Wikibooks:Reading room/Assistance

ArchivesWikibooks Discussion Rooms

Discussions	Assistance	Requests	Announcements
General | Proposals | Projects | Featured books	General | Technical | Administrative	Deletion | Undeletion | Import | Upload | Permissions	Bulletin Board

Welcome to the Assistance reading room where Wikibookians help each other solve problems encountered while contributing to books or otherwise taking part in the Wikibooks community.

The proposed Wikijunior logo. Plain times new Roman font before colorful text popping out in handwriting. Can this be official. Reed102 (discuss • contribs) 17:15, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think this should be proposed at Wikibooks:Reading room/Proposals instead of here. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 17:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Note (very old, stale) discussion at m:Wikijunior project logo. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:48, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

A discussion in which the last post was made in 2007 is old, and if I reply, that's necroposting. Reed102 (discuss • contribs) 22:54, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm moving the discussion. Reed102 (discuss • contribs) 22:55, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's moved. Go to Wikibooks:Reading room/Proposals to see. Reed102 (discuss • contribs) 22:58, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

yes also those appointments are approved ~2025-35121-60 (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello sorry for bad formatting of the question and etc.. Also sorry for stupid questions.. And also I didn't know about wiki a lot and I forgot completely everything so assume I have almost 0 knowledge

1. According to the Help:Tracking changes#Reviewing pages I must be able to find "review this revision" in the bottom of every page but it is not there. Maybe it is me but maybe it was written because

2. I found wrong/partially not correct bit of knowledge but touching it is generally not what I can do because I can't currently write necessary thing but only point what is incorrect in several words. Or for example I can give a list what is missing in the page... Is there a way to just place a note or something like that without modifying original text? I suppose it could be review?

3. Some pages don't have square images which show completeness. How to add them? Review?

4. Some books look like they are just a big (or not so big) article. Is it considered normal? Is there several "standards" of how book should look or not?

5. Does book have any order of material? I mean what if the topic is so interconnected that you basically need to refere from one part of book to another and there are circular dependencies? DustDFG (discuss • contribs) 06:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi @DustDFG! These are good questions, and thank you for asking. I'll try to answer them below:

1. I believe you can't see the review box because you do not have reviewer rights.
2. If you see a page where there is incorrect or confusing information, please feel free to post on its discussion page. You can also reach out to an administrator directly.
3. Are you referring to Template:Stage?
4. In general, it's good practice to divide books up into separate chapters for ease of reading, focus, formatting, and navigation. The template Template:Split allows you to flag books/pages that need to be split up. There are some works that have built-up over time here that are said to be "one-page books", but I have concerns about whether they are well-formatted or even in-scope here.
5. There is no simple answer to this question. Wikibooks:Manual of Style is a draft policy that has been around for many years, but it was never formally agreed-upon. In my personal opinion, I think most educational books should be structured such that the chapters build on each other and aren't circular. I'm sure there could be some exceptions. The Cookbook is one large exception here, since it is technically a sub-project and not a single book.

Let me know if you have more questions! Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 18:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks @Kittycataclysm!

1. Thanks I've already accidentally stumbled upon this info somewhere here and turned out review isn't what I though it is

2. It is not completely incorrect, you know I've just got a feeling by looking on one book.... It is like asking what is an asphalt and getting as answer "it is a thing the cars drive on and people walk over" which is technically correct but is not an answer "it is rocks + some binding material which holds them in place". But what is in the book doesn't feel wrong but it doesn't feel right. Is this case for discussion?

3. Yes

6. Also just to be sure if I just want to say thank you in reply without adding anything else would it be considered as bad manners on wiki or no?

7. Users are encouraged to improve existing books but what if editing of full section (completing a gap) of chapters will lead to "Frankenstein" with two different <...>

7.1 ways of giving information. Half of the book is just a bunch of dry and cold facts and somewhere in between there is chapter which adds knowledge not as a bunch of notes but as beads which follow each other and try to show motivations of why things are certain way and not another

7.2 different emphasizes. For example there is a book about "A" and everything in the book is like "something in relation to A" but what I want to write about "A/subtopic" which won't have an aim as A. It will have as an aim subtopic and A is even going out of scope almost completely and stays in the point of view just because it is impossible to talk about subtopic without mentioning A. Is it considered a case of new book?

8 Does users get notification if I reply but not mention using @username syntax?

9 Would it be normal if book is constructed in a way that it must be read fully? I mean if it intentionally gives "incorrect" definitions of subject "to explore" particular parts of it in isolated manner and then in next chapter evolves/discards previous wrong definition and replaces it with a more correct definition? So just formally if you just read only part you get utterly wrong understanding... DustDFG (discuss • contribs) 20:14, 31 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

• I'm not sure I understand what you mean about thanking people, but I don't think anyone would have a problem with you thanking them!
• One of the trickier things about making books is indeed that it takes a lot of work to make a consistent book. If you're working on an existing book, you should try to keep the style and content cohesive—admittedly, this takes effort.
• I can't quite visualize what you're asking in 7.2—can you give a concrete example?
• I'm not entirely sure when exactly someone gets a notification—I do sometimes get a notification from a reply without a ping, but I've also noticed that sometimes I miss a reply if it doesn't include a ping. When I want to be sure someone gets alerted, I will ping them just in case.
• It's a little hard to evaluate this in the abstract—if you're thinking of something in particular, you can propose it in a new thread and discuss it with the community in detail.

Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Kittycataclysm about 7.2:

There is a book about OS. I am interested in memory management part of the book but I am not interested in OS part. So while whole the book tries to write "There is <...> and it is used in OS in this way and in that way", I want to just write about memory management and just formally it is OS but I don't want to explain OS part if it is not necessary for memory management. So I invert focus point which is changing style but I see that I need a new book because can't adhere to existing style :) DustDFG (discuss • contribs) 07:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

There is a page I've restored from vandalism and now the last reviewed version doesn't differ from current version so shouldn't the message that page is unreviewed go? The page if it matters https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=C%2B%2B_Programming/Templates DustDFG (discuss • contribs) 17:15, 2 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

From a cursory glance, I'm not sure why this occurred—at any rate, thank you for the fix, and I've reviewed it! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Looks like https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Windows_10%2B_Recovery_Environment_(RE)_Notes doesn't belong to https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Category:Code_templates but I can't find how it was added there DustDFG (discuss • contribs) 11:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@DustDFG I'm not quite I'm sure what you mean here—could you clarify? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Kittycataclysm OK

1. You go to https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Category:Code_templates

2. You see that there should be only templates

3. You stumble upon https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Windows_10%2B_Recovery_Environment_(RE)_Notes in that category

4. You think that it is wrong and mistake

5. You go editing https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Windows_10%2B_Recovery_Environment_(RE)_Notes to remove it from that category

6. There is no that category in https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Windows_10%2B_Recovery_Environment_(RE)_Notes so it is probably was added with some other template and I am not able to find how to remove it from there :( DustDFG (discuss • contribs) 06:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Fixed This was from Template:DDiv, which didn't have the category properly in the noinclude tags. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:09, 14 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure if it is a "server cache" or anything else but the page is still showed in that category DustDFG (discuss • contribs) 10:07, 15 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm not quite sure why that is—I've purged the category page, to no avail. I think this is beyond my depth. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 15:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

What I need: there are several (sub)sections scattered around the book. And there is one separate page which includes all of them. When you change code in the original page it is changed in that "gather" page too. I need not collections. I am sure there exist solution. I've already seen several times how separate page is included into several other pages. I even can't find where I've seen that not to mention where to search for it DustDFG (discuss • contribs) 17:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Accidentally found answer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Transclusion searching for another DustDFG (discuss • contribs) 08:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Heya, I recommend using {{Excerpt}} because it makes sure there is only ever one "true" version of the text. There is no documentation page for it right now unfortunately; I am going to write one up shortly. In the meantime, an example of how to use it can be seen in the source code of the following page: C Programming/Alternative tokens#iso646.h huntertur (discuss • contribs) 23:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Exactly what I was searching for. Though docs seems to be in place DustDFG (discuss • contribs) 06:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am interested in both direct and transitive use DustDFG (discuss • contribs) 20:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Go to the template page you are interested in, then click on What links here in the sidebar. This will take you to a page where you can see all uses of the template, though direct links to the template page are included in this list too by default. You can also go to Special:WhatLinksHere and set the page name and namespace accordingly. huntertur (discuss • contribs) 23:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

1. I am almost sure I understand correctly and there are book local templates

2. If 1 is correct is it forgivable to create them? DustDFG (discuss • contribs) 21:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean by forgivable? I'm fairly certain that you can create book-specific templates without a problem. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I mean I want to create a template which is general use type. It could be used by other books too but it would mean I need to create very complex thing to allow customizing it and as a short path I want to create template without any customizations which is local to book and isn't seen in global namespace (I hope it works so) but I would consider it as "low effort" and if everyone would do so it would lead to chaos so I ask when it is forgivable DustDFG (discuss • contribs) 06:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Apparently there is a Directory of Open Access Books, but I do not see any Wikibooks listed there:

https://directory.doabooks.org/discover?query=wikibook&submit=

DOAB does not allow for the addition of individual books but for collections of such books instead.

https://doabooks.org/en/publishers/join-doab

Could someone authorized to represent Wikibooks please add the featured books collection to DOAB? Thanks. Larsnooden (discuss • contribs) 04:10, 10 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Larsnooden! I took a look at this, and I'm not quite sure we meet the criteria for that for a few reasons. I'm also not sure editors here are authorized to represent Wikibooks per se. Thank you for raising it, though! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 22:56, 14 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I guess the DOAB would also need adjust their requirements a little to accommodate Featured Wikibooks. I have tried sending an e-mail to them about the process to see if they have any interest in the material here. — Larsnooden (discuss • contribs) 10:20, 15 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello! My edit was blocked by the spam filter.

All content is my own work for the project "Educational Development of Great Britain".

Could an admin please review and approve the edit?

Thank you! Guliismailova (discuss • contribs) 06:39, 11 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm new to Wikibooks, and I decided I want to make a book on rotating polytopes given vertices with rotation matrices, so can I just jump in and create the book, or are there prerequisite steps? From my searching, there doesn't seem to already be any book on the rotation of polytopes. CasualCycloneTracker180897 (discuss • contribs) 03:45, 16 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@CasualCycloneTracker180897 you can certainly create a new book. Keep in mind that this project is relatively low activity, and creating a book takes a good amount of effort. You'll first need to decide on the scope of the book, making sure it falls into the WB scope, then create a main page and table of contents, as well as an introduction outlining the scope. I would personally recommend starting in your personal sandbox, and then moving to main space once you've gotten a solid start. Let me know if you have any questions! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 03:55, 16 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Now that I saw the What is Wikibooks page, I think what I'm thinking of could fit better as a lecture in Wikiversity rather than a textbook in Wikibooks. Thanks for the guidance anyway! CasualCycloneTracker180897 (discuss • contribs) 03:59, 16 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

No problem :) —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 04:00, 16 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is it normal to review my own changes? It feels a bit not fair DustDFG (discuss • contribs) 12:03, 16 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

As far as I'm aware, there's no rule against it! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 03:13, 17 November 2025 (UTC)Reply