Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/2013/January

Suggestion for SQL Exercises: Add DDL exercises

Most of the exercises in this book - indeed, in most books and the Internet - are on DML. DML, particularly SELECT, may be more important than DDL, but I think it's still useful to provide some DDL exercises (I need some, in fact. :P) Could an experienced SQL user on WB do that? It would be a great way to get people to come to WB too because there simply aren't enough DDL exercises. [[::User:Kayau|Kayau]] ([[::User talk:Kayau|discuss]] · [[::Special:Emailuser/Kayau|email]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]] · logs · count) 11:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Flickering bug

I found a slight bug with the display when viewed under Chrome. Open Cookbook:Pistachio, and set the window size to 1007x968 - this is a specific sweet-spot that somehow causes the skin to flip back and forth between a "wide" and "thin" sub-skin. It doesn't occur with Firefox. It can be reproduced in other pages, but they have a different sweetspot. --Sigma 7 (discuss • contribs) 18:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Question: How do you fix the window size at exactly 1007x968? Also, is the aspect ratio of the window the same for all the 'sweetspots'? [[::User:Kayau|Kayau]] ([[::User talk:Kayau|discuss]] · [[::Special:Emailuser/Kayau|email]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]] · logs · count) 12:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You have to guess how wide the window is. Either use an external tool, or take the window screenshots to determine their width (e.g. Alt-print-screen, and pasting them in MS-Paint shows the window width). Also, it requires the amount of page content to be enough to cause the scrollbar toggling, thus there's no specific aspect ratio (Special:ValidationStatistics seems to need 1003x860 but also changes as users appear in the active reviewers list below.) The 1000 pixel mark is also easy to find since that's when the Vector skin adjusts itself.

I think this is probably a MediaWiki bug rather than a WB bug. Have you identified the problem in other wikis? [[::User:Kayau|Kayau]] ([[::User talk:Kayau|discuss]] · [[::Special:Emailuser/Kayau|email]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]] · logs · count) 01:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Screenshots of non-free software (fair use)

Dear colleagues, I am thinking (not yet decided) about writing a book on usage and implementation of SAP ERP, a leading commercial ERP software. This application is obviously copyrighted, including all screenshots. According to an official SAP policy for external authors writing about their products, "SAP screenshots and graphic material may be used provided that the following copyright notice is included: “© Copyright <Year>. SAP AG. All rights reserved”" (see [1]).

To me, this sounds like a clear approval for including their screenshots for illustration of appropriate descriptions as "fair use" images. However,

• I have not seen any non-free software screenshots in Wikibooks yet (nor any SAP ERP screenshots in en.wiki),
• When clicking on "Upload file" link on the left, it points to Commons which explicitely disallow fair use images. So, if it were allowed to upload such files, then how to do it technically?

I am still thinking whether to write something like this, and if so, then in what format (website or real book?) and where (there are several instruction pages around already). But whichever way, I would not like to do it without screenshots (because SAP allows that and other authors include them, especially in "paper" books), and it would be almost impossible to write without mentioning many trademarks throughout the text. What is the opinion of Wikibooks community? Would you agree to having something like this here? Thanks for your advance opinion! --Sapfan (discuss • contribs) 16:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Non free media is permitted under the fair use condition on Wikibooks. Permission to upload fair use media direct to Wikibooks is granted by administrators to trusted users who can demonstrate an understanding of fair use and have a clear need to use it. The requests for import page allows those who don't have the upload permission to request an upload from uploaders and administrators QU ^TalkQu 16:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi QU, thanks for the explanation! This sounds promising. I will talk to some other (non-Wikipedia) people as well, do some planning (it would be a major effort - with risk of staying unfinished for a long time, and also with a risk of getting the reader lost in complexity) and then decide if I will proceed on Wikibooks or elsewhere (or nowhere). Thanks again - and all the best! --Sapfan (discuss • contribs) 17:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Easily available information about the review system?

As a newcomer to this project, I soon noted that some of the math books or chapters had two variants, much like the German wikipedia pages: One marked "Read" and one marked "Latest draft", where the latters must be "reviewed" if they are to enter the status "Read".

I have no problem with this system (which I think works rather well in the de:WP). However, I expected to find some information about it somewhere here. Probably such information exists, but I could not find it in the "natural places" to look, like guidelines and policies or "Help out!" (where there is a link to special page listing pages to be reviewed, but no explanation of the review system). Not even the page Wikibooks:PP seems to contain anything hinting at a "partial implementation of the German system".

Thus, I really have two questions:

1. . Where do I find information about the review system (including explanations about how to make a page due for reviews); and I now have found at least some information, at Wikibooks:REVIEW.
2. . Could and should the review system information be made easier to find for newbies like me?

Best regards, JoergenB (discuss • contribs) 14:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The link Wikibooks:Reading room should have lead you to Wikibooks:Requests for permissions which when I looked at it had multiple discussions about reviews and took me to Wikibooks:Reviewers. JeepdaySock (discuss • contribs) 18:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think new users need to familiarise themselves with the review system yet. There will be information after you get automatically promoted, or new users could get the info 'as they go', just as you finally managed to find WB:REVIEW. If someone gets confused, WB:HELP is ready to help. ;) Kayau (talk · contribs) 08:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Imho, the most frustrating thing about the Wikibooks review system is that it makes itself quite visible to newcomers who, for the most part, don't need to know about it yet. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Be a Wikimedia fundraising "User Experience" volunteer!

Thank you to everyone who volunteered last year on the Wikimedia fundraising 'User Experience' project. We have talked to many different people in different countries and their feedback has helped us immensely in restructuring our pages. If you haven't heard of it yet, the 'User Experience' project has the goal of understanding the donation experience in different countries (outside the USA) and enhancing the localization of our donation pages.

I am (still) searching for volunteers to spend some time on a Skype chat with me, reviewing their own country's donation pages. It will be done on a 'usability' format (I will ask you to read the text and go through the donation flow) and will be asking your feedback in the meanwhile.

The only pre-requisite is for the volunteer to actually live in the country and to have access to at least one donation method that we offer for that country (mainly credit/debit card, but also real time banking like IDEAL, E-wallets, etc...) so we can do a live test and see if the donation goes through. **All volunteers will be reimbursed of the donations that eventually succeed (and they will be very low amounts, like 1-2 dollars)**

By helping us you are actually helping thousands of people to support our mission of free knowledge across the world. If you are interested (or know of anyone who could be) please email ppena@wikimedia.org. All countries needed (excepting USA)!!

Thanks!

Pats Pena
Global Fundraising Operations Manager, Wikimedia Foundation

Sent using Global message delivery, 20:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

State of California Open Source Textbooks

The state of California has enacted a law promoting and funding the creation of 50 open-source textbooks, to be used to help minimize the cost and weight of textbooks for college students. By law, these books must be released under a Creative Commons Attribution license, which would presumably make them eligible for hosting and deriving here at Wikibooks. [2]. Someone may wish to review this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 15:12, 3 October 2012

Yes, it's an awesome addition to their already amazing OER policies. Sj (discuss • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 01:07, 19 October 2012.

Seems like hosting of originals should be at Wikisource, with derived works here. JeepdaySock (discuss • contribs) 18:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

We probably shouldn't put the originals at WS per s:WS:SCOPE. ;) Kayau (talk · contribs) 07:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

What part of s:WS:SCOPE would exclude orginal versions of Creative Commons Attribution licensed textbooks? JeepdaySock (discuss • contribs) 12:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The only types of post-1923 works within the scope of WS are documentary sources, analytical and artistic works and scientific research'. Kayau (talk · contribs) 13:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You are correct it does read that way, I have started a discusion s:Wikisource:Scriptorium#State_of_California_Open_Source_Textbooks. JeepdaySock (discuss • contribs) 14:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Community discussion indicates the originals of these works would be at home on Wikisource; assuming they are released with CC or other appropriate license and those originals are static. Also Kayau's comment leads to discussion on how to clarify the Wikisource Scope page. JeepdaySock (discuss • contribs) 16:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Having Problems with User:Adonis Laerte Mezzano/Books/Mars - Book 1

It does not want to save a PDF File. Can it be fixed?

I presume you are talking about W:User:Adonis Laerte Mezzano/Books/Mars - Book 1. As this is on Wikipedia not Wikibooks, you should ask at the Wikipedia help desk. Recent Runes (discuss • contribs) 21:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Hi,

This looks like a really nice place, hopefully I can help in editing some books or check stuff sometimes! I'm good at English and Computing so I like reading literary works and tutorials. Almost forgot to mention that I like keeping up with current affairs and the news.--Computator (discuss • contribs) 17:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Remarks and Self Introduction

Hi All,

I've no idea of custom and protocol here but since the high lighted text to introduce my self lead to this page I will simply blunder ahead and do the obvious. In sum I've 35 years experience as a programmer. I've three years experience as an editor. This of course makes my approach to Wikibooks a matter of the compulsive need to add and or correct things :) I got the email with the link to the newcomer information after a change of 'whilst' to 'while'---this is precisely the sort of small thing that hits my 'edit' button. So I did. As I've participated in the Wiki world before I didn't have to create a login so I simply went a head and made the change. This was in the OpenSCAD manual. It seems to need a review and I will probably do so as I read the manual. I notice for instance that it has no navigation system to speak of. This certainly needs to be fixed. A system of the accepted Wikibooks version of 'Next', 'Previous' and 'Home' will greatly enhance the usability of the manual IMHO. It would also do to expand the 'related' or 'see also' links in a consistent fashion. All slow to do, but again usability is crucial if the information is to be presented to one and all. Enough babble. Hsmyers (discuss • contribs) 19:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing to WB! You might want to use template:navigate for navigation. Simply type in the code {{navigate|Prev=PrevPage|Next=NextPage}} and you'll get a nice header on top for navigation. I hope you continue editing and maybe bring the manual to featured status! Kayau (talk · contribs) 05:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

ActionScript books

Having looked at ActionScript Programming, I felt that the book is, by today's standards, of unacceptable quality. This includes the organisation of the book, which is baffling to non-programmers, and the way the book is structured. Moreover, it introduces bad programming practices such as onClipEvent. Therefore, I've started a new one Introduction to ActionScript 2.0. I do plan to copy some material over (I'll provide attribution on the Talk Page but an admin may want to merge the page histories if needed). Please don't suggest merging them as they are completely different. Thanks. Kayau (talk · contribs) 15:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm nearly done with the first section now. I've been considering whether to include exception handling. This is just an introductory book after all, but it does feel incomplete without it. I'd like to hear opinions on that. I'd also like to know if my approach has been right so far, and not too intimidating to non-programers. Thanks. Kayau (talk · contribs) 13:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Error when trying to edit

Hi. I'm at a complete loss as to the arrangement of this page, so please forgive me if searching for the Add Topic link and clicking it was NOT the right way to add a topic of discussion here. I was told the "reading room" is the place for "general questions" but so far I have had none of those to ask, and I don't see where I would put them in there if I did have any, but I have lost of SPECIFIC questions and no way to ask anyone, so I finally posted some error messages on my discussion page User_talk:DonaldKronos#Errors and I've come in here hoping to find some way of letting someone who can help know about it.

When I first joined WikiBooks, I was restricted right away so it was impossible for me to create the template pages I needed to reduce the size of the tables I had planned for the Word_Lists section of the Esper book, and as a result I was forced to begin working on them in a different format. I'm now working on splitting them into categories, and would like to branch out the pages accordingly, so that the book has a proper vocabulary reference to accompany it. This is a lot of work, and it's not helping matters that I am unable to edit the pages. :( Donald Arthur Kronos, Ph.D. -- Actor, Activist -- One of many working hard to make the world better for everyone! (discuss • contribs) 20:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Likely, whoever told you the reading room was for "general" questions meant, questions about writing books and about the wiki software and that sort of thing, as opposed to, say, questions about the accuracy of a certain factoid on a certain page of a certain book. If you want to know why you're getting errors when you try to edit such-and-such a page, this is a perfectly reasonable place to ask that. When you get things like "database error"s when editing a page, it's probably a problem with the wikimedia servers, and is probably not just you, so probably the people who need to fix it are already aware, and if you come back a little later the problem will be gone. There is an IRC channel for reporting technical problems with the servers, I believe, but if there's a widespread problem, by the time you get to that channel they'll already be aware.

What do you mean when you say you were restricted right away so it was impossible for you to create the template pages you needed? --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 21:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like it was a database error as Pi Zero said so should have fixed itself by now. Wiki projects occasionally suffer from this problem but usually it doesn't last long. I think new users are restricted from creating templates but I'm not really sure - maybe that is an unnecessary restriction. Feel free to post any questions you may have on this page Donald. Someone will answer you within a few hours and if it's not the right place for the question then someone will no doubt move it elsewhere and let you know. You can also leave a message on another user's Talk page if you have specific questions.--ЗAНИA ^talk 22:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If there is such a restriction on news users, it'd be just for the first four days, so DonaldKronos should be able to create them now. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 22:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia sites to move to primary data center in Ashburn, Virginia. Read-only mode expected.

(Apologies if this message isn't in your language.) Next week, the Wikimedia Foundation will transition its main technical operations to a new data center in Ashburn, Virginia, USA. This is intended to improve the technical performance and reliability of all Wikimedia sites, including this wiki. There will be some times when the site will be in read-only mode, and there may be full outages; the current target windows for the migration are January 22nd, 23rd and 24th, 2013, from 17:00 to 01:00 UTC (see other timezones on timeanddate.com). More information is available in the full announcement.

If you would like to stay informed of future technical upgrades, consider becoming a Tech ambassador and joining the ambassadors mailing list. You will be able to help your fellow Wikimedians have a voice in technical discussions and be notified of important decisions.

Thank you for your help and your understanding.

Guillaume Paumier, via the Global message delivery system (wrong page? You can fix it.). 15:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Are we gonna have to follow Virginia's copyright laws instead of Floridas? Kayau (talk · contribs) 15:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Where to Talk About Potential New Books

Anyone who knows what they're doing, please feel free to make this section more... normal, and to remove any of the "personal" parts that seem inappropriate or whatever... including this first paragraph.

I (User:DonaldKronos) have been looking for where to discuss something with other Wikibookians, and have failed to find it, so I'm adding this section in the best place I did manage to find. In my opinion, we need an easy to find "proper place" to talk about potential books, whether they would be appropriate for Wikibooks, where might be better, who knows how to get them started, and so on.

In particular, I was talking with a friend and we both thought it would be good to make some sort of community crowdsourced "solutions" books on various topics of concern. One example came to mind and I looked into getting permission from the original author of http://issuu.com/dollhousedude/docs/free_and_clear1 to start an open source book based on the ideas and concepts presented in that particular word and he said something to the effect of "dear sir, would you be so kind?" The basic idea in that book, is that nobody should have to be "homeless" in our modern world, and the solution offered is something to the effect of starting a consortium or collective or non-profit orginization or branch of government or SOMETHING which would gather funding to buy modest homes which would be put into a sort of "pool" from which anyone could claim any unoccupied one, live in it, take care of it, and move out when they felt like moving on or found a better place. I may not have this perfect, but that's what all of us thinking TOGETHER is for, right? Anyway, the person living in such a home would not be allowed to have two of them at any given time, and could not sell or dismantle the home, but otherwise could basically treat it as property. Now, I figure perhaps WikiBooks is not the best place for this particular one, but maybe I'm mistaken. Anyone care to have a go at getting this started, tell me where would be a better place, or just join in this discussion?

Thanks. Donald Arthur Kronos, Ph.D. -- Actor, Activist -- One of many working hard to make the world better for everyone! (discuss • contribs) 08:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Human Nature: Catholic Thought and the Sciences/Contraception and HIV

I know that the book and the page are expressing Catholic thoughts and not attempting to encourage one thing or another but should Wikibooks be the place for such nonsense? Things such as abstinence-only approach and I will not tell them not to use condoms (coming from a celibate priest of all people) shouldn't be given space on a respected website. Promoting abstinence may be acceptable in the USA and questioning homosexuality may be considered OK there but this is an international website. Any thoughts?--ЗAНИA ^talk 17:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I guess this will serve as my introduction. (: I've been active at Wikipedia in the past, and I mainly came here to start a new textbook, Human Nature: Catholic Thought and the Sciences. I fully expect the book to be WB:NPOV (obviously), and I hope that vigilant editors will correct any nonsense in it (much of which is admittedly believed by my co-religionists) and provide scientific evidence to challenge any Catholic views they consider wrongheaded. For instance, if you look at the page in question, it is simply presenting the views of the Catholic teaching authorities which, like them or not, are influential and worth discussing. The page does not present those views as truth but rather as views. Please take into account that the existing content is very preliminary. I would appreciate at least a week or two to get it into shape before you evaluate its potential as a Wikibook. If it is ultimately decided that such a book is not appropriate here, I will accept the decision (and suggest that the Subject:Theology be entirely removed). Hugetim (discuss • contribs) 19:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome. My previous post was rather abrupt. I think most of the community have no problem with such a book and I doubt even for a moment that it will be deleted. I was just trying to encourage some debate about the content of the book and worried that the book might try to encourage certain behaviours of promote one position over another which doesn't seem to be the case according to what you've said. Good luck with the book!--ЗAНИA ^talk 20:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I really am sympathetic to your concerns, and I think the participation of critics of official Catholic positions is needed to make the book work. (However, I will also understand if such critics do not consider it worth their time.) And thanks for the welcome template that led me here! Hugetim (discuss • contribs) 20:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons.

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

This message was delivered based on m:Distribution list/Global message delivery. Translation fetched from: commons:Commons:Picture of the Year/2012/Translations/Village Pump/en -- Rillke (discuss • contribs) 04:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Esper book

I am not able to review any changes to this book because most pages freeze my web browser for about 3-4 minutes. This only happens with pages from this book and sometimes the browser doesn't unfreeze. Wiki policies usually talk about a 32kb or 100kb maximum size for pages yet, I think, some of these pages are around 1,000kb. This is likely to be very off-putting to visitors to Wikibooks. It seems to be freezing my Opera and Chrome browsers on my little netbook PC as well as my Android 4 phone. Internet connection isn't an issue as it's 50MB/S broadband and 24MB/S 4G. Can anything be done about this?--ЗAНИA ^talk 20:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I had the same problem. In the end I opened the page in "edit" then saved with "Review pending changes" selected but with no other changes made - reviewing the changes. But yes the book needs breaking into smaller pages. QU ^TalkQu 21:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Page Ratings

Do we have any stats about this tool? I mean the tool just above the Review which asks What do you think of this page?. I have rarely used it and it seems the only way to view stats is on a page-by-page status. No way of seeing stats for the whole project or a list of most rated pages? Has anybody here ever used it?--ЗAНИA ^talk 23:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I've never used it. If we had a good way to compile rating stats for pages across the whole project, we could judge better whether the feature is really unused — and if it is used, that use would be more... useful. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 23:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You can see the results here Special:RatedPages for pages that have "many" ratings. As far as I can tell we don't get enough ratings to generate stats. Someone with access to a database dump / SQL would be able to produce a full list. QU ^TalkQu 09:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If the feature is unused, would it be better to get rid of it so it isn't cluttering up our pages? --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Try here. It is used on some pages. Unfortunately it is not easy to get site wide data QU ^TalkQu 13:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I know the difference between the ratings and the reviews but it does look strange having both at the bottom of each page. If they were combined somehow that would be nice. --ЗAНИA ^talk 18:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Although theoretically reviews are supposed on a scale, in practice we use them as a certification of non-vandalism. And the certification is by an established Wikibookian, whereas the "ratings" are by readers. So even if the names and forms of the things are confusingly similar, their functions seem imho quite different. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 21:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't see any of QU's Special:RatedPages or Special:RatingHistory. Are those admin-only pages?

Anyway, I thought the feature was rather useful on WN. It shows you where you did well and where you should improve. However, I just logged on again and it seems to be gone. Anyway, if we could get WB on Google Books, that would make the tool more useful, the way WN gets these ratings because it's on Google News. Just a thought. :) Kayau (talk · contribs) 12:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

We were upgraded and those pages no longer exist in the new version of MediaWiki. I'll have to see what the alternative is now QU ^TalkQu 14:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Help turn ideas into grants in the new IdeaLab

I apologize if this message is not in your language. Please help translate it.

• Do you have an idea for a project to improve this community or website?
• Do you think you could complete your idea if only you had some funding?
• Do you want to help other people turn their ideas into project plans or grant proposals?

Please join us in the IdeaLab, an incubator for project ideas and Individual Engagement Grant proposals.

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking new ideas and proposals for Individual Engagement Grants. These grants fund individuals or small groups to complete projects that help improve this community. If interested, please submit a completed proposal by February 15, 2013. Please visit https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG for more information.

Thanks! --Siko Bouterse, Head of Individual Engagement Grants, Wikimedia Foundation 20:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Distributed via Global message delivery. (Wrong page? Correct it here.)