Wikibooks:Simple talk/Archives/2007

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2007, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Usability idea

I would really like it if there was a direct link to the BE850 list on the navigation bar. It seems to me that anyone writing articles should be consulting it often, and that would make it alot easier. --HSTutorials 21:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea, HS. I'll add it, as I did previously at Simple English Wiktionary. Please remember that the BE850 is only a basic guide, though. We do not have to completely restrict ourselves to those words, just make sure that our words remain simple (along with our grammar, etc.), which would keep us at about the level of those words. If we find a better standard to go by, we can even switch. In any case, if we need to use more complex terminology, we should explain the word in parentheses and/or link it to the SEWiktionary or both. Does that make sense to everyone?

BTW, even if we are limiting the difficulty of our grammar and terminology, that does not necessarily limit the length of sentences that we use. True, we should use shorter sentences on average, because simplified syntaxis requires it to some extent, but some sentences can be fairly long and still be perfectly simple in both words and grammar. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 09:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BT templates

editors may have noticed the fact that many templates starting with BT are popping up on articles to provide links to the contents pages relative to those pages. I did this to place easily noticed and read links. if you dissaprove with this idea, feel free to remove the templates or change them. -This was not done by a bot, even thought the similarities may mislead one to that conclusion- WillieWallieWoo 10:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all BT templates I found, and explained why they shouldn't be there on this user's talk page. If there are any I missed, please remove them. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 01:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Staff lounge

On the other Simple English projects, we have avoided complex words and phrases as much as possible in the names of pages like this one. There, we call this Simple talk, regardless of whether it is the village pump or tea room or whatever on the English projects. I think we should follow that here also, changing the name of this to "Wikibooks:Simple talk". That will help us conform to the standard and also be simpler in its own right. Thoughts? --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 10:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Done! Gerard Foley 15:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accessing SE Wiktionary Within SE Wikibooks and/or SE Wikipedia

If I were not a native english speaker, what I would really like from a SE Wikibook or Wikipedia article would be to be able to look up any word I don't know without having to navigate away from the article I'm reading. What I've noticed in SE Wikipedia is that links get created for terms that need explanation. That's great. But unless a full article is written, people get upset that a stub has been created. The reader loses out because there is a term that needs explanation that has none. I anticipate this problem to be even worse in SE Wikibooks as it develops.

I have seen the suggestion of putting alternate words or definitions in parentheses, but that doesn't take advantage of our database. Here's what I'd like to see. Could a window be put inside SE Wikibooks and/or SE Wikipedia for people to access SE Wiktionary definitions? --HSTutorials 14:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds pretty complicated. A better idea is to link to SE Wiktionary. I know that that requires navigating away, but only for a moment. I also know that not all words are there, but we're working on it and you're free to help! --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 01:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not very hard to do. If you want I could whip up a template. ~ Wikihermit 01:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Sentence

What is the simple subject in this sentence?

1. Its subtropical wilderness is the largest in the continental United States.

Please do not ask us to do your homework for you. Someone may answer you, but that is not what Wikiprojects are for. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 01:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just start writing a new book?

I'm just wondering, can you just start a new book on here or do you have to put it to the rest of the group? I was thinking of writing a wikibook on programming... Jordanhatch 20:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you never received a reply but yes, you can just start writing a new book. Please make sure that it uses simple English and that it is based on fact and not an original work. Xania 13:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Importing from Wikibooks English

I would like to add a few more Cookbook recipes to this version of Wikibooks. Am I allowed to just copy and paste them from Wikibooks to here (and then obviously simplify the language) or should I request that the page be transwikied? The first page I'd like to transwiki is [Cookbook:Chicken Vindaloo].

Also do we have a button or template that can be added to other Wikis to provide a link to this Wiki? I mean something that says something like "Wikibooks Simple English has an article on this subject..."? Xania 14:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not copy and paste, please transwiki. You can even do that yourself. In this case it would be more of a "copy/transwiki," since the recipe won't be removed from its source project, but usually it would be a regular transwiki. The ideal in other cases (it doesn't fit here) would be to export and import (I don't mind importing), but I just asked that import be added today, so it hasn't been enabled here yet. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 01:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small technical issue (broken link)

There is a broken link on this page.... English/Differences_between_British_English_and_American_English

Here is the section that the broken link appears in. The broken link is on the word 'tap'.

"Vocabulary. Some common things have different names in Great Britain and the United States. An example of this is the front part and the back part of a car. The front part of a car that you lift to see the engine is called the bonnet in Great Britain, and the hood in the United States. The back part of the car that you lift to store luggage is called the boot in Great Britain and the trunk in the United States. The place where you get water from is known as a [[wikt:tap|tap] in Britain but called a faucet in American English." —This unsigned comment was added by 208.60.35.95 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 27 February 2007.

Thanks for letting us know. I fixed the link. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 19:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ingliz-simpl-viki

MattisManzel 20:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC):[reply]
Hi, I started the Ingliz-simpl-viki. I should make a wiki-node here, I know.

Except for a similarity in name and that it is a wiki, this other site appears to have absolutely nothing to do with SEWB. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 17:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibooks:Basic_English_alphabetical_wordlist

There's a (minor) typo on this page and a user mentioned this on the talk page last October but it hasn't been corrected. I can't correct it myself as the page appears to be protected from editing. Can someone do this please. Xania 22:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this is now fixed. Michael 03:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also just fixed several problems with alphabetical order that I had previously found while working with that list. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 02:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Covers

Should all projects have covers? I created a cover for the cookbook, and the link on the main page needs to be fixed. An administrator could do that. Thanks, --Isis 15:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The amount of inactivity on this wiki is horrible --Isis 19:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any admin issues can now be directed to me directly, on the admin page under requests for admin attention, or put here for all to see. I will be more active here from now on, so that should help. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 02:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the links on the main page to point to your new covers, it seems the main page is only semi-protected you should be able to edit it in a couple days.--Ezra Katz 23:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I just saw "view source", so I assumed it was a full protection. I'm not used to being a new user. --Isis 23:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the cover should be the main page. For example, Chess would be the main page/cover, and it would lead to the table of content. It doesn't work if there is a page like chess/cover, because when a person searches for chess it leads to the article chess, not chess/cover. ~ Wikihermit 18:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you doing something with that. That makes sense, since the first part of a book you see is the cover. --Isis 18:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I was trying to redirect/move/ect. I had to undo it because I needed to delete a redirect page and their aren't any active admins to delete that page. :-( ~ Wikihermit 18:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I like the idea of the cover being the main page of each book. That seems logical. Maybe others feel differently, though. Which redirects do you need deleted? --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 02:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead with Wikihermit's suggestion. Look at the Animal Kingdom to see what I mean. Px Ma 18:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admins

Does the "three month, 1000 edit" standard apply here to become an admin? --isis 02:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its really your own standard. If you think the candidate is good, then you support. Its a matter of trusting the editor, not the editor meeting standards. ~ Wikihermit 02:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but on wikipedia, usually users are promoted only if they have at least 1000 edits and/or three months experience. --isis 02:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Greeves has less then 1000 edits, but his RFA is going pretty well. ~ Wikihermit 02:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh...look here:[1]. Is this the Greeves that you mean? --isis 03:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. He less then 400 main space edits. I guess he has more then 1000 total edits. ~ Wikihermit 03:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point, but it's still more than 1000 total. :) --isis 12:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the main question posed here, yes, we generally stick to the SEWP standard of about 3 months and about 1000 edits before making someone an admin. Wikihermit is correct in saying it has to do with the trust of the community, but that is why the edits and the time are a very good idea. With less than 3 months, the editor's commmitment may not be firm. With less than 1000 edits, the activity/commitment of the editor to the wiki may be questionable. With less than both, the editor has shown neither commitment nor much activity. Better to wait until you're close to both before requesting admin status. One should be an admin for a while before even thinking about requesting bureaucrat status. Oh, and we're not SE Wikipedia, nor English Wikibooks, and we're definitely not English Wikipedia, so comparisons should be limited, even if some things have been taken from there. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 00:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policies

I've gone ahead and placed {{hard rule}} on "hard rule" pages. Since hard rule is something that most editors have to agree on, please look over the pages in Category:Hard rules? ~ Wikihermit 00:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look in the next few days. As I said on your talk page, I think it is better if we call them "rules," "hard rules" (policies), and "soft rules" (guidelines), since that is simpler English. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 02:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voting templates discussion

Copied from Wikibooks:Administrators For the record, voting templates are a very slippery slope. I'd advise the community to get rid of them completely. PullToOpen 23:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The RFA here is based off of the en.wikibooks RFAs. They use the {{oppose}} and {{support}} templates. ~ Wikihermit 23:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a good reason for using them, other than "they look pretty"? PullToOpen 23:54, 22 June 2007(UTC)

I think it makes it easier to tell the supports from the opposes. --Isis 00:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bold Support is pretty clear. Majorly 00:04, 23 June 2007

(UTC)

Alright, can we get back to the request discussion? Just want to stay on topic. --Isis 00:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving this off-topic discussion to Simple talk, where I will add my own comments. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 00:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it's in a more appropriate venue, I'd like to say that I see nothing wrong with voting templates. They do no harm and they do "look pretty." Why did you call them a "slippery slope," PulltoOpen? What do you have against them. I also agree with Isis here that they do make it easier to tell a support from an oppose, without even necessarily having to read a word. I just don't see the problem. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 00:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I put

Support This user would make a terrible admin. You would count that as a support comment? Majorly 08:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No you would use

Oppose. Px Ma 14:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could write

Oppose Good user. But then you only look at the pictures, why would my comment matter? Majorly 19:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you would read the comments, but in the final tally, the pictures make the votes easier to see. --Isis 20:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be the same as Oppose Good user. Px Ma 20:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Books have pages

This is something that has been bugging me even on regular English Wikibooks. Why are all the pages called modules/articles/whatever? It would be much more simple if it were just called a "page". There is already a tab that says "change this page". Am I missing something? --Ezra Katz 03:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Module isn't a simple term. (Px)Ma 03:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will go ahead and changes this. (Px)Ma 00:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terrific. --Is is 01:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just made the change you suggested, Ezra. It took me a while to find the right message in Special:Allmessages, but I finally did. I decided that "book page" is less ambiguous than "page", since there are many pages: project pages, user pages, talk pages, etc., etc. If everyone thinks that just "page" would be better, we'll change it that way, though. :) Oh, and I agree with you, Ezra: books have pages. LOL! Happy editing! --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 23:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think "page" is best. Ideally there should be many more regular pages than special ones, and it doesn't seem right for the Main_Page to be labeled "book page". --Ezra Katz 00:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But other projects call the Main Page an "article", so I don't think that works all the way. Technically it is a "project page", but there is no way to differentiate that currently, and many people might not understand what that means. You're right that it doesn't really go on the Main Page (because it is in the (main) namespace), but "page" could mean anything, and it makes it sound like "user page" (for example) is a subcategory, which it certainly is not. They are distinct types of pages, which is why they are in different namespaces. I'm not saying (and hopefully it's obvious) that we can't name it "page" (as if it were my decision, which it's not), I'm just trying to point out the other side of the coin, so to speak. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 00:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recently made the switch that Ezra mentioned. I still think "book page" was better for everything but the Main Page, basically. The good thing is that we can always change it back. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 01:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New project idea

I had an idea that just like software projects have maintainers, a book should have a group of people committed to the progress of the project. It wouldn't be in the wiki spirit of things for these people to have any special power or authority over the content of the book. It would be nice, however, to have some sort of public commitment to a project and a way for people to quickly identify who is taking an active interest in a book.

I suggest we try to get a group of "Helpers" for each book, who would commit to maybe 1 edit per week in a specific book.

I created two templates for this idea. We also need a set of Soft Rules.

This book needs people to help it grow.
You can become one of its helpers.

	These people make this book better by being helpers.
	username1 username2

. --Ezra Katz 15:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good idea. The fact that the helpers would be the same on all of the books is kinda sad, though, since we have so few active users. --Is is 13:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know there is very few people here, but I wouldn't expect someone to sign up for more than one or two books. It's kinda pointless to list yourself everywhere, and I personally couldn't keep up with more than a couple at a time and give them the proper attention. --Ezra Katz 18:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for this idea, too. It is a bit like a general Wikiproject. I'm thinking we should probably make a page for it somewhere like Wikibooks:Wikiproject Helpers. I'm going right now to sign myself up as a helper on the English book. I don't know if I can do one edit every single week, but hopefully I'll do more than that some other weeks so that the average is near there. I'm so excited that there's at least a small community here now! Keep it up! --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 23:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Didn't see that there was already a page. I still think it should be made into an official Wikiproject, though, and that it should be moved to the page I suggested. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 23:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Algebra book

Now that Special:Import is working here (I requested it recently for all SE projects), I'll be happy to start the move of SE Algebra. I'm sorry that's taken so long. I was actually interested in doing it some time ago, but I had to figure out how first. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 21:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you hold off a few days on the import? I'd like to contact the person who initiated the project over there before it gets copied over. I'll leave a message over at the discussion page of the algebra book as well. The Algebra Book has been poorly attended as of late and there is a lot in its structure that could be made into simpler English. Would it be easier to make batch changes to the book before it's imported? I'll let you know when or if I get a response. --Ezra Katz 22:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I can wait a few days. The only fear is that I'll get occupied with something else and forget to come back to it when the time comes. But really, it shouldn't matter what is wrong with the book, since I can import the history as well, and we can revert any changes that aren't constructive or make any other changes once it's here. I'd prefer to get it here first (since it is an entire book) and fix it afterward, but if all of you want to wait, that's fine, too. I'm just glad that it will finally be moved! --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 23:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing urgent, unless you are going to be gone for several weeks. What happens to the book on en Wikibooks when you import it? There should be some "moving page" notice so it doesn't just disappear without discussion. It wouldn't help any if we had two copies of the same book floating around.--Ezra Katz 00:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's check my schedule...take over the world on Friday...try that new flavor of unmentionably delicious ice cream on Sunday...Nope, doesn't look like I have any sudden and long disappearances planned. I must admit that next week the summer course starts where I teach, so I will be somewhat more restricted in my internet use, but hopefully I'll still have some time to be around to stir things up! :)

As far as what happens on an import, that's easy to explain, even though it seems to have no relation to the explanation on meta. Importing something (I think I'll have to do it a page at a time) just copies the page from one wiki (with the most recent 100 or so edits of its history if the admin so chooses) and puts it on another wiki. Talk pages are moved separately, it appears. The usual policy is to put a delete template on the source page, explaining that it has been moved/imported/transwikied into the other wiki. I would say "exported," but exporting is a different action that seems to have nothing to do with importing, help pages to the contrary. That's how we avoid having two copies: having it deleted on the other wiki after we move it. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 00:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Ezra has talked to the people on the project over there, and they're okay with the move, I'll start moving pages soon. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 01:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has it been moved? ~ Wikihermit 21:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot

I created a bot account, HermitBot. Hopefully I will be able to use the bot to help us out with boring task. You can take a lot at it at its user page. Thanks! ~ Wikihermit 02:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, an archive bot, HermitBot II. ~ Wikihermit 02:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two more. I'm done for now (with creating bots) :-D. HermitBot IV, which welcomes new users automatically, and HermitBot III, which fixes common spelling mistakes and typos. Thoughts? ~ Wikihermit 02:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great. :) However, on simple wikipedia (and others, I'm sure) they don't welcome users until they have a few mainspace edits. But since this wiki is so small, maybe there should be an exception... --Is is 13:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milestones

Today, 15 Aug 2007, we just passed 100 book pages during the importation of part of the Algebra I wikibook from EWB. Congratulations, everyone! --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 02:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Is the current RFA successful or not? It's been up for over 1 1/2 months now, going on two. I think it's time to close it. I'd personally close it as unsuccessful since it's been so stale and the user hasn't been too active since, but they could give it another go if they wanted to. ~ Wikihermit 15:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow, it should definitely be closed. I don't understand why it should be unsuccessful, though. If everyone got a chance to vote, then there's nothing we can do about it. Sure, only four people voted, but isn't that about the size of this community? --Is is 18:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe not unsuccessful. Either way, it needs to be closed. ~ Wikihermit 21:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I'm still around. I've been a little busy lately with moving and starting a new job. I'd say it's the job of an admin to put the final stamp of approval/dissaproval, as I haven't withdrawn the request myself. --Ezra Katz 15:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usually a 'crat will close a RfA, but since we don't have any... :-| ~ Wikihermit 16:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just voted on the VFA. Surely it should be closed now? If there's no administrator or Beaurocrat around then a request should be made on meta I think. Xania 20:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My slowness to act earlier is basically without excuse (except general busy-ness), but once the merger idea came up, I wanted to know whether Ezra was planning to stay. Now that he has told me that he does, I have made the appropriate request on meta (since it requires a bureaucrat to give sysop rights). Once they grant his status, I'll close the request and move it to the archive. If I'm a little slow in doing so, feel free to send me an email to remind me. :) --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 17:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

Help is needed with moving the simple algebra book to the proper titles and an admin needs to go through the deletion category and clean it out. ~ Wikihermit 01:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]