This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Wikibooks article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The contents of the Wikijunior page were merged into Wikibooks. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A couple of ten years ago, I wrote a book, Codeword Dictionary. No need to ask, it was a real book, they paid me, I did not pay them. They would have singles that would interfeer .
Anyway, I have the copyright and was wondering what I should do with it, now that the Dead Tree edition is out of print and will probably not inspire a second edition.
The book was a dictionary of military operations names. I have used the files to work on the 'pedia's List of operations and projects (military and non-military) page, but we are talking thousands of entries here.
So what should I do? My options include:
Your thoughts, please.[[ PaulinSaudi 11:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)]]
It would be good to see it, then we could see whether having thousands of articles on it would be good. My gut feeling is that yes, it could be. Intrigue 18:44, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Independently of whatever you may decide to do vis-a-vis Wikibooks, have you considered giving it to Project Gutenberg? [[User:Dpbsmith| Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree it's a generous offer, and thank you. One concern I have is whether it might be a little too generous. Even though you have the copyright, and could presumably prevent the publisher from re-issuing the book without cutting a deal with you, the contract might give the publisher some rights. At a minimum, it might restrain you from taking any action that kills the market for a possible reprint, by giving the same text away for free. Before you elect any of the options discussed here, you should probably speak with your publisher and/or your lawyer. JamesMLane 01:39, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I would suggest you enter the whole thing as a wikibook anyway it seems as we have the same challenge. 'Nickimash' ( talk) 16:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to add something along these lines:
MShonle 20:15, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Upon agreement to this idea, I'll post it to the article.)
I'm new here so please pardon me if it is a faq (which however I didn't find on the FAQ). What about writing non-technical books, like fantasy, spy stories, SciFi and so on? Anyone can seed a story and then collaboratively some great book can build up. Also, some automatized engine for the creation of e-books formats can be very interesting.
What guidelines if any are there for keeping Wikibooks and Wikipedia in sync? For example, I see that Wikibooks has a nascent section on Calculus, but Wikipedia has a much more developed set of articles for most any area of mathematics. In contributing to the Wikibooks section, should I simply link from Wikibooks articles to Wikipedia ones, or copy-paste content? Thanks for your advice.
This may appear as a dumb, misplaced or even indecent question to wikibooks contributors, but believe me I'm far from hostile to this project. The question: why a separate wikibooks? Basic as this question is, I didn't find a real answer anywhere on wikibooks or wikipedia.
I see a certain difference beween the "books" "encyclopedia" and "dictionary" projects, however these seem gradual rather than essential. When I want to inform myself on a topic, I don't care about these distinctions. Definition, description, etymology, related matters, manuals: I don't see why I would one but not the others. Then, why does one have to look in 3 different projects?
More general remark: wouldn't it be easier to pool resources and assign labels, categories, keywords and file properties to each item for easy retrieval?
-- Igor 12:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
You ask a very good question! And one that I think the article should shed more light on... If you work on contributing to WP, you will soon learn that there is some rule somewhere against almost anything that you want to contribute. For example, "sources". There are no sources listed for over 90% of current WP content! And "WP is not a how-to". You could study the subject of "what WP is not" (officially) for a good list of all the reasons we need other places to build good, useful information resources. Don't know how much better things are over at Wikibooks; I'm about to try to find out.
I am a contributor to English Wikibooks. (I do not edit the Wikipedia much.) I have added the {{ advert}} tag to this article about Wikibooks.
This article only seems to promote Wikibooks. It includes no negative comments about Wikibooks, despite the low quality of some of our projects. Wikibooks:Wikibooks:Staff lounge#Criticisms of Wikibooks links to information that might help improve this article.
Instead of editing this article, I will let other users (preferably those external to Wikibooks) improve this article. -- Kernigh 22:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
The current article does a better job of presenting facts than the version that I originally tagged. You might be correct: I know of [1] and [2], but almost no one has information on the quality (good or bad) of textbooks from Wikibooks. -- Kernigh 03:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Someone prodded the other article. How about merging the content here. Doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB otherwise. Megapixie 01:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Page doesn't work in Internet Explorer.
I think this is because the SVG image at the top of the page. I'll let someone who knows what they are doing fix this.
Thanks, Kelly
Can a tutur reaserch Nicolesonio ( talk) 05:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
1. StrategyWiki has given up on its relicense attempt. and
2. No mention is made of my wiki
WikiKnowledge
Books moved to WikiKnowledge:
I even got some of the VB classic book after one Wikibooks user left the project. Gerard Foley 21:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikibooks is working on a new effort to create pages and programs to help welcome wikipedians to the wikibooks project. The current welcome page (a bit of a draft at the moment) is at b:Wikibooks:Wikibooks for wikipedians. I would like to put a link to this page in a wikibooks-specific high-traffic area here on wikipedia, to try and produce interest in that project. Should I put such a link on this page, or is there a more appropriate place to put such a link? -- User:Wknight8111 ( WB:Whiteknight) 02:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I`d happy to know wat are them-- Tigru 03:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
A lot of the statements here are linked to Wikimedia-related stuff! There are very few outside sources for any of this. I don't know if Wikimedia stuff is fine to link to as a source, but I'm just pointing out it happens in this article a loooot. I don't know anyhting about it though so I can't fix it myself. :-( Miltopia 10:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi all, whatever happened with the logo renewal could be added to this article. It seems to me that the Finnish Wikibooks is the only one to use it thus far? – Zinjixmaggir 12:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Nice job on the NPOV of this article. It doesn't dodge the issues, and doesn't seem tainted by pro-wiki ideological bias at all.-- 75.83.140.254 19:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Under the criticisms section, the phrase "some argue" is used as an argument against Wikibooks.-- ॐJesucristo301 ( talk) 00:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Show ->.
|
---|
Sister Projects Interview: WikibooksWhat is Wikibooks? What are its goals and objectives?
Describe what activities do the editors in Wikibooks do most.
What are some of the tasks done by administrators?
If I want to become an active editor, what should be my first step (other than signing up)?
Does the project have any plans to promote itself or recruit more members?
What are some difficulties that Wikibooks faced?
How can I recognize the best works of Wikibooks?
|
as of March 2010 there appears to be no information on the type of paper used to manufacture physical Wikibooks. FSC promotes sustainable wood production. 79.75.31.167 ( talk) 16:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Seems there was afd consensus to merge the former Wikijunior article into this one. However, as can be seen from the link, there is much content that got left behind. -- œ ™ 09:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
This page is for improvements on the Wikibooks article, not the project. 64.92.53.159 ( talk) 23:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Wikibooks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Wikibooks article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The contents of the Wikijunior page were merged into Wikibooks. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A couple of ten years ago, I wrote a book, Codeword Dictionary. No need to ask, it was a real book, they paid me, I did not pay them. They would have singles that would interfeer .
Anyway, I have the copyright and was wondering what I should do with it, now that the Dead Tree edition is out of print and will probably not inspire a second edition.
The book was a dictionary of military operations names. I have used the files to work on the 'pedia's List of operations and projects (military and non-military) page, but we are talking thousands of entries here.
So what should I do? My options include:
Your thoughts, please.[[ PaulinSaudi 11:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)]]
It would be good to see it, then we could see whether having thousands of articles on it would be good. My gut feeling is that yes, it could be. Intrigue 18:44, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Independently of whatever you may decide to do vis-a-vis Wikibooks, have you considered giving it to Project Gutenberg? [[User:Dpbsmith| Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree it's a generous offer, and thank you. One concern I have is whether it might be a little too generous. Even though you have the copyright, and could presumably prevent the publisher from re-issuing the book without cutting a deal with you, the contract might give the publisher some rights. At a minimum, it might restrain you from taking any action that kills the market for a possible reprint, by giving the same text away for free. Before you elect any of the options discussed here, you should probably speak with your publisher and/or your lawyer. JamesMLane 01:39, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I would suggest you enter the whole thing as a wikibook anyway it seems as we have the same challenge. 'Nickimash' ( talk) 16:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to add something along these lines:
MShonle 20:15, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Upon agreement to this idea, I'll post it to the article.)
I'm new here so please pardon me if it is a faq (which however I didn't find on the FAQ). What about writing non-technical books, like fantasy, spy stories, SciFi and so on? Anyone can seed a story and then collaboratively some great book can build up. Also, some automatized engine for the creation of e-books formats can be very interesting.
What guidelines if any are there for keeping Wikibooks and Wikipedia in sync? For example, I see that Wikibooks has a nascent section on Calculus, but Wikipedia has a much more developed set of articles for most any area of mathematics. In contributing to the Wikibooks section, should I simply link from Wikibooks articles to Wikipedia ones, or copy-paste content? Thanks for your advice.
This may appear as a dumb, misplaced or even indecent question to wikibooks contributors, but believe me I'm far from hostile to this project. The question: why a separate wikibooks? Basic as this question is, I didn't find a real answer anywhere on wikibooks or wikipedia.
I see a certain difference beween the "books" "encyclopedia" and "dictionary" projects, however these seem gradual rather than essential. When I want to inform myself on a topic, I don't care about these distinctions. Definition, description, etymology, related matters, manuals: I don't see why I would one but not the others. Then, why does one have to look in 3 different projects?
More general remark: wouldn't it be easier to pool resources and assign labels, categories, keywords and file properties to each item for easy retrieval?
-- Igor 12:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
You ask a very good question! And one that I think the article should shed more light on... If you work on contributing to WP, you will soon learn that there is some rule somewhere against almost anything that you want to contribute. For example, "sources". There are no sources listed for over 90% of current WP content! And "WP is not a how-to". You could study the subject of "what WP is not" (officially) for a good list of all the reasons we need other places to build good, useful information resources. Don't know how much better things are over at Wikibooks; I'm about to try to find out.
I am a contributor to English Wikibooks. (I do not edit the Wikipedia much.) I have added the {{ advert}} tag to this article about Wikibooks.
This article only seems to promote Wikibooks. It includes no negative comments about Wikibooks, despite the low quality of some of our projects. Wikibooks:Wikibooks:Staff lounge#Criticisms of Wikibooks links to information that might help improve this article.
Instead of editing this article, I will let other users (preferably those external to Wikibooks) improve this article. -- Kernigh 22:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
The current article does a better job of presenting facts than the version that I originally tagged. You might be correct: I know of [1] and [2], but almost no one has information on the quality (good or bad) of textbooks from Wikibooks. -- Kernigh 03:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Someone prodded the other article. How about merging the content here. Doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB otherwise. Megapixie 01:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Page doesn't work in Internet Explorer.
I think this is because the SVG image at the top of the page. I'll let someone who knows what they are doing fix this.
Thanks, Kelly
Can a tutur reaserch Nicolesonio ( talk) 05:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
1. StrategyWiki has given up on its relicense attempt. and
2. No mention is made of my wiki
WikiKnowledge
Books moved to WikiKnowledge:
I even got some of the VB classic book after one Wikibooks user left the project. Gerard Foley 21:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikibooks is working on a new effort to create pages and programs to help welcome wikipedians to the wikibooks project. The current welcome page (a bit of a draft at the moment) is at b:Wikibooks:Wikibooks for wikipedians. I would like to put a link to this page in a wikibooks-specific high-traffic area here on wikipedia, to try and produce interest in that project. Should I put such a link on this page, or is there a more appropriate place to put such a link? -- User:Wknight8111 ( WB:Whiteknight) 02:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I`d happy to know wat are them-- Tigru 03:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
A lot of the statements here are linked to Wikimedia-related stuff! There are very few outside sources for any of this. I don't know if Wikimedia stuff is fine to link to as a source, but I'm just pointing out it happens in this article a loooot. I don't know anyhting about it though so I can't fix it myself. :-( Miltopia 10:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi all, whatever happened with the logo renewal could be added to this article. It seems to me that the Finnish Wikibooks is the only one to use it thus far? – Zinjixmaggir 12:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Nice job on the NPOV of this article. It doesn't dodge the issues, and doesn't seem tainted by pro-wiki ideological bias at all.-- 75.83.140.254 19:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Under the criticisms section, the phrase "some argue" is used as an argument against Wikibooks.-- ॐJesucristo301 ( talk) 00:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Show ->.
|
---|
Sister Projects Interview: WikibooksWhat is Wikibooks? What are its goals and objectives?
Describe what activities do the editors in Wikibooks do most.
What are some of the tasks done by administrators?
If I want to become an active editor, what should be my first step (other than signing up)?
Does the project have any plans to promote itself or recruit more members?
What are some difficulties that Wikibooks faced?
How can I recognize the best works of Wikibooks?
|
as of March 2010 there appears to be no information on the type of paper used to manufacture physical Wikibooks. FSC promotes sustainable wood production. 79.75.31.167 ( talk) 16:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Seems there was afd consensus to merge the former Wikijunior article into this one. However, as can be seen from the link, there is much content that got left behind. -- œ ™ 09:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
This page is for improvements on the Wikibooks article, not the project. 64.92.53.159 ( talk) 23:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Wikibooks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)