User talk:Darklama

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents
  • If you leave a message here, I will reply here.
  • If I leave a message on your talk page, please reply there. I will reply there.
  • If I haven't responded in awhile on your talk page, I may have forgotten. Leave me a brief reminder.

[edit] SB_Johnny

[edit] PDF problem

BTW: I noticed the problem when making a pdf and seeing that it didn't follow the "noprint" protocol that the interwiki templates need to follow. That's a big issue too :). --SB_Johnny | talk 13:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One more template thing

(Way over my head on this one.) Could you see if you could alter Template:Cite web to not require the "title" (in the first few lines)? Seems to me the URL should be sufficient. --SB_Johnny | talk 10:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, maybe set "accessdate" to autofill if not filled in manually too? --SB_Johnny | talk 10:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Erm, on second thought, maybe have it autofill the date only if substituted... sorry i'm so demanding :). --SB_Johnny | talk 10:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation templates

w:Wikipedia:Citation_templates has the full list. I'm still not certain that it needs to be consolidated though. --SB_Johnny | talk 13:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Understanding C++

I approve of your idea/brief overview of the goals of this text, and strongly agree that some planning should precede the creation of actual content. Having a good outline up front is key to achieving coherence, even though the Wikimedia medium allows for fixing many things over time.

One of the most fundamental decisions to make then teaching programming using C++ is whether to deal with high-level or low-level details first. My personal leaning, for most beginners, is to start with high-level constructs (e.g., use std::string before talking about arrays and pointers). No doubt there are many people who like bottom-up approaches (and, when learning, I may be one of them), but my experience is that most of those who start learning C++ from a low-level viewpoint never progress to master its high-level aspects too, whereas a good fraction of those who handle the high-level pieces first can fill in the details later (and many never need to). Besides, there are many books that try to teach low-level C++, but relatively few that cover the "modern" C++ style. -- James Dennett 20:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edittolls bug

Hi, JWS told me that you are good in MediaWiki. I would like to ask, if it would be possible to have a look on beta.wikiversity (and probably also on de.wikiversity) on MediaWiki:Edittools. I have copyed this from cs.wikipedia and it doesnt work properly. There is not a roll-up menu. See pictures (or Sandbox on cs: [1]):

Here on cs.wikipedia

not present on beta

when roll up - if it would work I can translate it to English

I would be very lucky if you could help. --Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 10:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JavaScript help needed

Hi Darklama! Please take a look at m:s:yi:Geboyrn in a zaydn hemdl. This page is using two Navigation templates m:s:yi:template:YIVO and m:s:yi:template:IPA. Please look also at m:s:yi:MediaWiki:Monobook.js.
The Yiddish navigation templates are using different scripts / transliterations: the standard Hebrew script as well as the YIVO w:YIVO and IPA transliterations. In order to activate

  • « show » which is there « vayzn · vɑyzn̩ · װײַזן »

and

  • « hide » which is there « bahaltn · bɑhɑltn̩ · באַהאַלטן »

All these options are located at the right.

For visitors of the site which have difficulties to read Yiddish I would like to add also some English, German and Russian text at the left inside the navigation box as follows:

  • « show · ausklappen · показать »

and

  • « hide · einklappen · скрыть »

I hope you can help to solve this wish. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have further questions. If you need sysop rights at an RTL project you can become a sysop at m:wikt:yi:project:Administrators#sysops and / or at test:special:Listusers/sysop (which is LTR only). Thanks for all your efforts in advance! Best regards
‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 05:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction to History

A few years ago (2005 to be exact) I tried to start a Wikibook for children titled Introduction to History. My goal was to write about history in a new way, a way that would replace the countless history books from which all students learn about Mesopotamia but many never get to, for example, World War I, history books from which all students learn that Ely Whitney invented the cotton gin, but many never get to the invention of the computer.

My hope was that after I set up the framework, many people more expert than myself on individual eras would contribute. That hasn't happened. You suggest that the book needs a better name. Any thoughts you have I would appreciate. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting the book needs a better name exactly. Originally the book was called "Learning History - Beginners", I changed the name to "Introduction to History" thinking it might me a potentially better name, but I wasn't completely sure if it fit because the scope/intentions of the book seemed unclear to me. The summery of "better name?" was due to my uncertainty as to whether the name change fit with the intention of the book. So the questions I really had was "is this a good change?" and "Does the name better convey the intentions and scope of the book?". If the answer is no then sure it could probably use a better name still, but I have no suggestions of what. I think the scope and the intentions of the book need to be clarified, which could also be why its not had much contributed to it in all this time. --darklama 17:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Fair use rationale

Just wanted to check that this won't break any uses of the template that already exist, as I can't tell.  – Mike.lifeguard | talk 14:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I was in the process of fixing anything that broke from my changes. FWIW I changed the color from orange to a light green to indicate that its good. I was about to add another parameter which would effect the color if something is missing that needs to be added. --darklama 14:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
As can now be seen in Image:ManUtd Logo.jpg. --darklama 15:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, the red makes text illegible. But I do like the idea of switching colours... Yellow for good (no change, so less work to update), black & white (matching {{copyvio}}) for bad? Regardless, all the fair use templates (and there are lots) should match when everything is ok. Good eyes on the category names too.  – Mike.lifeguard | talk 16:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] what is a "book"

See User_talk:Mike.lifeguard#what is a "book". At this stage I am looking help identifying major flaws in algorithm, so I can fix them and then take the discussion to the village pump. Feedback on my talk would be the best spot at the moment. Cheers, John Vandenberg (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dynamic navigation

Hi Darklama,

I'm trying to get a table of integrals book going and Whiteknight suggested {{Dynamic navigation}} might help. I wrote up a brief summary of what I was looking for here if you want all the details, but essentially what I was hoping to do was start expanding the table but to include additional information (derivation(s) of the integral, references, requests for derivations if they're not already there etc) that readers may want. The problem is most people will just be looking up the table as a reference - all this additional info will only get in the way. I was hoping to hide the info, and so here I am. I was wondering if it was possible to set up an alternate version of the dynamic navigation template to do this. All it would need is the colour removed and the heading left justified (I think). Of course, if you have a better idea I'm open to suggestions too. Cheers, Ben Tillman (talk) 04:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added an example to my user page to give a better idea. Cheers, Ben Tillman (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Context

I'm thinking about people who are trying to learn and understand the integrals. Like what is the purpose of each integral, how is each one used, when is it used, why would you use it, etc. Those are the sort of questions that should probably be answered in a book that has a table of integrals right? --darklama 20:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No. That's equivalent to wanting a book on multiplication to explain what each combination of numbers are good for when you multiply them. Ben Tillman (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
How are they equivalent? The reason I'm thinking of these things is because Wikibooks is for instructional books. I don't see how a multiplication table without information that teaches or explains how to multiply would be a valid book on Wikibooks for instance, in the same way as integral tables without information to explain how to use integrals in general or on how to use each integral function mentioned would be. --darklama 15:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Such a book would probably cover Integrals in more depth and would probably include things that are linked to from that page as well. So when a person is looking at an Integrals of irrational functions table they would be referred to a page or chapter in the same book that discussions Irrational functions for instance, which would explain what irrational functions are, when they are used, why they are used, provides examples, and antiderivatives for integral irrational functions. --darklama 20:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

A calculus book does this to a degree, but like a multiplication book, it will offer some examples to get a feel for the material, not offer examples containing every possible combination of numbers/functions. Ben Tillman (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
You sort of make it sound like it would be impossible to have an instructional book on how to use integral functions. If this is true than how are the integral tables appropriate for Wikibooks, since books must be instructional and explain the subject? Its not really a matter of being general or being specific though if that's the problem. Its about explaining enough to teach from or to learn from so someone unfamiliar with the tables could understand the tables after reading the rest of the book. --darklama 15:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Where articles on Wikipedia would rely on external links for in depth explanations, books on Wikibooks should include the relevant information. So there might be a chapter on irrational functions and a chapter on rational functions for instance. Rather then hiding the details of integrals using dynamic navigation, the information in the bottom half would be included in the relevant chapter. I'm not talking about using algorithms, general tricks or common techniques, rather all information needed to teach and explain each one would be covered in the book as it is read, building on the previous pages and chapters, instead of included all the information within the integral table. --darklama 20:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The table isn't concerned with what you will use the integral for, again, like the multiplication table. The difference between the multiplication and integral tables though, is that derivation is not quite so straight forward, and in case a reader actually wants to see the derivation, it would be nice for them to be able to see it just by expanding the dynamic navigation template. Ben Tillman (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
What value to students and others would an integral table bring to Wikibooks, without context and purpose in its inclusion? Books are suppose to be concerned with explaining the subject in order to understand the subject, which can include understanding its uses. --darklama 15:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

However my explanation are in general terms, because I don't know enough about the subject to give specific advice. Maybe I still misunderstand your plan, just from what you say it doesn't sound like the part you want to hide really belongs as part of the table. --darklama 20:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

In general, the derivations aren't possible to be included in a table of integrals. The wiki software makes this possible, but to keep the table navigable, these derivations should be out of sight unless someone specifically wants one. Ben Tillman (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
If having derivatives don't generally make sense to be included in a table of integrals why have them there? Every book is suppose to have a scope, an aim, a target audience, and organized to teach a subject. If your going to put the integral tables into an existing book, the book its put into should either already teach and explain what's required to understand the integral tables or plan to. --darklama 15:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for wasting your time darklama. Cheers, Ben Tillman (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You haven't been wasting my time. Sorry if that is the impress I've given you. --darklama 23:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks mate - TheSun (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to thank you for the book about X Window programming :) I am doing a school project in Motif and every source of information is helpful for me. I will try to extend some parts of the book if I will learn something new and useful what is missing... --Stardust85 (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TOCs

Hello Darklama, just to inform and ask you if you have any opposition over the deletion of TOC2, or want to save the structure or any of the reworded pages into the new book (I think we already did most of them). --Panic (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see any consensus on the deletion of TOC2, in fact just the opposite, there has been little further discussion on the matter, which suggests that TOC2 is still the preferred TOC, and that if anything TOC1 should be deleted. However I refuse to be drawn back into any discussion about that book. Its not my problem any more. Its not my opinion that is required, but everyone else involved, such as James Dennett, and ~VNinja~. Until such time as clear consensus has been reached, I'm sure the main page of the book will continue to be locked and nothing changed. Your opinions on the matter of consensus won't do it. --darklama 13:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Collapsible Tables

Hello again, You may have noticed comments about these tables in the reading room.

This markup produces a drop table in the other projects, initially closed.

{|class="prettytable collapsible collapsed"
! Press for a Table Code Summary
|-
| Hidden text here
|}

Whitenight suggests that you may be working on the inclusion of these, and they look easier to use than the NAV set. We seem to be the only ones without them. Keep up the good work, Armchair (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] prefix

Dear Darklama,

Recently you suggested (at Wikibooks:Naming policy)

 Bookname/Prefix → for any style conventions or assumptions made

I agree that suggesting that authors include a LMOS page in a book -- and going further, and suggesting a default name for that page -- is a good idea.

Is that supposed to be the prefix of something? Or is that supposed to be a literal name -- for example, "Algorithm implementation/Prefix"?

Are there any books that use this "Prefix" page name?

I've seen books that use "Local style manual", "Manual of style", "How to contribute" in their LMOS page names -- I wonder what other names are used for en.wikibooks LMOS? --DavidCary (talk) 04:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes I mean Prefix as a literal name, I guess more books use "Book/About" than Book/Prefix on Wikibooks. Its not just for style conventions, also things like who is intended to read this book (like target audience, what is assumed readers know already), what the scope of the book is, credit authors of any material that was used in the book from other websites, and things like that. I think "Prefix" and "About this book" are common conventions used in dead-tree books. Right now I don't think there is any common or standardized convention on Wikibooks for these type of things, the idea was to provide a suggestion for a default name to use. Really I think that the whole Tips section needs to be moved to WB:LMOS. --darklama 18:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me for using your talk page as a place to dump some random information:

local manuals of style:

Are there other names used by individual wikibooks for the local manual of style? --DavidCary (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
--DavidCary (talk) 06:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
--DavidCary (talk) 05:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
As you've observed there are lots of names used, hense the idea of suggesting a name to use. --darklama 13:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Broken template(s)?

I observe that templates like Template:Wikipedia that should float right, don't. The most recent edits I can see that seem like they might have affected this were to Template:Mbox-side and Template:Mbox, on the 28th. Do you know whether the right-floating stuff worked immediately after you made those edits? Pi zero (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not observe any changes in the way things floated immediately after edits to Mbox and Mbox-side were made, and as of this moment I still see the Wikipedia template floating correctly to the right. Are you experiencing this problem on every page you've checked or are there specific examples you could point me to? Also what web browser are you using? --darklama 21:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I should have thought of the browser question. I observed the problem (on multiple pages using multiple templates) using Firefox 2.0.0.11. There's no problem using IE 7, nor Firefox 3.0.3, though. So for my own browsing, the problem now no longer exists (unless I want it to). Thanks. Pi zero (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

sometimes its not so clear where to post issues for the community.

I kind of like the wikiversity way of doing it. I'll move my post (unless someone has already moved it) --JoliePA (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Subject:Programming

I know you had done a lot of work on this page previously. I know Panic said he was going to recategorize some books. One of the tabs on this page is completely empty and another tab doesn't display when I click on it. Maybe you want to take another look at this? --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 20:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I had done a lot of work previously to use plural form of the category name as well. I'm not happy with the change. Makes no sense to me. --darklama 20:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
This also means its inconsistent with Category:Domain-specific languages, Category:Markup languages, Category:Languages, Category:Scripting languages, etc. --darklama 20:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MediaWiki:Gadget-edittop.js

I notice now the [edit] link for the top section is on the same line as the page title. That means if you triple-click to select the title, you end up highlighting the edit link too, which is annoying. Any chance you can tweak it so that doesn't happen?  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 05:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

That is a common problem with any section heading. You could maybe fix this by modifying the styling for the editsection class. If that doesn't work I think the short answer is I can't without making the section link for the top section inconsistent with other section edit links. --darklama 14:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Consistency with the other sections isn't really a concern (I originally had it as a tab, but then I had too many to fit across the top). It's annoying to highlight section titles along with the edit link, but it's actually a usability problem for the title. Thanks  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 16:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IE issues with tablecollapse

Hi, I stumble upon MediaWiki:Common.js/Navigation.js and fell in love with it, it has many of some features i was trying to code when i found yours, but as i was testing and in FireFox div NavFrame had no issues and with table collapse the hide/show did not appear and with IE div NavFrame seem to work perfectly but also table collapse the hide/show did display but they did not collapse, i test it here at wikibooks, and i find the same issue, in case you need to know im using FF 3.0.5 and IE 7.0.6 with OS Vista User:Cizagna at Wikia.com

[edit] Subject:Spanish

Hi, are we getting rid of all bookshelves and convert them to subjects? Was there a discussion about this? I'm a bit concerned about the language sub-bookshelves because they are transcluded in Wikibooks:Languages_bookshelf, thus, they should follow a certain format. --Martin Kraus (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes the idea was to fade out the bookshelves by replacing them with subject pages. Yes there was discussion in the reading room about this, but I can't remember which one or how long ago that was now. I am only moving the language ones right now, because compared to others they are relatively new and easy to fix. I intend to update links to them, which is easier than other bookshelves right now. --darklama 16:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Another concern: the discussion page of Wikibooks talk:Languages bookshelf is something like the main community page for authors of foreign languages books, while Subject:Languages does not even have a discussion page yet. What's the plan for Wikibooks talk:Languages bookshelf and Subject:Languages? --Martin Kraus (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't plan to touch the Languages bookshelf right now, since its older and probably requires more work. For clarity the discussion basically agreed that the bookshelves should eventually disappear and that phasing them out slowly was the way to go. How was not really discussed. Like a lot of these things I've taken it upon myself to be bold and just do it in stages. I think eventually either the Languages bookshelf will either simply be deleted or merged with Subject:Languages. --darklama 17:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your answers. I guess I'll have to focus on Subject:Languages and that appears to be Whiteknights responsibility. :) Thanks. --Martin Kraus (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've undone the change from Wikibooks:Chinese_bookshelf to Subject:Chinese in Wikibooks:Languages_bookshelf because Subject:Chinese does not follow an appropriate format to be transcluded. Well, I guess what will happen in the end is that all the Wikibooks:X_bookshelf pages will become subtopics in Subject:Languages without being transcluded. (I'm not sure I like the idea but I guess that's the way to be consistent with other Subjects.) Thus, we only need Wikibooks:Chinese_bookshelf until Wikibooks:Languages_bookshelf is merged with Subject:Languages. --Martin Kraus (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] error of {{alphabetical}} on English/FCE English

Hello! I'm cleaning up the categorization of languages textbooks. Some of the English textbooks are grouped together under "English/", thus, it's not clear to me whether to refer to these books as parts of one book or as separate books. (The description of the books is ambiguous about this point.) Since not all of the English books are under English/ and since this scheme is rather strange anyways, I decided to consider these books as separate books. Thus, I would argue that it is correct to use {{alphabetical}} on English/FCE English; however, the template gives a warning that it is not on a book title page. What should I do in this case? --Martin Kraus (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion if they are intended to be separate books, they all need new names. I would say this is equal to how prefixing programming books with "Programming:" became frowned on. Is there any currently active contributors to the book or books that you could ask for clarification from? --darklama 21:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User_talk:Darklama"
Personal tools
Create a book