Jump to content

Wikibooks:Reading room: Difference between revisions

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Browse history interactively
← Older editNewer edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
thanks
textbook.wikipedia.org
Line 253: Line 253:
::::: Uhmm... i was always logging in from textbook.wikipedia.org; logging in to www.wikibooks.org seems to work for me. Same cookie problem in the other direction? [[User:Kowey|Kowey]] 16:04, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
::::: Uhmm... i was always logging in from textbook.wikipedia.org; logging in to www.wikibooks.org seems to work for me. Same cookie problem in the other direction? [[User:Kowey|Kowey]] 16:04, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Ahah! you're a regular Sherlock aren't you! Thanks.[[User:Theresa knott|Theresa knott]] 16:15, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Ahah! you're a regular Sherlock aren't you! Thanks.[[User:Theresa knott|Theresa knott]] 16:15, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

::::::Ah, yes that would do it. textbook.wikipedia.org ought to be a redirect to wikibooks.org now; I'll have to fix that. --[[User:Brion VIBBER|Brion VIBBER]] 01:11, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)



----
----

Revision as of 01:11, 12 November 2003

Related pages: Mailing lists - Contact us - IM a Wikibookian - Ask the school librarian

Welcome, newcomers and baffled oldtimers! This is where Wikibookians raise and try to answer Wikibooks-related questions and concerns regarding technical issues, policies, or other aspects of our community.

To facilitate ease of browsing and replying, please:

  1. Place your questions at the bottom of the list
  2. Title the question (by typing == title ==)
  3. Sign your name and date (by typing --~~~~)

Moved discussion

Questions and answers, after a period of time of inactivity, will be moved to other relevant sections of the wikibooks (such as FAQ pages), placed in the Staff Lounge Archive (if having general interest), or deleted (if having no long-term value). Listed here are discussions recently moved to the Archive :

  • Writing a Textbook
    • Starting new texbook (computers)
    • Public domain books
    • Guitar textbook
  • Logo discussions (and links)
  • Annotation mark-up
  • April's Simple Science project
  • Image question

Wikiuniversity

Moved to meta:Wikiversity

Not sure where else to list these ... --Karl Wick 02:14 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Namespace (Title) Options ~ Standardize?

There seem to be two methods in use to organize the elements of a textbook. One of these involves the use of namespaces, while the other just uses plain text element titles. I think we could benefit from an early discussion of this before either technique gets spread too widely.

  1. Namespaces: The early work on Computer Programming suggests the use of a namespace for each book or major section. This has an advantage in that it reduces the problems of duplicate names. IMHO, it will also create problems when with overlaps with other needed uses of namespace parameter, such as images, talk, etc. For a broader discussion of this proposed use see Programming:Guidelines element
  2. Direct Names: Other projects underway, such as Organic Chemistry, are just assigning names for their elements. IMHO this is the approach we should use, modified when necessary by some recommended technique. In Textbook considerations I called this the rule of meaningful names. When further clarification is needed we could use one of those used to differentiate Wikipedia Articles; either Exponentiation (programming) or Exponentiation in Programming as opposed to Exponentiation which belongs to Arithmetic.

A recommendation about using one of these techniques belongs in our manual of style, which Mav has started, but I thought a little discussion might be useful first. If it is not obvious, my choice is the second approach. LouI 17:56 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Another thing to consider is that we want to have the ability to use the same module in several different Wikibooks. Names that are too specific may not flow well in a Wikibook that uses modules with a "Programming" prefix with some having a "Programming" prefix and other modules under "Computing". I guess this is a vote against namespace-based organization. --mav
Hm. On second thought I think we may be forced to have some type of subpage/namespace scheme in order to get the WikiGroup software to work. See http://www.pmichaud.com/wiki/PmWiki/WikiGroup . Notice the page name /PmWiki/WikiGroup? The page /PmWiki/WikiGroup is part of the WikiBook named /PmWiki/DocumentationIndex,. So what we may need to do, is formalize very broad disciplines and have them act as top level organization under which many different textbooks would fall under. For example there would be Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics etc. But then we have the problem of not being able to share modules between Chemistry, Biology and Biochemistry, for example.... However, we may be able to trick the software into accepting /wiki/ or even /en/ as the top level page - then all Wikibooks would fall under that. My point is that software needs are going to ultimately be the deciding factor on the subpage/namespace issue. --mav


I've looked at the trail logic as described in WikiGroup. The function is one we can really use, but doesn't it force us back to using CamelCase, since any blank in the TOC (list) ends the reference? IMHO this is one that needs resolution and may need software or a workaround. --LouI
I'm back. It appears I'm outvoted for this, well I guess the namespace idea was good while it lasted (since the both of you seem to not like it, and 2 is more than 1)... Before I go crazy renaming everything, I'd like to know a little more about what the software needs? aka, Is there some other namespace I should drop it in?
After looking at alternatives for linking and embeedding pages and paths, I have to agree with mavs second thought. I still wish for better way, but until it is found I'll go with a namespace for each book (or closely related set of books), and with subpage (directory/page) spaces. Thanks for your attention ....LouI 18:04, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It doesn't look like this issue has been fully resolved, in part because there are a lot of variations on each concept (namespace = "tile:" or namespace = "title - "?). Shouldn't we settle on a single, rigidly defined scheme as soon as possible for consistency's sake? Right now, we're using a whole lot of conflicting ones. Can we (please, please, please) pick one system and gradually migrate all of the books to it, or at least start all new books with it? If such a system does exist, it should be mentioned somewhere on Wikibooks:Help. -- Paullusmagnus 17:53, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Decisions:

  • How much hierarchy? (Biology:Biochemistry:Proteins:Protein folding?)
  • Title (World War II begins vs. lesson 14)
  • Book ID (Biochemistry:title vs. Biochemistry - title vs. title (Biochemistry)...)
I like the hierarchical system you proposed, and have started changing page titles (in biology) over to that system: e.g., Biology_General_biology. Note I made one change in the system you proposed: Biology_General_biology and not Biology_Generalbiology. Do not be surprised if all will not follow. Imposing any structure on these Wiki ventures is nearly impossible, but people do tend to follow if they see the utility of something - Marsh 18:07, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Before we change anything, let's see what others have to say about it. I only meant the first example to show what the maximum depth of hierarchy was here (and to point out that we need a way to represent it), and I think that a developer should tell us what the dangers of overloading namespaces are. But you make a good point that we shouldn't go crazy attempting to standardize module titles.
Having a v*te about module titles might be the best choice, because there are a number of possibilites that are all at least acceptable choices and standardization is the most important thing. Paullusmagnus 20:37, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Since you (or someone?) used "my" textbook Botany as an example, I had to quickly face whether I liked the changes being "proposed" I did, so I've continued the process on through Biology_Botany and some of the Biology_Cell_biology pages where the original efforts by others made the suggested style especially suitable. However, I'd not presume that it could be applied to other textbook subjects. - Marsh 03:33, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Ah. Oops. Sorry. Paullusmagnus 12:12, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Some points, and apologies to the pages I've changed when I've missed this discussion: The need to hierachy-ize is a lilttle bit dependant on how the book is written...if you're writing about protein folding for example it may be relevant to put on the Protein folding page.
If there's a lot of material, to spawn a new page, one may not have to have such a hierachical title: a thing for the namespace and then the title (so Biology:Protein folding) would be sufficient?

Editable Recent Changes

Is there an equivalent here to en:Wikipedia:Recentchanges? it would be nice to have links to other wikis, and maybe some text to remind us which recent changes we're looking at... -- Merphant 09:51 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Part of an answer may depend on your browser set up. For me, the current URL in the toolbar tells me which Wiki I'm in....LouI
I think Merphant is talking about interwiki links like Wiktionary:Dog. The answer so far is no. AFAIK each language.php file for each wiki will have to updated with interwiki syntax to our website. This will happen - just not yet (we only recently decided a name for the project and still haven't moved to that URL). --mav

Multilingual

Hi, I don't read the mail list, so maybe I am repeating something. Is this a multilanguage project like wikipedia? Is possible to start a textbook in another language? I think that it is not contemplated at this moment. For instance: The text book: 'spanish', maybe should be: 'english-español' or 'español from english' or something similar. Well I suppose that you could use the convention 'the word that define the language that you want learn wrote in the language from where your are learning'. I dont know.

Wintermute 22:26 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I was wondering about the same thing just a bit ago, surely one of the old-timers will have a good explanation. Karl Wick
Old timer here. This is the English Wikibooks; although we plan on having textbooks and similar instructional material about different languages (that is, teaching a foreign language to students), the books are written with the intent on teaching English-speaking students. For example, our textbook on Spanish has all its explanatory text in English. We are still a very young project so it will be some time before we are self-aware enough to start setting-up other language versions (NOTE: Wiktionary was set up in December of 2002 and still is not internationalized). --mav
Oops, I guess I was misunderstanding something here.. So, if some japanese wikipedians want to write a wiki textbook (in japanese), they should go elsewhere, like setting up their own wiki? I might have said something else (misleading), and I would need to make correction. Mav (or anyone else), could you elaborate on this? Thanks. Tomos 00:08, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
That's how it is done on Wikipedia. We may be able to get by with a meta-type internationalization enhanced by language category tags that would change the language of the interface for the user. Therefore visiting a French textbook that has French category tags in it, will change the user's interface to French. That way a developer isn't needed to set up new languages and we can make an international Main Page ourself. This type of internationalization would not be possible for Wikipedia, Wiktionary, or Wikiquote since there would be too many page name conflicts. However, this is a community decision. --mav
Thanks for the reply. But, yes, I know how things are done within wikimedia sites. I was wondering if I should tell my fellows that they should set up their own wiki, without relying on wikimedia. I mean, like starting their own project independently from wikimedia. Or should I just tell them to contact Jimbo (or the foundation if they are two separate thing) and ask if they can start wikibook projects in Japanese? I got an impression from mav's earlier comments that untill this English project matures, books in other languages will not be supported, or people wanting on those projects are advised to wait and see how things develop here. And I think that was the impression Wintermute got (see below, posted earlier than this one I am posting). I kind of see that there could be a merit to wait and see what is going to happen here (at least I am intending to benefit from observing this project), but I also see the benefits of just letting things happen in multiple languages and expect cross-pollination. I would need to make some correction at Japanese wikipedia if "wait" is the case. And I feel a lot more comfortable if I can be ready to explain why it is perceived a better way. Tomos 20:16, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I am agreeing with Tomos. I would like to know what exactly the problem with internationalization is. We only need define a good namespace for the pages for avoid problems. In fact there is, at least, one textbook that is not English (I have seen it yesterday in "Languages"). I think that we should set rules for specified the language in the title of the pages. No more is necessary by the moment. In other hand, working only in English could be no very clever. For instance, I am from Spain, I like the project, so I have worked in the Spanish textbook. It seems natural for me work in this textbook because I am a native speaker. But I don't need to learn Spanish. I want to mean that if this project is only for English speakers maybe there are people who are not going to be interested in collaborate. A fork in the project for every different language is not a good idea, at least, is not a good thing for the project itself. Well, that was only my opinion. Regards, and sorry by my English, it’s not very good.Wintermute 15:29, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

special page:most wanted articles

I was looking at the special page for most wanted articles. I don't think I did anything, and the page still seems to come up OK. But, when I look at my list of user changes, it show up.... honest, I didn't mean to change it. Would someone who is more familiar with the structure of these pages please look at it just to be safe and insure I didn't damage something. Thanks (with my fingers crossed),,,LouI 20:08 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Just b/c nobody is responding to this question, I am.. From what I know about wikipedia, some of those pages appear as if a user has edited when what really have happened is actually just that user viewed it (and thereby made the databse compile the data). So, my guess is that you have nothing to worry about. Tomos 20:22, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Wikibooks now localized

You may have noticed that the Wikibooks namespace is now active and some other changes have taken place. Please discuss additional changes below so that we can finish the localization process:

Known issues:

Other issues/discussion:

TeX weirdnes

I think there's some idiosyncracy with TeX markup and the Wiki software here (since I can't get the following problem reproduced at the Wikipedia), but if I create a <math> block which is commented out, an image is created for it, but it does not show, and the next following <math> tag's image is replaced by the previous. This is kinda difficult to explain: If I have

<!-- <math>\lambda^{\lambda^{\lambda}}</math> --> <math>x \sim y</math> <math>x \equiv y</math> , it will render as

Dysprosia

I've noticed that over at Wikipedia, too... Somewhere in Wikipedia:Sandbox's history... Not sure why you couldn't reproduce it, maybe Wikipedia changed since I did it... كсηפ Cyp 15:15, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Misc questions

Is there a shortcut way to refernce the Wikipedia or Wictionary? I'm currently using a full reference, such as [http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_cell] . This works but its akward. If no current techniaue exists, should we suggest the idea of a simpler or abbrievated markup coding on one of the Meta pages? LouI 05:21, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

EnWikipedia:Dog, w:en:Dog and even en:Dog work (although we may want to reserve the last one for intraproject interlanguage links). Wiktionary only works via Wiktionary:Dog. --mav

I'm going to put the staff lounge back on the main page. As a related question: Do we want to save that name for Wikiversity, and maybe move this page to something like Wikibooks:The stacks? LouI

Save the name? What do you mean? I already own the domain name... The Wikiversity page is going to be moved to meta soon. --mav
Sorry, I should have explained more carefully. We now use separate names for the general talk and question space on each project: the pump at wikipedia, the tavern or tea room at wiktionary and the staff lounge at wikibooks. I'd like to suggest that the Staff lounge at wikibooks be renamed. We coiuld make it The Stacks at wikibooks. The reason I suggested this change is that i like the lounge name, but the name seems to fit better with wikiversity. So, if we made the change, we would have The Stacks area in the libary at wikibooks and later (if the prpject takes off) The Staff Lounge, and maybe the Student Lounge at WikiU. I hope thisbetter explains my comment. LouI
I for one don't know what the stacks means. How about the pub or the coffee house ?
My apology to Thersa and any others who are puzzled by The Stacks reference. In the U.S. at least, libraries tend to have material freely available (shelved in publicxxly browsable areas) and other material kept in a back room, available only by asking a librarian. Back issue magazines typically get stored in the back room. Since there aren't enough shelves for display, many times the material just gets stacked. When I worked as a library assistant, we called the task of fetching material working the stacks and the stacks were the storage rooms. The idea here, is that the stack room was used only by librarians. LouI
But we ain't librarians; we are teachers. Thus "staff lounge" is perfect. No reason why Wikiversity can't also have one (Wikiquote also has a village pump). --mav


Sorry for the first statement, the lounge is still on the main page, just not very visible. LouI 05:28, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Page in polish on phreaking ( I think anyway)

Could someone who speaks polish check out Tworzenie czytnika Kart Magnetycznych. it appears to be in polish (which I don't speak) but looks to be about phreaking and maybe carding ? I don't know if we want that kind of stuff here but even if we do {and I'm kind of anticensorship, but pro not getting into trouble with the law) shouldn't it be in english? Theresa knott 16:02, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Non wikipedian users

User:Jefferywinkler has just joined us and will be helping with GCSE science. He has not come from wikipedia (is he the first ?)So could we all be especially nice and helpful please. Also do we have how to edit a page ported here, i can't find it if we do. Theresa knott 11:34, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

How to edit an imported page ? Do you mean how to credit the previous authors, or how to update links, or something else ? Welcome Jeffery ! You will be an old hand quickly. --Karl Wick
No I should have expressed myself better. I mean has the wikipedia article "How to edit a page" been copied to here ? Theresa knott 10:16, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Wikibooks:How to edit a page Maybe we need to publicize this page better. --Karl Wick

Disregarded Texts

It appears that the books on history and the social sciences have been disregarded by most persons- the number of contributors to the same seems most limited. I suggest that persons consider spending time to contribute to US History, World History Project, and others.

Secondly, is there any prospect of combining the presently minimal Humanities bookshelf with the History Bookshelf, yielding one shelf on Social Sciences? Lord Emsworth 00:48, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Lord E, truth is, on each book right now there is only one or at best a couple of people doing the vast majority of the work. Until the world at large discovers the site and begins using it a lot, I think that it will be like this. Marshman has felt the same discouragement. I am not immune but my focus is getting a semi-completed text up there that people can at least theoretically use for a class or to learn a given subject (Organic chemistry) in depth on thier own. Then people will be using the site a lot and they will tweak it up into something really great. --Karl Wick
I was the one who started US History, about a month ago, before that it was just a link on the site. I wanted originally to contribute to the math+science sections(hey, I'm etothex!) but I saw that they were humming along quite nicely. Then I saw the sparse history section, and I thought, why not, I could learn something. So I dug up an old study guide and made the outline of the textbook. Yeah, it's kinda neglected, but I to add more too as I get time. Etothex 07:27, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)
As the Social Sciences and Humanities really are distinct disciplines with different methodologies and standards, I would agree that keeping them separate is the best approach. I would, however, be more than happy to start contributing to the rather sparse Humanities offerings. I am trying to figure out how to start contributing some material for an introductory Philosophy text book, as I am both a professor and student of the subject. I am a newb, so I'd like to ask the more seasoned folks if it would be appropriate/acceptable to organize and synthesize some of the excellent GPL'ed information on Wikipedia and combine it with my own material and prose to start forming something that resembles an organized text? BTW, since I work at a university, I also know an historian or two who might be willing to help with the texts there--I'll ask. I also work full-time and teach in Technology and may be able to help there as well (yes, I realize it is a seemingly strange mix). --RMK, 22 Oct 2003 (sorry, no account yet)
Just noticed your post. Sure, getting material from the main Wikipedia is a great way to jump start a book. And you can certainly divide the social sciences and humanities into two sections if you think appropriate, I was the one to group them together but I am not real well educated in that area. Welcome, I am excited to have you here, especially as a professor. --Karl Wick
Thanks for your warm welcome and speedy response. I have begun an introductory text on Western Philosophy, but only just. Hopefully, time will permit me to continue working on it. As for your other question (I noticed it as some sort of annotaion to the changelog on the Recent Changes page), yes, philosophy is part of the humanities. I have one other question, if I post a page and add content to it and then want to change the page's name I seem to only succeed in creating a new blank page and it does not appear that the old page gets deleted. How should I go about this? It is crucial for me because I edit myself and reorganize my thoughts relentlessly during the writing process. I think I may have already inadvertently created an orphan page or two last night but had no idea how to delete them. TIA. --RMK
If you decide you want to change the name of a page already created and into which effort has been poured, use the "Move this page" function from the list of functions in the left column. This will move the page history and any discussion on the associated Talk page at the same time. Further, it will create a Redirect of the old page which generally can be left alone at that point, unless you feel the old name is very misleading. A redirect allows anyone doing a search on the old term to be shunted to your new name page. If you just create a new page and cut and paste material from the old page into it, all of the history related to that original effort is lost. This may seem minor when you are the only one working on a page, but is bad form anyway. As others contribute, the history becomes an important part of the page and should therefore be preserved. - Marsh 17:53, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Isn't move this page an admin only function ? Ah cain't remember. RMK: If you think you will be playing around a lot I will nominate you to be an admin so you can have the ability to delete your own mistake pages and more easily revert to old versions, etc. --Karl Wick
I think you are right. Nonetheless, non-admins should NOT be moving pages around by cutting and pasting text to new titles, but requesting an admin to make the move for them. Your suggestion also sounds fine (make RMK an admin) - Marsh 02:03, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
There is a 'Move this page' link on the left, although I've only tested in the Wikipedia, not Wikibooks, I think it's possible for anyone to move pages. كсηפ Cyp 15:17, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, all. You are kind to offer to make me an admin, and I would be happy to become one, though I think most of my mucking about will be in the philosophy text I have just started, at least for the time being. Eventually, I hope to tackle other topics as well and contribute where I can be of help. I do think that writing is an iterative process, however, and I do tend to reorganize my thoughts in the midst of the composition process, sometimes making moves necessary. Nonetheless, I am happy to make the changes myself as an admin, or if you have reason to limit the number of admins (and/or find that I would not be a good candidate), I will gladly ask someone else to do it (though I will hate to impose on others who are undoubtedly busy with their own projects). In any event, I will leave it to your good judgment--I will be happy to work in whatever way best suits the community. --rmk 20:24, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
No limit (actually there is a shortage) of Admins. If you are sincere in carrying forth the goals of the Wikibook project, that should qualify you for admin status. I cannot make you one, but I can propose it. I need to search for that page however. I will let you know - Marsh 03:37, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC) It would help if you first fill in some information on your user page at rmk. Whatever you want to say (no specific details are required), just an early sign of "seriousness"
Good suggestion, Marsh, thanks! Consider it done. I don't know that I will have any time to commit to "admin duties" (whatever those may be), so perhaps I am not a good candidate for that position. Nonetheless, I am committed to the goals of this project and think it is an excellent idea. It merely occurred that if I have enough access priveleges to do certain things myself as I write, it may save others from having to spend additional time fixing, moving, deleting, and/or rearranging my funky edits. Regardless, I am not 'requesting' admin status, I was just curious about the best way for renaming pages, managing orphaned pages, and so forth. Given my other responsibilities, I have no doubt that simply working on editing content in the areas where I have a bit of expertise will keep me plenty busy. I was merely interested in saving others from having to do more work because of me. Mr. Wick kindly suggested that making me an admin might be a good way to do that. --RMK 00:42, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)RMK

Computer programming

Should this be broken up into seperate books? See the talk page for the computer programming book. LittleDan 22:02, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Physics book

Ok, guys, I'd like to contribute to the physics book, but I'm not sure exactly what to do. The GFDL book that it links to seems a bit, well, if you don't mind me saying so, weird. I can't imagine most students being able to understand it in the way that book presents it...Maybe it's just me. :) Anyway, should I try to improve on the one there or maybe start another, more 'traditional' style physics book? What do you guys think? Etothex 05:23, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

There is so seldom more than one or two people here at any given time, it is "wierd" to have someone to talk to. Etothex ~ Go over to Talk:German: Lesson 3 for some discussion on that text. As for the Physics text, let me offer the following (I'm no expert on Physics, believe me): Is it possible that what you are calling "wierd" is really just the approach or arrangement of subjects within the text? If so (and I do not know), then your additions could be placed within the existing outline/text in appropriate places and help bridge gaps between approaches. In other words, before starting another text, consider whether the subject matter you would expound on is identical only just arranged more traditionally. If that is the only difference, you could add your stuff where appropriate and perhaps even develop a detailed outline in traditional form that links to the appropriate text pages in the existing "wierd" Physics text. Look over the Botany text. There, I am developing the text as mostly links to appropriate articles at Wikipedia with explanatory discourse where I think it is needed. You could do something similar for a traditional Physics textbook without resorting to writing a parallel text. - Marsh 05:39, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Yeah, it's the order in which it's presented, like waves first. Then he presents velocity along with Sp. Relativity and acceleration with Gen. Relativity. I can understand sort of why they did that, though...With traditional physics texts, they present classical/newtonian physics first then say oops, newton wasn't quite complete/accurate, now here's relativity and quantum physics to iron that out. The 'radically modern' approach seems best for people taking physics who want to become scientists or engineers. Someone not going into those fields but who wants to take calculus based physics might find the traditional approach easier to understand, I think. I'm interested in seeing what the other guys say, too. Physics is a split subject, anyway. Usually there's a 'Physics for College' textbook, of algebra based physics, and 'Physics for Scientists' of calculus based physics. The 'Radically modern' physics text is calc based, so maybe I can write a algebra bases physics text. That way we're not overlapping. Etothex 05:58, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)
You may be right. Two levels of text might be called for - Marsh 08:02, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Log-in no Longer Working

I'm no longer able to log into Wikibooks (that is, it logs me in, but does not preserve when I move off the "successful log-in" page). I'm not experiencing this problem at Wikipedia and it is not the result of my cookies settings [Marsh] - 24.94.82.245 17:51, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Is there anyplace where these problems with the wiki can be addressed to? I'm not convinced it has anything to do with my computer as I am not having any problem at Wikipedia - 24.94.82.245
Same problem as at Wiktionary, should be fixed now. A global change to the cookie settings was mistakenly settings the Wiktionary and Wikibooks login cookies to be readable for *.wikipedia.org, which makes them unreadable at wiktionary.org and wikibooks.org (oops). They are now set to the proper domains. --Brion VIBBER 18:32, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
It doesn't appear to be fixed, because I can't log in now. user:theresa knott
But MINE is working now! -- Marsh 03:27, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
How very strange ! I've tired logging in from two seperate computers (home & work) and I can't log in on either of them.What's more, I can log in on wikipedia just fine. At home I have it set that the computer prompts me before aloowing cookies, and I hjave to click yes or no. I don't get a prompt now, so presumably this means no cookie. I don't understand what's going on, but Brion please sort it out because I cant uploud images unless I'm logged on ( which i like to do a lot) 217.204.254.211 09:02, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC) -theresa
. User:Kowey is having the same problem. I don't understand it! How can some poeople log in ok while others not?It doesn't make sense. 217.204.254.211 14:47, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC) (theresa)
Uhmm... i was always logging in from textbook.wikipedia.org; logging in to www.wikibooks.org seems to work for me. Same cookie problem in the other direction? Kowey 16:04, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Ahah! you're a regular Sherlock aren't you! Thanks.Theresa knott 16:15, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Ah, yes that would do it. textbook.wikipedia.org ought to be a redirect to wikibooks.org now; I'll have to fix that. --Brion VIBBER 01:11, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)


PDF or other e-Book method?

Being new to Wikipedia, perhaps this is an old question. Are there any means to obtain a PDF file or other electronic book (other than HTML)? When I select "Printable Version" it would be very nice if I could find a PDF link (or something similar). Maffu 00:36, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikibooks:Reading_room&oldid=7133"