User talk:Adrignola/2010/05

New/Better Idea

Could you delete my pages Easy Thai and Hylian? I realized that I don't know the languages and that Hylian isn't even fully developed as a conlang. I'm thinking that better would be a page on alphabets if the real book doesn't explain it so well. Thanks in advance Master lan _talk 12:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I've done as you've requested. Sorry it didn't work out. Lojban Made Easy and Mandarin Chinese in your "Made EZ" series of books still remain and can be developed further. I wish you well on whatever you choose to work on next. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 15:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the categories

I often forget to check it, and every time I see you correcting me I cringe, I hope at least that you aren't doing it by hand and you have some automated script that check recent edited pages, if not I'm extremely sorry and am willing to work on providing some sort of automated solution. Are you doing it by hand ? If so do you know on a similar script that can be changed to provide automation to the correction ? --Panic (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The only script I've ever used here has been Twinkle, and that's only for tagging pages. I've heard of AutoWikiBrowser, but that's not going to provide the proper category if it just uses the [[Category:Blah]], which won't sort the subpages, but works fine on Wikipedia. Every "+category" edit in my contributions history has been by hand. I check the new pages daily to ensure they've been categorized. I wish there were a way to add {{BookCat}} to every new page creation's textbox automatically before people start adding the content, but I'm not aware of a way to have that done. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 02:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Graphs

I was looking at the graph you posed in the reading room a few minutes ago, I was wondering if you knew offhand if any of the other projects also peaked in 2006. I suppose I am curious if it is a wikibooks phenomenon, an "everything except wikipedia" phenomenon, or a wikimedia phenomenon. Do you know offhand? Thenub314 (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't find how I got to the chart I posted before originally, but I can do one better and link to the stats broken down to an even smaller scale (by month) per project.

• Wikinews peaked in Nov 2006 and Jun 2007
• Wikiquote peaked in Mar 2007
• Wikisource peaked in Nov 2007
• Wiktionary peaked in Apr 2008
• Wikibooks peaked in Jul 2006 (we peaked earliest)
• Wikiversity peaked in Apr 2008
• Wikipedia peaked in Mar 2007 (but has held steady)

Of note is that some of these peaks do not reflect the overall average, where the projects have held steady at an edit rate below the peak. Most of them are flukes and do not represent the pinnacle of a continuing rise. Wikibooks, though, does have a situation where the peak represents a point after a period of increasing contributions. I think getting a statistical trend would be more helpful. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 16:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Greetings and Apologies

Hi, sorry I left Bookmarklets orphaned as you noted. I ran out of time and was intending to finish when I got back on. I'm pleasantly surprised to see someone guarding these pages. I hope to build them up in the coming weeks, as I have a couple friends who have become my JavaScript students and I hope to get their help with explaining JavaScript in small chunks. As implied here, I hope to use the JavaScript Wiki as the reference counterpart to this book. If you have any questions or input I'm all ears. --Jesdisciple (talk) 07:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:LOC

Hi!

Do you know what was the criteria for choosing only those classes of LOC classification which are in the template? Helder18:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, keep in mind that it was all settled even before I got here, but they appear to correspond with the subcategories of Category:Library of Congress. I don't think it would be too much trouble to add further subclassifications if needed; the most effort required would be reclassifying existing books into more fine-grained classifications. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 18:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

A question

Don't mean to be a bother, but how can I put p.13 on the template? Kayau ( talk | email | contribs ) 15:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You could do {{Elements|pg=13|book=I|prop=8}} to get:

-- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 15:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Um, actually, I mean the page 13 of the scanned version of the book. I want to put it on the template to illustrate it. Kayau ( talk | email | contribs ) 02:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I do not know that it could be done, as in have the thumbnail show page 13 of the PDF. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 03:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

about the book "A Guidebook for Managing Telecentre Networks"

Recently you have moved the [1] to [2]. It is ok but the previous link was shared with many peoples and now they can not find the book there. so is it possible to create a redirected link there? Nasir Khan Saikat ^{(Talk|Contributions)} 17:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added a redirect. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 18:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The World of Peer-to-Peer (P2P)

Can you please restore the Q&A page. Why the deletion ? Not used is not the same as of no use. It was deleted with the log of ‎ (unmaintained, empty; see Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Python Programming/Q&A) but that discussion didn't cover usable pages in the talk namespace. --Panic (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:The World of Peer-to-Peer (P2P)/Q&A restored. Notice that it has a speedy tag in place with Swift stating it should be deleted, transwikied, or moved. The log item reflects the rationale of book contributors in requesting the deletion of the page. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 18:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I do monitor and maintain the Q&A pages I have created. I chose not to reply to Swift, since it consisted more on his considerations on the subject, some contradicted by the recent discussion.

I hadn't seen the speedy. Thanks for the restoration.

I've been mostly working on that project alone and I think that talk page if maintained is beneficial as it invokes participation. --Panic (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The speedy rationale didn't cite speedy deletion criteria, the discussion cited didn't cover the tagged page and Swift (who had nothing to do with those speedy tags other than to remove similar ones from a couple of other pages) never stated that it should be deleted. I suggested it but left it to the book contributors. This page should never have been speedily deleted. --Swift (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for your help Wikibookifying MakerFairePedia. I promise to keep a close eye on the IP addresses in use from the Faire and elsewhere editing sub-articles and will clean up any messes I find and will report any I can't to the authorities such as yourself. Cheers! 71.198.176.22 (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Openscad

Hello, there are several pages in the Openscad manual that have been updated, but they have not been sighted. I am contacting you because you had previously sighted the pages of the Openscad Manual Giles Bathgate (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I've sighted the pages that had unreviewed changes in OpenSCAD User Manual. Due to a lack of interest by the few editors we have, the backlog on that can be considerable. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 11:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks! [3] Helder20:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

bugzilla:20224

Did you take care of all the pages on that bug?  — mikelifeguard@enwikibooks:~$  03:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure did. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 03:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Nuke

FYI, there is Special:Nuke that you could use to delete mass page creation. It works for cases like 71.231.31.80. --Sigma 7 (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I had forgotten about that. Too late now, but I'll keep it in mind for next time. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 16:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Change book title

Hi,

I would like to change the title of the wikibook I started. Do you know if that is possible (without manually copy/pasting the content into a new domain)? In that case, how is it done/where can I find instructions on how to do it?

Thanks --hpon (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I can rename all the pages at once for you if you so desire. You need only let me know what title you would like it to be at. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 17:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That is wonderful! Then I would like to change the title of "Advanced Structural Analysis - CAE Linux" to "Advanced Structural Analysis". Thank you! --hpon (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. The book is now at Advanced Structural Analysis. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 19:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! --hpon (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

As promised...

User:Duplode/User netcensorship - exclusive for Wikibooks ;-) (layout and formatting still are a little off, but will be improved eventually) --Duplode (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Very good. Once you're satisfied, it can be moved into the template space and linked from Wikibooks:Userboxes (we don't expel all the userboxes to user space here, as nobody's decided that there's any discernable difference). -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 13:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Missed a couple pages on a recent move

This page and this one (links piped because they're long) seemed to be missed in a recent move of the other Advanced Structural Analysis pages. They were probably formed by a mispiped redlink at some point in the past and not having the right prefix got missed. The first page seems to at least have some content, but was already recreated post-move, so I'm unsure how to proceed here. (Both links are orphaned and thus came up under my war on orphans.) Since you performed the moves and deletes I think you'll have a better idea of what to do than myself. Xerol Oplan (talk) 04:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Took care of them by merging their histories. As for orphaned pages, with the subject pages, a book's book-specific category should include a link to the book's main page, which is why books only listed on subject pages are not necessarily orphaned. Many of the "orphaned" books will be listed on a subject page but not have a book-specific category with link due to the fact that they are only a single page, undeserving of a category. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 13:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've just recently noticed that; last time I was very active (2008ish) there were non-category pages which had lists of books. For now I'm collecting a list of the technically orphaned pages on my userspace (there were only 451 orphans in total when I started, and less than a fifth have been 'unresolvable' for these reasons thus far) and I'm thinking of putting them into a special catalog page (along with some other stubs and abandonments) such as Wikibooks:Orphanage or :Adoption Agency, just basically a place for the links to reside and something a little more visible than the Pages needing attention category. I think the main reason a lot of these pages have been abandoned (some haven't had significant edits since 2006 (and some might even be RFDed for this)) is that they're so hard to get to. Proper categorization helps, but it only goes so far. Once I finish rounding up the orphans I'm going to start improving on some of them, and perhaps push for a sitewide project to expand or purge a lot of the ancient stubs. Xerol Oplan (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

From my own experience observing RFDs, people are reluctant to delete stubs if they provide a meaningful outline, no matter how old they may be. I'm sympathetic to your goals, however. By the way, have you taken an in-depth look at how the categories and subject pages interrelate and glanced at the card catalog office? They've undergone significant changes since May 2009, when you last contributed before your recent comeback. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 14:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've started to go through and just look at what's included in the root pages of various books to get a feel for how it works. I guess it works well enough, it's just a bit arduous of a task for new editors and looks like it's taking dedicated people just to keep up with it. Finding the right categories for different topics (especially in DDC and LOC indices) is the worst of it, and even then it's not that hard, it just looks hard (which is enough to turn some people away).

Thing is, a lot of the pages don't look like they have much of a future as a textbook, regardless of how good of an outline they are (or in some cases how much content they already have). A lot of the pages would work very well as reference pages in the back of a more established book, and maybe the best way to go about those is to collect them together and use them as jumping points for broader-subject books. Xerol Oplan (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Might Research on Tibetan Languages: A Bibliography be an example of your last point? I do agree on the DDC/LOC classifications, and proposed that they be removed to lower the barrier to entry for newcomers. I have to say that it's good to see someone else taking a big-picture look at things and cleaning up. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 14:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much exactly what I was talking about. You can hit "random book" ten times and find at least one, and usually more, every time. Almost seems like there needs to be a project that's "between" wikisource and wikibooks, just a resource for bibliographies and sources. Aside from creating a book that's going to actually use all those resources, there isn't really a place for it on here (well, maybe*) and it doesn't really belong on wikisource either.

*That page in particular, if cleaned up, would probably work by itself, if it was structured as an analysis of publications covering the subject. Even then it's a stretch and still needs significant work.

Category:Statistics: Include links to externals Java applets?

Would it make sense to enter content (as described below) in each of the Probability Distributions sections which are currently empty (under Category:Statistics? For instance, we can have a several sentences describing each distribution (univariate, multivariate, discrete and continuous) and then include an explicit link to the corresponding interactive Java applet that demonstrates the big-3 distribution characteristics (center, spread and shape), shows the effects of the distribution parameters, and provides means of calculating critical and probability values (for the specific distribution)? This would require Java-enabled browsers, albeit most modern browsers (2005+) are Java enabled by defaults. (Disclaimer, I'm associated with the UCLA group that developed these applets, however, this is not an *advertisement*, and I truly believe these Java applets will be very useful to many Wikiversity (novice and expert) users. 128.97.129.185 (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I would encourage you to add any content that you feel would be beneficial to the book and for readers. What you suggest sounds like a positive addition, given that Java applets cannot be embedded directly in the book. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 01:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)