User talk:Adrignola/2009/07

Template naming

Hi Adrignola. Redirects are fine, but remember that it's usually a lot easier to use a short name for templates (Template:Organic_Horticulture_in_the_Mid-Atlantic/Stub is rather a mouthful for the fingers). AFAIK, templates don't use the subpage naming conventions. --SB_Johnny ^talk 08:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you look in the sections of the page above, you'll see that Pi zero has been working toward having that be the case. For your book there's code now to use {{{{BOOKTEMPLATE}}/Stub}}, so no matter how long the name of the actual template, that shorthand code recently created will save your fingers. Using that name also allows the revised {{BookCat}} to put it in a /Templates subcategory of your book's category, to put all your book's templates together. It also allows the use of Special:PrefixIndex limited to the Template: namespace when looking for any of your book's templates that have not been categorized. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 14:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... like I said, as long as the redirects are kept, it's not really a problem. Book templates are used to make page creation easier, and making the templates easy to spekl helps :-). --SB_Johnny ^talk 12:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Book templates are also supposed to make the page markup easier to understand. It's easier to understand that the template being called is book-specific if the call syntax says that, than if it the call syntax doesn't say it :-). --Pi zero (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

{{BookCat|filing=deep}}

What would you think of a deep-filing option on BookCat? This would expand the range of templates that can include BookCat, to encompass at least some templates that are used on deep-filed book pages (a problem I was alerted to when I had to re-noinclude BookCat on Template:False Friends of the Slavist/MapConstructor). I've worked out and debugged such an upgrade at User:Pi zero/BookCat (with its noincluded category commented out, so as not to categorize my user subpage). There turned out to be more subtleties than I'd realized, but I think I've got the design flaws ironed out... --Pi zero (talk) 02:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

As long as additional functionality doesn't break existing functionality, I'm all for it. Your changes are now in {{BookCat}}. Enjoy. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 02:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Transwiki

Do we need special rights to do edits like these at pt.wikibooks? Helder 10:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak directly for pt.wikibooks, but at en.wikibooks the ability to transwiki from other English-language Wikimedia wikis is restricted to sysops/admins and those who are members of the "importers" group. There's nobody that is part of the importers group, so it's effectively only administrators here that can do so. The page used for this is Special:Import. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 12:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikibooks talk:Copyrights#Update needed

This is just to let you know I responded to your comment there, in case you forgot to watch the page. --darklama 15:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 15:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Redirects of language subjects

Hi Adrignola, I've undonde your redirects of "Subject:X" to "Subject:X language" because they broke the layout of the Languages bookshelf. I've moved these pages to "Wikibooks:X bookshelf", which actually was the original name before darklama moved them. After that I redirected "Subject:X" again to "Subject:X language"; thus, I guess you should be happy. (And I'm happy because the Languages bookshelf is fixed.) I'm not sure about darklama because I don't know the reason for moving the pages in the first place. --Martin Kraus (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That's fine with me. If only it were so easy to make everyone happy with a love child from the mating of bookshelves and subjects; that'd make my day. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 13:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:University level mathematics books

Hi, I was curious why this was set to a hidden category? Thenub314 (talk) 10:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

My rationale was that it is used like the alphabetical, DDC, and LOC classifications and doesn't correspond to an actual subject page like the subjects applied in addition to university level mathematics on the books. This was stemming from your comment about certain categories showing up that weren't subjects. I think it was the featured book category. Making these categories hidden, to me, would solve that problem that you brought up. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 12:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, it doesn't quite solve the problem for me. I have been complaining about these links at the bottom of the page for a while. There is another aspect of my discontent I probably expressed best before you started. Supose we fix everything else and we give our users a well defined notion of what a subject page is, and they use them. Well then when they visit a book and see a link that Says "Subject:Mathematics" and they click on mathematics, they are taken to the category page!?! If it were up to me I would keep things like "Featured books", "Books to be Merged" etc at the bottom of the page, and just change the word to Categories, because that is where the links take you. Thenub314 (talk) 12:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with that. Buy-in would be needed from Darklama, as he originated the change in order to habituate users into thinking of the links at the bottom as corresponding to subjects (though, indeed, they do not link to subjects). This is why I made sure to at least link to the subjects from the categories. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 12:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I am glad to hear you linked the subjects for the categories, that I agree is a step in the right direction. I have talked with Darklama about this, just recently in the IRC channel, he still sees it as a step in the wrong direction. Oh well. Thenub314 (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any strong feelings about me unhiding it? Thenub314 (talk) 10:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have feelings either way. It's just a cosmetic adjustment. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 14:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

bfbggon

Thanks for blocking that idiot. He was beginning to get on my nerves. Chazz (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Help

I play DnD and bevlieve its wikibook is horribly unfinished. In my renovating/finishing of it, i need to rename a page. Could you please rename Attributes Ability Scores? And possibly tell me how for the future? --White wizard (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you found the book. I had added it to a category a short while ago so that people could find it. Your page has been renamed. Normally you can't do this unless you've made some edits and been around for a few days. You satisfy both, so in the future you are able to rename a page by clicking on the tab at the top of the page titled "move" and entering in the new name. Please remember to update any links to the page by checking "what links here" in the toolbox at the lower-left hand side of the page. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 01:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and good job on administrator :) --White wizard (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Mac OS X Tiger

The merge was already done in 19 December 2008 by myself (hence the tagging for speedy) that was questioned as a VFD. Since the outcome seems to be a merge I take it is to the pending request to merge the pages edit histories...
I don't object to the removal of the VFD tag but since no work was added to the page, then a notice of some kind should substitute the VFD (or a retag as speedy with the request to merge the histories, mentioning the VFD discussion so we don't get into the loop again). If no one is doing the requested/required edit history merge and immediate deletion soon...
For the last comment from Darklama on the VFD he "I'll do just that in a week..." (1 June), I take he forgot about it... --Panic (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit history merge completed. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 06:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Jeep Wrangler

Hey, just wanted to clarified why I marked Automobile_Repair/Jeep/Jeep_Wrangler for speedy deletion: It was its own book without any context, so I figured it was created out of confusion for how wikibooks is organized or what it is for (since it is just a listing of the parts). Did not realize it was meant to be part of a book. It still doesn't seem to have anything to do with repair, but I wouldn't interfere. --Sargas (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Understandable. The book linking to it is filled with improperly formed links to pages and the page was indeed created at the wrong location. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 18:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Linear algebra

Hey, if it is not a big deal, let me categorize its pages. I have worked quite hard on it and would like to be the one to "put the nails in the coffin". Thenub314 (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Saves me some work. :) My mass categorization gets them out of the listing but if a book's editors want to do "deep filing" or whatever under the book's main category, they are free to do so. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 19:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright concern

I came across Programming:WebObjects/Web Services/Working With Temporary GlobalIDs while working on categorizing. I happend to notice the page said "This documentation was written by Andrew Lindesay (http://www.lindesay.co.nz) in 2006 as part of supported code in the LEWOStuff framework, but this material has been transcribed here," and noticed the discussion at User talk:60.234.248.143 links to it. I am on holiday and will probably forget to check this out later, so I thought I would let you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenub314 (discuss • contribs)

Probably related: WebObjects/Web Applications/Deployment/Tomcat Deployment → http://web.archive.org/web/20061202202932/http://homepage.mac.com/andrewlindesay/le/page_articles.html (first link) though not really proof that the other page also had the author's blessing. --darklama 23:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

When doing these requests, please use {{tlx}} on {{editprotected}} so the request disappears from the category (you can see an example here). Thanks  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 02:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I wasn't familiar with the template. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 23:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts

Do you have any thoughts about where Programming/LearnByExample/COpenGL/IntroOrtho, Programming/PHP/Smart-links to Mediawiki pages, and Programming/J2ME should go? It seems there was a book titled Programming which got split into several books, and these pages got lost in the process. But I am not sure where to put them now, and thought you might have some good ideas. Judging from how other books got split Programming/PHP probably became PHP Programming, similarly with J2ME Programming, but I am not sure if there is anything that corresponded to LearnByExample. Thenub314 (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The first was part of a book nominated by the author for speedy deletion and that page was missed. See the VFD discussion. The second is not used by PHP Programming or Complete PHP Programming and does not fit into either's structure, so I deleted it, as it is an obscure code sample by an anonymous user that did not make other contributions that would indicate it has any place in the existing books. I did a history merge with J2ME Programming for the last one. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 23:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Thenub314 (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Geothermal Book

I see you have classified Geothermal Heating and Cooling as mechanical engineering, while this is true it is also about HVAC is this subject part of mechanical engineering, or does it deserve it's own mention in the Subject line?--Graeme E. Smith (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, HVAC is a pretty specific subject and there is not a subject page for that at this point. I think it also could be under architectural engineering as well based on the HVAC aspect. I've added that additional category to the book. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 01:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--Graeme E. Smith (talk) 02:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

page casing

Dear Adrignola,

I see you are renaming several books, changing only the capitalization (casing). If you have any good reasons for doing so, I would like to hear about it at Wikibooks talk:Naming policy#Page casing.

p.s.: Good work on the categorization. Thank you. --DavidCary (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Accidental Page corrections

Hello Adrignola,

I am an instructor with a course at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, VA. Our students have been writing Wikibooks for the past three years. Our current book is titled Foundations and Asssessment of Education -- Edition 1. A student brought to my attention that you have added pages that I had intentionally deleted from another module page. I am sure this is accedidental, but I would appreciate if you could contact me if you have any questions regarding our book. We make modifications throughout each semester because we rate the topics and vote on the best of the two articles. We appreciate all the hard work you all do as admins, so thank you for looking out. I am going back in and correcting these changes now. PLease let me know if you made any other changes, so that I can catch them before the students do. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Have a wonderful day! Jkauf007 (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to ask, but could you please undo your edits to the book, Foundations and Assessment of Education -- Edition 1. It seems that I do not have that priveledge. I messed up Chapter 5 trying to correct your change. It needs to be done as soon as possible, because students don't know what articles to read. Thank you again for all of your help! Jkauf007 (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I should have asked before adding them to your pages in retrospect. I've fixed it so that only the articles that were originally linked are the ones linked on those pages. The pages that were added were not linked to by any page in the wiki and I was not aware that this was intentional. Would you like the "runners-up" so to speak deleted? The only downside to the current state of your book is that those pages are not linked to and so will be hard to find. I'm committed to having my edits be positive in their effect. If I can be of assistance in the future, please let me know. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 21:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem! What we had originally designed was a separate module page called "Content Articles." The students read and rated these articles; we calculated their ratings and determined the "winner." Once we had a winner, I just moved the links onto the main chapter page and technically deleted the module page called "Content Articles." I realize now that in the hierarchy of the link structure, "Content Articles" is still included. If I were to remove that part of the hierarchy, I would then have to re-post all of those articles onto new pages. In order to not totally rebuild the book throughout the semester, we would like to keep it this way. Is this going to be alright? Thanks again for your help and quick response! Jkauf007 (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. You do have a second option. You could move the pages directly under the chapter name and request the "content articles" module be deleted. But that'd be about as much work as re-posting the articles. Whatever works best for you works for me. After all, it's you and your students' pride and joy. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 01:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello again,

In Chapter 10, Chapter 10 -- Effective Teaching two of the articles were erased and are currently blank links; 10.3.1 and 10.4.1. When UI went to look at my old content page to replace them, it seems that the page has been erased. Is this correct? I need the two articles posted back, and it would be helpful if I could assess my old pages in case issues arise. Thank you for your assistance! Jkauf007 (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The only author of those pages, Mhanz001 had emptied them of content, qualifying them for speedy deletion. I have restored them at your request, but please let your students know that blanking a page they created is an implicit request for deletion. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 17:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Language concepts

Dear Adrignola, I would like Computer Programming/Language concepts to be undeleted. (There is some discussion at Wikibooks:Votes for undeletion#Computer Programming/Language concepts). --DavidCary (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

categorization of Spanish by Choice

Thanks for categorizing the pages of the "Spanish by Choice" book. I've seen that you stopped categorizing the templates. I think there are some dozens of them; all easily identified by the prefix "Sbc". Do you think it is necessary to categorize them? --Martin Kraus (talk) 08:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Always happy to help. I wasn't aware that there were more templates. I will have to take care of the rest. It is not technically necessary to categorize them, but it cuts down on the listing at Special:UncategorizedTemplates. Doing this is less for categorizing templates specific to a book and more for categorizing templates that can be used by any book. I can see those templates in the aforementioned listing and categorize them so people will be able to find them browsing Category:Templates. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 12:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Single page version

As an editor I find it very useful to be able to manage all the content of the book in its fullness so to construct a well structured work because of this having an all pages version (similar to but not equal to the print version) is required as it can have the TOC enabled and doesn't require a copy o the GFDL...
Can you revert your last change to the Video Game Design ? Do you have any objections or a better solution to this issue? --Panic (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC) PS: I haven't checked if it was due to any of your changes but the Video Game Design/Print version now doesn't include the GFDL text as it is required... --Panic (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The link to the all chapters page has been restored. If the book is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, it won't need a copy of the GFDL in the print version, but the print version has it in there at this point. If it is licensed under CC-BY-SA, then your all chapters page will end up identical to the print version. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 20:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

For what I understood of the licensing issue (I have attempted to clarify this recently) the works will be dual licensed (something that causes me confusion since I thought that the idea was to drop the GFDL altogether, but it is the text that contributors are now seeing on edits). This makes opting out of the GFDL impossible and so it continues to be a requirement that the license text be added to intended for print outputs.

PS: Is there a Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 tag or one that reflects this new dual license reality (similar to the one used for the GFDL Video Game Design/Authors) ? --Panic (talk) 03:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

{{cc-by-sa-3.0}} would be the tag you want or anything in Category:Wikibooks copyleft templates. I've heard the Free Software Foundation wanted the dual-licensing, but I think the intention is to allow for the use of CC-BY-SA primarily by re-users. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 03:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Catgraph

Just remewmbered that you could possibly not be aware of the tool Catgraph --Panic (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. It's interesting to play with. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 02:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"Good site" bots

Hi Aaron,

The edit you reverted to XQuery/Uptime monitor earlier today fits the pattern of what we call the "Good site, admin" bot. Typically, these bots replace a section of a book with some sort of lame compliment. When I see these, I block them indefinitely and log their IP's on Mike's talk page so he can block them on other wikis. I do not leave messages for them either, as it is completely pointless since the bots don't (and can't) read. Be on the lookout! --Jomegat (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at your blocks today, they use a pretty wide range of IPs. Pretty nefarious. If it had been several edits by the same IP I might have noticed the pattern, but as it was I was fooled into thinking this was your standard vandal. I will have to keep this in mind in the future. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 17:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Mass Import Request

Could you import the following for me?

The list is on my User Page. User:Arlen22

If you don't really feel into it you could give me import permission or whatever is required. Arlen22 (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can't just give it to you. There has to be a request for permissions. That'd probably take a while since things go slowly here, so I'll bring those pages in just as soon as I can. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 18:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I could do a mass copy and paste with iMacros but I would still have to worry about the history if I did that. I will try to get Admin status before I do the NGC index! That is unless you are ready to spend a while importing 7000+ pages! How does the transwiki thing work anyway? Arlen22 (talk) 18:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Help:Transwiki provides a general overview and Wikibooks:Requests for Import provides specific procedures people can follow. You don't actually have to be an administrator to import. There is an "importers" group; there's just nobody in it. There could be a first time... -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 18:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

New Layout

I am wondering what you think of this. I have it all figured out.

• First is the Library.
• Under that are sections
• Within those are sub-sections and subjects
• Within the subjects are books.

Does that sound right. The current system is worse than the bookshelves. Arlen22 (talk) 13:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

For instance, look at the Computing Major Subject, it has 2 layers below it of subjects (at least). --Arlen22 (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Towards that end a library name-space would be good. Unless we want to do something like this: Wikibooks:Library/Computing/Software Arlen22 (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I talked to User:Darklama and he did not like my Idea other then the Library part of it. So I made a library page. Wikibooks:Library --Arlen22 (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion can occur in the reading room where people you've contacted have already started to post responses. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 20:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I do want somewhere where all the pages about subject vs. bookshelf can be archived. Shall I do that in the library archives of another subfolder? I appreciate your input. --Arlen22 (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

After a discussion in the reading room has not been posted to for a month, it is moved to the archives by a robot. So there's nothing you need to do but sit back and rest assured that all comments will be preserved for posterity. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 22:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I mean in one place. Arlen22 (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

How about Reading room/Archives/Your Title Here? -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 22:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)