important we have textbooks that do not relate directly to any existing (or even putative) exam, and I haven't seen anyone dissent from that view. What I also believe, however, is that we should make sure that core school syllabuses are covered and covered well. However, I most certainly would not limit our content just to books addressing those syllabuses, Jguk 10:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Academic units on Doom and other computer games

I searched for doom "computer games" course and found that Doom is implicated in numerous academic courses. There can be no doubt that game guides would be useful subsidiary textbooks for such courses. RobinH 10:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

We have discussed above that a textbook on Doom is within the scope of Wikibooks, but a game guide for Doom is not. No doubt a game guide would be useful if studying Doom academically, in the same way that a copy of a Shakespeare play would be useful (essential) when studying it in English Literature. But just as the Shakespeare play is not a textbook, neither is the game guide. Neither fall, or should fall, within Wikibooks' scope. Shakespeare plays have a home on Wikisource. Game guides on StrategyWiki (and other wikis). Links through to these sites, where relevant, should be included in textbooks, but their content does not belong here, Jguk 11:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please point to the discussion where a consensus on this point has been reached. I cannot find any consensus, indeed opinion seems to be split 50:50. In previous discussions Jguk has been adamant that consensus is needed, not a 50:50 split.

Shakespeare's plays are not manuals but game guides are indeed manuals and fall right on the boundary of what constitutes a textbook. This really is a simple issue, game guides are usually manuals without a course, they cost little to host, are not outside Wikibooks' charitable status or charter and can be tucked away in the library. The move to ban them is unnecessary. I suggest that with an issue such as this, where there is no down side for hosting, we should just let it ride. Why worry? Leave the game guides in place and any other guide that is awaiting a course.

Jguk, are you sure that you are not simply running with a single statement by Mr Wales? He is a member of a board of trustees and can only give guidance. The board would need to pronounce on this issue for it to be irrevocable policy. But it is an issue that only has a down side if we ban game guides. There is no down side in keeping them tucked away in the back of the library. RobinH 12:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see the following:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Staff_lounge/Archive_19#I_love_video_game_books

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Game_guides_on_Wikibooks

In both the above references there are comments about game guides being incompatible with the charitable mission of Wikibooks but, on closer inspection, this does not seem to be the case. RobinH 08:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jimbo_Wales

Wikibooks:Comments from the President of the Wikimedia Foundation

These comments show that Mr Wales is aware of the complexity of the problem. Notice how, as the discussion progresses he finds the same difficulties as we have found. The solution is the no risk approach, just tuck the guides away, dont ban them. RobinH 08:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws#ARTICLE_II:_STATEMENT_OF_PURPOSE

There is nothing in this that bans or even addresses game guides.

As I pointed out above, nowhere is there a consensus that video games should be banned. I find video games a bit boring and have not written or contributed to a video game guide. However, despite this, I would not endorse banning bona fide guides and manuals. If there is not yet a course for such a guide then they might be placed in a bookshelf for "Manuals without courses in educational establishments". RobinH 08:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Jguk 15:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are some US courses on video games (courtesy renmiri):

• [1] Interactive Arts and Media Course Diagrams Columbia College Chicago
• [2] Video Game Design Schools & Colleges
• [3] Video Game Design and Development at Northwestern

There are possibly even more in the UK:

• [4] video game design
• [5] Game design society
• [6] Awards
• [7] Yes, you can even be a producer

Notes on gameplay would seem to be as important for game design as annotated notes in english literature for writing skills. RobinH 08:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, if I only had time at the moment to write a full response. Perhaps later tonight. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Policy review: Wikibooks:General voting rules

It is amazing that we have no policy for dealing with contentious decisions. The game guide issue could be decided by a vote if this policy were available as an enforced policy. RobinH 12:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Policy review: proposal to move Wikibooks:Editing disputes policy to enforced status

This policy proposal has, so far, met with unanimous support. It is innocuous, simply proposing that serious disputes are dealt with to one side of the book authoring process. It makes compromise the only worthwhile solution to a dispute. RobinH 14:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It is difficult to convey tone with text, so let me say this explicitly - I really do wish to be helpful here and operate in a collaborative manner to help resolve issues and to extend my good faith. I have an honest disagreement with you here and hopefully we can discuss this as friendly Wikibookians, who nevertheless do disagree on how to make Wikibooks better.

Robin, this proposal only has four people other than yourself commenting on it, and three people other than yourself voting on it. It really needs wider discussion and more support before we can think about making it a policy. I must say my first question was "Why do we need this?" It is also very prescriptive - it also has a horrible sting in the tail. We have previously discussed, and a number of others have commented, that we only really need one behaviour policy. This would make a second one. Why can't we move towards the goal of having such a single "be nice" policy (rename it by all means) and lose the prescription? I do find it ironic that you suggest I am being too rule oriented by saying "Wikibooks is for textbooks", but you are the one coming up with lots of precise rules and methods. Take care, Jguk 15:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This is why I have tried to publicise it here. It is prescriptive, saying that if there is a major dispute it should be taken to one side to make the disputants realise that the only way forward is compromise. No one gains from an edit war and this policy ensures that this is the case.

The "precise" rules are really about tidying up the policies at Wikibooks. It will make your job easier with your re-write, knowing which policies have strong support and which have none. At the moment I do not feel that Wikibooks is a safe place for books. I could put a lot of effort into writing a section on evolution in a biology book and some people with strong opinions could simply wreck it forever. The Editing disputes and No personal attacks policies will provide some of the security that anyone who is prepared to spend hours writing a book requires.RobinH 15:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Policy review: proposal to move Wikibooks:No personal attacks to enforced

This policy has been around for a very long time and discussed at length on the policy's talk page. Jguk amended the text of the policy during the vote, all the voters were informed of this amendment and there now seems to be general agreement. Jguk has asked that notice of the move to enforced be posted here. RobinH 15:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

CommonsTicker!

Hello! I am happy to advertise a new tool created by m:User:Duesentrieb to aid better integration between the Commons: and local projects.

At the moment if an image at the Commons is nominated for deletion or even deleted, local projects that might be using the image get no notification. Thus there can be some nasty surprises when a much-loved image is deleted seemingly "without warning".

CommonsTicker involves setting up a special page on local projects (that choose to take part) where a bot posts updates about these critical events (image replacement, image nominated for deletion and image deletion), but only for images that your project is currently using.

You can see it in action here: wikt:Wiktionary:CommonsTicker

It can also be translated (if you provide a translation): see de:w:Wikipedia:CommonsTicker for an example.

To set one up, Duesentrieb just needs a local admin to volunteer to oversee the tool (at least initially, hopefully it will catch on and more people will watch it once implemented) and set up the page. See the headline link for details about how to do that.

So, what does wikibooks think? I am a Commons editor primarily and I think it's a fantastic development. But it's up to the community here.

--pfctdayelise 13:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)