Wikibooks talk:Reading room

Page blanking

Sorry for the inadvertent blanking of the page. I consistently have this problem on Wikipedia as well. I edit a page, and the edit goes through, and on rare occasions MSIE brings up an error page instead of the page I should be viewing. Then no matter what I do, the page gets blanked. I wish I knew how to prevent it...

--Furrykef 10:32, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No problem. Perl 13:48, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

2d level headers

Some of the 2d-level headers on the Lounge page should now probably get their own Wikibooks: namespace page; for instance, a copyrights FAQ. Those that I made separate pages for (Project ideas, bookshelf ideas, etc.) might be better suited for the Wikibooks: namespace also; le me know what you think, or just move them if the desire strikes you. Sj 22:20, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Make this page easier to find!

I've just spent 10 minutes trying to find this page! I'm an active contributor to Wikimedia projects, in particular Wikipedia, and still couldn't locate the equivalent of the 'Village Pump'. I couldn't find it in the help, on the 'wikiversity' page (which I assumed was the equivalent to the 'community portal' on Wikipedia, as it is in the same location on the nav-bar) or at the 'study help desk' which was the first place I tried. I also tried typing in 'wikibooks:Village pump' to no avail. Whilst it is nice to have cute names like 'staff lounge' it is not very practical - some sort of consistency across projects would be useful. At least Wikibooks:Village pump should be a redirect (which I have just made it). Having finally found the page (from 'recent changes, and even then it's not necessarily obvious that 'staff lounge' is the place to go) I thought of checking the main page - but even then I couldn't find a link. Please consider making this a little more friendly towards existing Wikimedia users - after all, I imagine that is where most contributors will come from! --HappyDog 00:50, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Since http://en.wikiversity.org/ is already reserved, I would also support the idea of moving the Wikiversity there as quickly as possible, and give Wikibooks again a real community portal page. Who has the power of doing this? --Andreas 14:34, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Done. It's now one of the first links on the Main Page. - Aya ^T C 20:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Wiki promotion

I am in interested in giving public speeches regarding Wikimedia projects, especially this one. I was unable to find any sort of packet to help promote the project. It would seem that creating information on how to talk about the Wiki culture and get people interested in Wikibooks. The goals of a Wiki have obvious answers and many of the ethics that regard wikis are easily found, however a document with answers to pressing questions that one would be confronted with in a presentation would be a worthy endeavor. Is there a WikiBook regarding the promotion of Wiki, and certain specific Wikis present and I have missed it possibly? Thanks in Advance.

--Arckanghel 03:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is there a WikiBook regarding the promotion of Wiki...? I think Wiki Science is intended to discuss promoting and presenting wiki, but it's a long way from being finished. Are there any "pressing questions" that it doesn't answer? Please add those questions to the book, even if you don't yet know the answers. The wiklossary is also intended to help new people learn about wiki culture. --DavidCary 08:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikibook news?

I don't want to spend ages searching. I keep coming up against negatiev comments about this venture and wikiversity and there's little discussion here and of long ago. Is it dying? I'm trying to read and edit Philosophy here and it's very slow compared with wikipedia and needs work which I don't yet know how to do to move from one page to another more easily. If I am out of order, please excuse: I'm just trying to learn. And why am I 81.86.91.82 and not a name? 81.86.91.82 08:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikibooks isn't dying, it's just very, very small compared to Wikipedia. We have maybe a few hundred pages in a few dozen books, they have 500,000 pages! Also, most of the contributors here have already had experience with Wikipedia so don't often have any new questions, leaving this Staff lounge eerily quiet. And the books rarely have unnecessary pages added so there's very little deletion activity either.

As for how to "be a name, not a number", you can create an account and specify a username. Accounts don't carry over between Wikimedia projects, you have to start a new account on each Wiki you want to have an identity on.

As for how to move information around, it depends. If you want to move a section of text to a different page, just copy and paste from one edit box into the next, ideally saying something like "copied Plato section from Introduction page" or whatnot in the edit box, just to acknowledge you didn't write it but are merely moving it. If you want to put something on a new page just create a link to your new page's name and click through to edit it. If you want to move an existing page to a new name you will need both an account and a certain number of edits (I think) to unlock the function.

I hope that's answered everything, and if not you can ask some more. Oh and if you want a page moved but find you don't have the power (again, I forget if a number of edits are required like for WP) just give me a shout on my Talk page and I'll do it for you in a jiffy. :) Master Thief Garrett 13:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In contrast to what Master Thief Garrett says, please do not copy and paste articles to move them. Please move them according to policy. --Cromwellt|talk 07:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Controversial Issues

Your site mentions a list but gives no link. I have a real problem with wikibooks making available information which is ONLY useful to cause harm. To claim to have a neutral point of view is intellectually vacuous. Everybody is biased. English speakers are, humans are and so are warm blooded animals. Anyway, if Wiki is going to pretend to be above any common sense or judgement then I predict it will fail because sooner or later it will be linked to egregious acts which it contributed to in a reprehensible way. On the other hand, could you direct me to the wikibooks on hacking, virus writing, getting away with rape and murder and how to run a con on an old lady? Thanks! - 63.81.122.66

First of all, the NPOV debate has been going on forever. Philosophically it's all a bunch of nonsense anyway, so I'd just forget about it. The point they're trying to make is that you should be aware that if you post something too controversial, another user may delete it. That's about all you can really say in practical terms.

Regarding the other issue, it's fallacious to believe that a book entitled, say, "How to get away with rape and murder", is only of use to those who may seek to commit those crimes. It would also serve as a guide for those who wish to prevent themselves falling victim to the same crimes, since, without knowing how these crimes work, there is no way to defend yourself against them. Arguably the same information would be available in a book entitled "How to protect yourself from rape and murder". - Aya ^T C 19:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Has anyone seen my +1 Mace of Troll-Slaying...? :P Odd bloke 15:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

First off, the NPOV thing isnt going to cause the downfall of wiki. People might not be perfect, but i see no reason why this project can't try to rise above the mob. Many institutions in this world have risen up out of the nonsense that is "the masses". Second, we are currently in an undeletion debate over the "Manual of Crime" book here. The general concensus is to delete that book because it is not a good thing to have here. We also, to my knowledge, don't have any books on hacking or virus authoring. We do have a book on software reverse engineering, although that book stresses the legal methods, and not the illegal ones. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 18:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

WB:NPOV is a better place to discuss this.

Wiki etiquette?

I've come across a page with some dreadfully inaccurate information. I have materials with correct information that I've already written. Is it considered rude to erase someone else's incorrect info and replace it with a new, correct article?

Thanks, Enyo Nov 2 2005, 12:46 PST

Hello Enyo. I'd say the person or people who compiled the page might take umbrage at your rewriting it completely, but if you leave a note on its talk page gently indicating why you did whatever you might do, I'd hope they'd be less likely just to revert whatever contribution you make. Even if they did, you and they would then have the material on record with which to try to reach some consensus. A friendly reminder (to myself as well, as I type it): One person's correct and unbiased info might be another's incorrect and biased propaganda, so strive for as NPOV a presentation as possible. I think that's the idea.

Best wishes, David Kernow 23:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm.... The subject is a long, extended period in history that currently only has a few paragraphs under a couple of headings. There are only two paragraphs that I would replace, as each one comprises its own section. What I would replace it with is much longer, more detailed, and so forth. I'm wondering if, at this point, perhaps it would be less problematic if I just a.) didn't bother or b.) set it up another page. Of course, I could always cite sources correcting this info in the talk section, which would assist in making it less of a slap, right?

Thanks for the tip. Unfortunately, while I *take* criticism very well, I suck at tactfully giving it to strangers. :P

Thanks, --Enyo 00:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

If you're at all worried that altering the current page might open some floodgates of rebuke, I'd say place your version on an alternate page and perhaps add a link to it at (say) the top of the original page. (I happen to've done something along these lines recently, although without adding a link on the original page; see Wikijunior Solar System/About gravity, mass, and weight and Wikijunior Solar System/About weight and gravity - and by all means leave a comment if you wish!). Note however that this would create a fork in the material between the original page and your alternative that would need to be closed before a version of the book could be declared complete.

I reckon, though, there shouldn't be any great problem if you went ahead and edited/replaced the original; whatever you do, the original will be retained in the history. "Be bold!" is, I believe, the order of the day - and I'd say cite your sources on whichever page you use for your material rather than a talk page.

Should you need any support or a third-party opinion, just give me a shout. Good luck!

David Kernow 04:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

See, I'm brand spanking new to Wikipedia. I'd started writing a text on this subject based on my research that I'd collected over the years on the subject for NaNoWriMo. Generally, when I start some creative endeavor, my husband points out something similar in nature that's already been done and tells me that there's no point in trying to reinvent the wheel. This time, he pointed out the utter lack of what I'm attempting, and suggested that I add to Wikibooks. (He believes that wikipedia and her sister projects are the greatest things in the history of the internet.)

So, I don't really know if there's Wiki-cliques and so forth. I try to not make a huge splash until I get to know the lay of the land (like mailing lists, blog sites, and so forth), and this is kind of my effort to learn wikirules before I start slashing and burning someone *else*'s efforts. After all, someone took the time to attempt to disseminate information that they, for some reason, believed to be true and correct. Does a virtual stranger have the right to come in and kick over their sand castle, even if it *is* done in the pursuit of knowledge? Or does wikiculture place higher status on the correctness of information versus someone's feelings?

You know, I really do appreciate your feedback to this babe in the woods.  :-) I've already gone ahead and started a new page, since I'd done that without understanding that it *is* okay to edit someone else's work, and it's designed to be done that way. Until I hear from the project's organizers, I'll just do that.  :-)

• goes and checks out the contributer in question* Hmm... Maybe it's not such the big deal that I'd thought it might be. The author in question has only made three contributions to Wikibooks, all three of them relating only to those two paragraphs. I might be worrying about hurt feelings for nothing.

--Enyo 04:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello again. Yes, from evidence such as the lists here I suspect there are "Wiki-cliques", although I don't know how far supporting a clique (subconsciously) features in members' activites. I'd say a good way to 'learn the rules' – or rather, 'a constructive way to work' – is to be bold and see what gives. Don't forget that even if you feel you're "kicking over some's sandcastle", their magnum opus is only one step back in the history attached to every editable page. I'd also say (hope) that as regards prioritising being correct and being sensitive, wikiculture just doesn't go there (at least not officially) but rather leaves an ever-fluctuating balance to emerge between the two. Well, something like that.

Congratulations on your unspartan but concise new page, which I think is appropriate as it whets the appetite without expanding everything mentioned. I haven't located the page it's meant to replace, but if that page is as you descibe I'd say you might as well replace it with your work. Remember, the original page will be retained in the history. To aid those who want to read further, how about turning a few keywords into links to other pages in the wikibook, or Wikipedia articles, etc – even if they are yet to brought into existence (i.e. the links appear in red) ?  I've created five within the first three paragraphs as examples, all but one pointing to Wikipedia articles; if you decide to take up my suggestion (it's entirely up to you; you may prefer the plain text) then these may in turn be better made to point to other relevant pages/sections in the wikibook as it grows. I've also taken the liberty – shock horror – not (I hope you'll be relieved to hear) to "knock over your sandcastle" but to edit it a little, including changing a couple of phrases that read to me as unattributed POVs. As with everything that happens to an editable page, you're welcome to revert the changes, in this case with the extra knowledge that the person who made the changes won't be offended. You certainly might want to remove the comments (the stuff between and including the <!-- and --> markings) that I've added as a consequence. Many of my changes are simply alternative suggestions to your turns of phrase (i.e. perhaps more international).

Best wishes, David Kernow 06:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

PS Had not heard of "NaNoWriMo" before you mentioned it above – it sounds frantic, exactly the kind of thing that would drive me mad and probably therefore why I enjoy wiki-style contributing...!

Staff Lounge Page Size

Any chance this can be made smaller by archiving some of the discussions? It's just that this page in particular takes much longer to load than any other Wikibooks pages I visited. Xania 20:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

We do try to archive this page pretty regularly, but we also don't like to archive discussions that aren't over. If you see something that you think can probably be archived, you can feel free to do so. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

OK great. When I figure out how to then I might. Xania 21:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Help Me

I am new to Wikibooks. Could someone please give me a welcome message like Wikipedia does? Thanks, Asher Heimermann 20:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

New design

/me likes --Iamunknown 07:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I spent about 2 or 3 hours on it yesterday. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Kudos WK. It looks good. -- Jim Thomas 15:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"source" HTML markup

I noticed that the computer science texts generally use indentation for example source code, as follows

#!/usr/bin/perl

for ($x = 0; $x < 10; $x++) {
   print "number $x";
}

rather than the HTML "source" markup:

#!/usr/bin/perl

for ($x = 0; $x < 10; $x++) {
    print "number $x";
}

Is it appropriate to use the "source" attribute? --Dinomite 17:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It is appropriate, and if you have the expertise, maybe you could work on updating some of them? The <source> tags are a relatively new addition to the software, so many older books don't have it. I tried to update the python book using bot to use the source tags, but there were so many irregularities among the code examples that I made more of a mess then I fixed. If you can do some, that would be great. Otherwise, maybe we could start making a list of pages that need to be updated, so everybody could participate? --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 21:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

What's up with the over-protection

Coming from the most vandalized wiki (the English Wikipedia), I have to say there is an unsettling amount of page protection going on here. This runs counter to the defining quality of wikis, which makes them so great. I saw a couple of simple typos I wanted to correct, but couldn't because they were protected. I don't know if these pages are fully protected or just semi-protected (no anon edits), but it doesn't really matter. As editing Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and Commons, takes up all my time already, I have no plans to be a consistent or even semi-consistent editor for WikiBooks, and thus see no reason to create a user account at this time. With me, WikiBooks is only losing two trivial edits, but in general is probably losing much much more as far as potential editors go.

A few years ago, I merely read articles on Wikipedia and didn't think to edit them, however after seeing some obvious spelling and grammar errors, that "edit this page" button was just begging to be clicked on. Everytime I ran into an error when reading articles, I would fix it. I found myself going out of my way to correct articles (i.e. going to pages I had no interest in reading). When I got involved to the point where I was going to talk and other namespace pages, I decided to get a username to be part of the community - not to simply edit articles. If I didn't have this open experience, I wouldn't be a Wikipedia editor at all, let alone a very dedicated one. I got involved with Commons and Wiktionary in much the same way, usually because of trans-wiki linking. Likewise, I came here to find a appropriate link to use on Wikipedia, saw a couple of errors I wanted to correct on my way, which could have been my first step into being a full-time editor, but got derailed by all the protected pages. I'm sure others feel the same. This is very unfortunate, as WikiBooks has lots of potential, but desperately needs more editors.

Vandalism sucks, but it's small price to pay for freedom. Vandals are annoying, but editors are more important.

On Wikipedia, we have a behavioral guideline called "Assume good faith", I suggest WikiBooks adopt this too.

Sincerely,

one less editor aka 68.74.158.43 17:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you won't be editing. I'm not sure which pages you're referring to. So far as I know, Wikibooks actually has far less page protection than Wikipedia. Assuming good faith doesn't mean unprotecting everything; there is a balance to be had. If you like, feel free to tell us where the balance is off. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 18:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

moved to Wikibooks:Reading room/General#What's up with the over-protection

Pages which are high-profile tend to be protected because of long histories of vandalism and abuse. Due to extensive blocking of open proxies, this may no longer be an issue of concern, but nobody yet has breeched the subject of unprotecting these pages. Some pages which are not high-profile may also have been protected because of some vandalism in the past, and simply never been unprotected as they should have been. In these cases, you should let us know which pages are protected, and mention that they likely shouldn't be. Most pages that are protected against vandalism are only protected against anonymous users. It's a price that we have been willing to pay to help prevent vandalism. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Too much of a price in my opinion. One of the very basic principles of Wikis are that ANYONE can edit. I can possibly understand a temporary protection of hghly vandalised Wikipedia pages like George W Bush but on Wikibooks no page other than the main page or the userpage of highly active admins needs protection. Anonymous users should be made as welcome as anyone else. Xania ^talk 22:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you xania. Vandalism has decreased dramatically, and many of the pages that used to be high-traffic (such as the bookshelves) are being rendered obsolete. I think that there are very few pages now that need to be protected, and with few exceptions I think that we can unprotect them as we find them. There are a few pages, such as the main page and some of the policy pages that I think probably should stay protected, but that's a matter of personal preference. Also, I am keeping my own personal user and user talk pages move-protected as insurance against page-move vandalism, but that's also just a personal preference. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Lately if I protect a page, I have been making use of the expire field to limit the protection to 3 months, so it expires on its own without accidentally forgetting about it. Maybe including an expire time should be encouraged more for any pages that are protected. --darklama 00:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea too. Lots of pages that have been protected historically were protected before the automatic expiration feature was added to the software. In the future, most page protections likely should have an expiration. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 00:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Expiry is definitely a Good Idea. I'd warn against wholesale unprotection though; pages should be unprotected on a case-by-case basis (just as they are protected on a case-by-case basis). Of course it's hard to weigh the issue when we don't know which page this person is talking about. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 02:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. We should have a short list of highly-vandalised books which can be protected and make sure that any other protections are done with an expiry date or a month or so. Personal pages obviously are excluded as it's your choice whether you want to protect it or not (I protected mine a while ago so it's probably still protected). Xania ^talk 00:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Account blocked

Hello,

I am User:Pigsonthewing here, and on Wikiepdia (you can contact me by e-mail from the latter, for verification). My account here is listed as "permanently blocked" because of vandalism by another user. I have no idea what that's about. Can I reclaim the account? 81.5.140.5 (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I imagine so - place a request at WB:RENAME.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 01:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, will do. 81.5.140.5 (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

AQA Chemistry Help

I am --Jjkkll here, and i am editing the A2 section of the AQA A level Chemistry wiki book, but need help redirecting the pages so they fall under the parent hierarchy. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/A-level_Chemistry/AQA

Hi Jjkkll. I know I said I didn't have time (and thus pointed you here), but then... lunch happened and I had time. I moved several pages and relinked to them. Let me know if you notice that I missed something. --Jomegat (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

And... I just noticed two things that didn't quite go right. I moved the pages to "A-level Chemistry/AQA/Module N" where N is either 4 or 5. However, two of these modules already had content in them. Therefore, I deleted the existing content, completed the move, deleted the new content, and then restored both the new and the old. You might want to have a look at the history of these two modules to see if you want to keep any of the old material: A-level Chemistry/AQA/Module 4/Kinetics and A-level Chemistry/AQA/Module 4/Polymers. --Jomegat (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thank for that, it make it easier!. Could that have been done by me or do you have to have moderator privileges?

Anyway iv dumped all the info for the Module 5 sections onto the individual pages, now i will need to format them correctly and add the images which go with the text, but need to wait 4 days so i can upload images. --Jjkkll (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of it did not require admin privs, but you might not have been able to move the pages yet (I think your account has to be four days old - dunno when you created yours). I also deleted the orphan redirects, and that does require admin privs. The rest was just a bit of editing. Anyhow, you're very welcome, and we're glad you're here. --Jomegat (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

need help you guys

hello wikibooks, thank you for helping me help. I am a new student who majored in anthropology in Indonesia. I am very interested in this, I need your help? if you guys could help me to give you a little about why the birth of a sociology of human life, and how sociology can get to another country? and how the thinking of sociology in generally? please give me reason thank you

I am new to Wikibooks. Can anyone suggest me how to see books?

Sociology (only applies to human societies, even if structured societies aren't exclusively human). I would venture stating that today we live in a globalized world that social differences are increasingly diminishing making divergences more cultural artifacts than social imperatives.

Sociology, the reflection or study of social interactions, social institutions and the individual in society is often pointed as rooted in Wester philosophies but I think that it would be safe to state that no society could have been evolved in complexity without proper reflection about the desired structure (the vested interests of participants).

I do not understand fully your question "how sociology can get to another country?", the pursuit of social sciences and science in general is not limited by borders. On the other hand sociology lives by access to social data, I guess that in a closed or secretive societies there may some difficulties but as all science today it depends on the academia.

Wikibooks related to Sociology are listed in Subject:Sociology. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 14:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Contacting Wikibooks participants

Hi, I just wanted to know why some user names on WikiBook come up as red and say that the user does not exists and others are in blue? What does this mean? Also I wanted to know how I get in contact with a person if I have their wiki name, how would I go about finding their personal wiki page? SmithBiancaAnn (discuss • contribs) 13:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Replied on Wikibooks:Reading room/Assistance#Contacting Wikibooks participants. Please follow up there. — Ivan Shmakov (d ▞ c) 13:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Linking within Wikibooks

Hi there, I was wondering how to link a Wikipedia as a link rather than a reference within a wikibooks article?

Thanks! Megan4pmGlasses (discuss • contribs) 13:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This has already been recently discussed in one of the reading rooms, which is the appropriate place (this is the talk page for the reading room, a place to discuss the reading rooms).

See Wikibooks:Reading room/Assistance#Blue text. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 14:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

How do you become an administrator?

Hello! I was wondering how do you become an administrator? Thanks, ☺☺Visit my user page☺☺ (discuss • contribs) 14:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC) P. S. PLEASE TELL ME ON MY TALK PAGE. Thanks!

Links within Text

I am fairly new to Wikibooks and I am trying to add hyperlinks to my content. I was wondering if you could give me some tips or ideas regarding the best ways to go about this. Mich.henderson (discuss • contribs) 21:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I would like to know how to link in text and also how to cite sources or reference with wikibooks.Pamela.nx (discuss • contribs) 08:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see Using Wikibooks. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 10:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Is it allowed to for one to create their own story or novel on Wikibooks?

It is Wikibooks. Doorknob747 (discuss • contribs) 02:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Doorknob747. No, Wikibooks is for open-source textbooks. A work of fiction would be an original work, so we wouldn't allow it here. (WB:What is Wikibooks?) --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 10:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Bad archive access button

Here (in 2009) a "kind of link" for getting access to "Current discussions and archives" is supposedly added. I do not know what it was supposed to do; but the implementation did and does involve a "searchbutton" with the label "Search current discussions and archives".

Pushing this button yielded (presently) a list of 304 pages with the prefix "Wikibooks:Reading room" in a rather scrambled order. First come a few subpages, then some archives from 2015, then some archives from 2009 and 2010, When I pushed it again later, the archives from 2015 were gone from the first 40 items, but there were a number of even older archives added; these 40 items now contain some archives from 2003 to 2013 (inclusive). The order they appear inseemingly has nothing to do with the dates of last changes.

The reason for the touble seems to be, that there is a search filter

fulltext=Search+current+discussions+and+archives

However, to search pages for the occurrense of the word current is not at all the optimal way to find the most current pages. (:-)

If someone knows how to implement a search by latest date of change instead, that would be great. Else, that button could preferrably be removed, and perhaps the page WB:Reading room/Archives instead updated a bit, I think. JoergenB (discuss • contribs) 17:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Park Health Master Document Donation

I'm looking to donate this book that I'm outlining

But the evolution of it is running on MS Word, Google Docs, as well as GitBooks PARKHEALTH_MASTERDOCUMENT.docx

Does that violate Wikibooks policies?

Our core value at Park Health is opensource

Rolodexter1 (discuss • contribs) 18:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Is there any audio form of asking questions?

Hello Wikibooks I like interactive question and answer in audio format, please make provision for it. Christmas videos (discuss • contribs) 20:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Currently, I don't know of any way to do that. Is the problem that you're trying to ask a question about how Wikibooks functions and you think that audio/video is a better way to ask it than text or is the problem that you want Wikibooks to host audio/video media as part of its content? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:16, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I can think of a way for a question to be asked in an audio file, then have the subject respond with traditional multiple choice, text input, etc. Is that OK? Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 01:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC)