Talk:C++ Programming/All Chapters

History Log

• This book was initiated as the Programming:CPP book on 30 October 2003 by User:Noldoaran after an anonymous request for coverage of the subject on 27 October 2003 in the assigned page.
• Book content was forked. Resulting in Programming:CPP and Programming:C-/--/- action initiated by User:Panic.
• Book content was merged with Programming:C-/--/- into its original location as requested. (see User_talk:Mshonle/Fork_issue_2 and archives)
• Book conventions and scope were unilaterally defined/started by User:Mshonle after the forced merge.
• Book was renamed from Programming:CPP into Programming:C++.
• Book was renamed as C++ Programming.
• Book was nominated for VFD on 27 February 2007 by User:Xania and decision ended as keep (survived deletion) on 28 February 2007 by User:Darklama (archive of the VFD).
• Book C++ Exercises for beginners was merged into C++ Programming in 27 December 2007 by User:Panic as proposed by User:Merrheim and not opposed since 5 March 2006 (archived discussion).
• Book Title/Cover/Front page was under dispute, a target heavy discussion and a source of general conflict since 11 December 2006 when the move protection previously done by Mshonle after the merge was removed in an attempt to unilaterally impose a new structure to the book. Restoration only occurred in 15 April 2010 and the page is again move protected.

Locations of posts

Please try to post on the related (and listed) sub-talks/discussion areas use this page for general notifications only, txs... --Panic 03:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

See also the discussion at #Flat structure below. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You are open to disagree and state your objections what you are not open to do is to force you view on others... like you did here. Opposition has also a time limitation. A right timing to be expressed. It is not that things can't be undone, but the task of undoing or changing what other previously have done if not seen as beneficial has the label of destruction, at least to anyone but the one that destroys. This is why a process of discussion has to take primacy to most drastic actions.

I'm not opposing the changes to the talk pages just on the methodology used as it goes beyond Be Bold policy. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 21:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Stage short vs decistage

I have replaced {{decistage}} with {{stage short}} in C++ Programming/Chapters/C++/Summary, as the latter seems much less intrusive. If people agree with this replacement, we can perform it in all subchapters. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

At this stage that is only an aesthetic choice, I myself have a mental idea of how each section is but even so the bar permits to have a better understanding of the development stage that your proposed change (something that I wouldn't object if the stages were already at a level that was usable). --Panic (discuss • contribs) 01:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, but until there is more support for my proposal, there is not much I can do. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 17:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for you this special regard to the opposition. It is not a case of support but consensus and ultimate benefit to the work. It seems clear that alienating those that have been working on would be rather unsocial... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 21:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Flat structure

Not sure if I should put my comment at the beginning or the end. Sorry if it is in the wrong place. This book is on hold, because of a dispute. Not sure if the flat file vs. slash method is reason. But if it is why not just use redirection? Keep the slash version for maintenance of the book structure and actual pages, but also make redirection pages for individual items. This is a programming language. One person may look up classes while other may look up exceptions. 19:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It should have been at the end. This discussion has been over for a while. I think what you are stating as redirection is transclusion, we already use it in some pages as to increase maintainability but there is an issue with the print function that has a limit to the number of transcluded pages. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 23:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

IMHO flat structure is much better suited to Wikibooks than a deep structure. Thus, I propose to move C++_Programming/Programming_Languages/C++/Code/Statements/Variables/Type_Casting to C++_Programming/Type_Casting, thus undoing a move from 7 October 2010‎ by Panic2k4. I propose to proceed in a similar fashion with other chapters.

Related discussions: Talk:C++_Programming/Conventions#flat page structure. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The book presently uses extensive deep structures for instance in the case of keywords and other general structures, flat structure would go against the normal practice and be non productive since the / convention is being used for navigation. A reader on the type casting page will be easily able to navigate to the Variables page as it is now...

What improvement do you see in that move and why are you posting here in place of the proper discussion page that others may be watching ? Also, why the change to the assigned talk structure that is easier to fallow in such a big project ? --Panic (discuss • contribs) 01:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Flat structure is the normal practice in Wikibooks; just check around. This practice is productive in countless books in Wikibooks. The path "C++_Programming/Programming_Languages/C++" seems like a particularly poor redundancy.

I am posting here to make it easier for me and others to collaborate on this book. Dispatching contributors to several discussion pages for a single book creates needless barrier of entry for newcomers. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Flat structure is not "the norm" it is the most common only because of historical reasons, after the adoption of the slash convention that to some point deprecated most extraneous navigational schemes (that I profoundly dislike and see as a maintenance nightmare on the long run), the new works have been implementing similar complex structures even older project have moved rapidly to adopt the advantages provided by the riches structure (like the Ada project). I think you can take me on my word since I'm on the project since 2004...

Since this page clearly provides specific forums for specific issues I don't see a problem in accommodating the existing setup if as it is properly indicated. Wikibooks is not Wikipedia pages aren't individual articles and most people will miss discussions if not made in a more general location.

I noticed that your unwillingness to comply was intentional, since you even removed the previous request for compliance. I do not agree with your view on this regard and question how you can infer that it is a barrier for newcomers since it has worked well so far... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 13:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

To begin with, you would do well to separate sentences by punctuation; 'Flat structure is not "the norm" it is the most common only because of historical reason' is ungrammatical, and hard to parse.

The flat structure is not an artifact of Wikibooks history. It has been discussed in Wikibooks, but I cannot find the discussion.

The confusing setup of discussion pages for this book has not worked well, as far as I can see. I have no reason to comply with regulations that you have invented for this talk page, especially if they create artificial bareers for contributors. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I defend that it is an artifact of Wikibooks history and Wikimedia software in general, people are still not fully aware of the slash convention and the benefit to navigation of works it provides. The flat structure for simple projects is fine for instance in the work I'm doing on Remembering the Templars it is still a flat structure (or in the House Construction project), in this case since the material may be used sequential or as quick reference there is a benefit to the slash convention and deep paths.

Being contrary is your option, I doubt that you did not understood the request and I continue to disagree that you (or I for that matter) can claim any knowledge on how it impacts contributors (even if I can claim more experience if not only on this specific instance). All persons that have intentionally gone out of their way to make a point about the setup have been perfectly aware and able to comply with the request to use the proper indicated forum... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 15:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

To verify that creating the dedicated pages has stiffled contribution to talk pages, one only needs to look at the separate pages and the rates of recent contributions:

• Talk:C++_Programming/Q&A; last post: February 2012
• Talk:C++_Programming/Content; last post: 8 May 2010
• Talk:C++_Programming/Conventions; last post: 9 August 2010

Furthermore, the benefit of having two pages for content and conventions is obviously missing, given the two pages host 10 section headings with posts in total. The number of posters on these two pages is 7, including you. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

That does not prove your point, in fact having different discussion pages is logically older than any posts on those pages, since the pages were created as specific discussion forums, hence your conclusion fails to be validated.

It also interesting to note that there hasn't been generally many contributors to the work, in fact the principal decline in contributions was due to two factors, the forced merge of the two distinct versions of the project and the adoption of the new page revision system (globally), this regarding activity in all the specific project's pages in regards to the discussion pages in general the activity has always been very small and it only get active when there is some edit conflict going on, all attempts to coordinate participation have never succeeded, not even when there was a single main talk page. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 22:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It does prove my point, especially when you compare the current rate of contribution to these talk pages with the rate of contribution that this talk page used to have. You have removed great many contributions from this talk page without properly archiving them; see also #Removed discussions. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Reset

I think I have expressed well why a flat structure is something that is not beneficial in many levels, from navigations to the complexity of the works that would be required now to enact that transformation. Even to the point of degrading the structure of the work (as mentioned how the keyword systems works, transclusions, tables etc.). I also note that most new works have stopped using flat structures unless they are single paged or with a few pages (that makes sense). As such I'm blocking the proposal for a change to this specific work, as a contributor to it and even as a rule (I would oppose this move in any other complex work). --Panic (discuss • contribs) 21:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to further explain the path you first mentioned (note that the path may be long but that is relatively unimportant since readers don't need to worry about that and editors only when referencing). The idea of the C++ Programming/Programming Languages/C++ was used to introduce comparisons with other languages it is also intended in the future to demostrate how the languages can interact. I'm just adding this bit of info since I did not make it clear above. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 05:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I would like to second the nomination for a flat structure. The current system is needlessly complex. KISS is good advice in this case. Thenub314 (talk) 03:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

To revert the work to a flat structure would be almost impossible and at least extremely disruptive, any contributor that does not like of finds difficulty in handling the the slash convention structure that is adopted can simply ignore it or ask for help.

Yes it is complex but we could say the same about understanding Wikimedia markup, the template system etc if the functionality of the software would permit to have the same easy of auto-updated navigational aids and structuring in a flat structure I would fully support the idea but the number of pages and content in the work no longer permits that basic structure. There are no longer any flat structure books being created after the introduction of the possibility doing it with increasing path depths.

Look at the freaking structure of this book and consider the works it would take to make it flat, well not flat, since some pages would still have to be at least at level 3 or 4 to have any usefulness, like the keywords use that I stated to implement before all this tackling tactics stated to implement something similar to what is on the Ada Programming (Ada Programming/Keywords/for). I'm half minded to put you in the spot to implement the "flat" structure, just to see you putting in the effort of doing what you are promoting. Believe me that I know the difficulty (I moved the freaking thing 2 times) and even now it is still not all in the right position. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 06:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I would disagree that there aree that there are "no longer any flat structure books being created" I have personally witnessed several. I also find the navigational aids far from being useful. They seem to amount to little more than categories, there is no device for moving from one page to the next page. The auto-generated links at the top do not provide a way of doing this that I am aware of. So overall I would prefer a flat sturcture where it is clear to new comers where to place new pages, and navigational aids for getting from one page to the next. Thenub314 (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I grant you that all books are initiated in a flat structure, and that we haven't had since mid 2006 any big book come about. If you look at any large book before that they use multiple and hard to maintain navigational schemes (and have been stale for some time) Ada Programming has some action from time to time (depth 4). Navigational schemes was something that was tested on the C++ Programming, but since were removed.

We can look at books around the same size Chess (depth 5), Cultural Anthropology (monolithic flat, needs splitting up) but for instance Radiation Oncology one of the large book created recently has a depth of (depth 5). I could probably have been more specific in mentioning complex subjects for instance the C Programming that I have made only toke edits has evolved to replicate the C++ Programming (now has a depth of 5), examples abound that with complexity and large number of pages (smaller pages) the flat structure soon becomes impossible.

I note to you that I fought strongly to keep the page in a single page during much of his development and most of the structure was not even my creation, so I can not even be seen as in defending the superiority of one structure over the other what I defend is that due to software limitations the slash convention and deeper paths helps automate a navigation system that suffices in most instances (I'm not opposing adding navigational aids as soon as the book is near "fleshed out", you can look in the records and I always defended this position). What I strongly object is a new reshuffle, adding premature navigational aids as having proven a failure or that the current format is the reason for lack of contributions, when most of what keeps people contributing is these endless discussions and alterations about aesthetics.

Another reason that the argument becomes invalid is simply because of my continued availability to help anyone that has any difficulties contributing, in this project and on Wikibooks in general. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 00:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

To give an example in the other direction work on Linear Algebra came about after 2006, and uses a flat structure outside pages which give solutions to exercises, which are outside the main flow of the text. A flat structure is not difficult and certainly not impossible. Navigational aides are not that difficult to add or maintain either.

The argument that you'll be around to help is not very convincing. Everyone, including yourself, from time to time is not around. Even if you were around 24/7, you may never realize that someone somewhere is struggling to figure it out. It is only when people stop at the discussion page that you would have any indication there is trouble. If they give up in frustration before that point we would have no idea. Let me be clear that I am not suggestion the structure discourages all people, or even most people, but certainly it does discourage some people.

Lastly if discussion of alterations keep people contributing why oppose them so strongly? Did you mean to say this is what discourages people? Thenub314 (talk) 03:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Glancing back over some old conversations I realized it seemed that until about 2 years ago the convention was to use a flat page structure, until it was changed without consensus here. I would like to point out several of the arguments made at the time of the change, about the ambiguity of where to create pages was also expressed in this comment.

Location of table of contents

I propose to bring the table of contents back to C++ Programming page. The TOC was there back on 22 March 2007, as you can see in this revision.

Put differently, I disagree with the creation of a deep structure for TOC, which does not bring any benefits and makes it harder to edit and understand what is going on. The deep structure includes C++ Programming/Chapters (created on 8 May 2010‎), C++ Programming/Chapters/C++/Summary, C++ Programming/Chapters/Fundamentals/Summary, C++ Programming/Chapter Object Oriented Programming Summary, C++ Programming/Chapter Advanced Features Summary, and C++ Programming/Chapter Beyond the Standard Summary. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have looked on your contribution to the Wikibooks project. Any special reason for your interest in this project ?

The chapter pages are all done to centralize alteration to the book structure in a way that it facilitates changes and maintenance. The book structure should not be altered haphazardly since a lot of effort was made to keep a flow on the book structure. In fact the work is still under restructuring, only the first two chapters are more or less in a final state, location wise. To have a better vision on page locations use the category page of the book. I also note that the existing TOC does bring benefits to at least the work primary editor and is not a recent creation, it is something that has evolved along the years, I could not disagree more on the issue that it makes the structure harder to understand. I would agree that I could make changing the structure a bit harder to do for those that have less experience with wikimedia markup (but that at this stage is a plus). --Panic (discuss • contribs) 13:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed discussions

This talk page had discussions about C++ Programming that were removed. It is possible that they were moved to Talk:C++ Programming/Archives, but that page has been deleted on 2 August 2011. To see more of these discussions, see the revision history of this talk page. IMHO someone should restore Talk:C++ Programming/Archives. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Some revisions of this talk page with significant content that is apparently nowhere properly archived, as Google search does not find sentences from these revisions:

• 1439961, 10 March 2009
• 1274637, 10 September 2008
• 842979, 25 April 2007
• 828179, 12 April 2007
• 809010, 27 March 2007
• 708474, 4 January 2007, including a link to Wikibooks:Arbitration/Panic2k4_vs._SBJohnny
• 707535, 3 January 2007
• 386370, 4 March 2006
• 234683, 15 September 2005

This book has survived a nomination for deletion: Wikibooks:Requests_for_deletion/C++_Programming. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Adrignola has copied some of these historical revisions to proper archives; thanks!

There are now the following archive pages:

• Talk:C++ Programming/Archive 1
• Talk:C++ Programming/Archive 2
• Talk:C++ Programming/Archive 3
• Talk:C++ Programming/Archive 4
• Talk:C++ Programming/Archive 5
• Talk:C++ Programming/Archive 6
• Talk:C++ Programming/Content/Archive 1
• Talk:C++ Programming/Content/Archive 2
• Talk:C++ Programming/Content/Archive 3
• Talk:C++ Programming/Conventions/Archive 1
• Talk:C++ Programming/Conventions/Archive 2
• Talk:C++ Programming/Conventions/Archive 3

Having three sets of archives to search is not so nice. Talk:C++ Programming/Content and Talk:C++ Programming/Conventions talk pages should be better discontinued, and all discussion that pertains to the book as a whole as opposed to individual chapters should be lead here, on "Talk:C++ Programming". --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I the project nothing is really deleted or lost (it can be corrupted but it would required administrative rights). The archives here are no great conspiracy I examined what happened to the archive page and by dates and what was deleted (the archive index) what happened is that I, with an high probability, wile cleaning the main namespace of the book tagged the page for deletion and the talk page (where the relevant index was) got deleted.

Archiving talk pages is not an obligation nor a common practice, on Wikibooks it is only customary to do so on pages with discussions of importance as to permit doing searches. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 21:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism

In the following page, charges of plagiarism have been mentioned:

• Wikibooks:Requests_for_deletion/C++_Programming

It seems that some content licensed under GNU GFDL has been taken over into this book, back when Wikibooks content was licensed under GNU GFDL rather than under CC-BY-SA. I emphasize that GNU GFDL requires attribution; even if the Wikibooks editor taking over the content was free to add the content to Wikibooks, he must not misrepresent himself as the author of the content.

I would like to know which GNU GFDL resources have been incorporated into C++ Programming, and who the authors are. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Some of my own personal grievances against Panic include his pasting material from other books (whether GFDL'd or not), [...] Paddu 09:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)" (Wikibooks:Arbitration/Panic2k4_vs._SBJohnny/Plaintiff_Charges) --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Here is a discussion in a section with a typo: "Plagarism ?", from November 2004 . --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This are old issues have already been discussed and resolved. As you previously have mentioned the book survived a request for deletion, the information about works used and copyright is clearly stated on the work as are the logs of the RfD process. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 22:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Panic2k4

In 2010, Panic2k4 has turned C++ Programming Wikibook upside down. The user was subject to arbitration back in 2007 in Wikibooks:Arbitration/Panic2k4_vs._SBJohnny. According to Wikibooks:Arbitration/Panic2k4 vs. SBJohnny/Plaintiff Charges, Panic2k4 had made it difficult for other editors to edit the C++ Wikibook. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

That is your opinion and you are free to express it. The arbitration process was aborted if any conclusion can be extracted from it was that the general community found the facts were not substantiative enough to reach a consensus about the subject. As for the quality of the work or even to its structure I find it amusing that many other works have duplicated my approach and historically records prove that by a large margin without my contributions there wouldn't be much of a book to turn upside down. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 22:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk page reorganization

I strenuously oppose any attempt to further "reorganize" this talk page in a way that is not customary in Wikibooks. In particular, I oppose any attempt to move my contributions made to this talk page to any other place but a proper archive, which would be something like Talk:C++ Programming/Archive, Talk:C++ Programming/Archive 2, or the like.

Panic2k4 has been asked not to reorganize the talk pages before, in this edit to his talk page from 23 December 2006 by SBJohnny. He has rejected to comply. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

A quotation: "I also would like to add that right from his early days here Panic probably didn't understand how talk pages work and kept rearranging the talk pages of the C++ book, causing a concern that my comments/ideas were being made less prominent for others to discuss/build on. [...] Paddu 09:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)", from Wikibooks:Arbitration/Panic2k4_vs._SBJohnny/Plaintiff_Charges. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I have copied the content from the archived revisions that you previously linked to archives now linked from the archive box at the top. Other archives are linked from the other discussion pages inside the other box. The RFD-survived box addresses the past deletion discussion. All archives previously linked from the Talk:C++ Programming/Archives are now linked from here or a sub-discussion page. So the "removed discussions" section should no longer be needed. – Adrignola discuss 03:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. The #Removed discussions should stay; you don't delete old posts to discussion pages. I continue in #Removed discussions, as this is a bit off-topic in this section. This section asks that this talk page is no long violated. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The search box for archives that you have added does not work, as it does not search in the "talk:" namespace. It seems {{archives}} template needs a fix. Later: I was probably wrong; it is probably going to work when the servers catch up with the recent moves and creations of archive pages. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Big text

I oppose inserting big text to the top of the main page of the book. So does Ruakh in this diff. Nonetheless, my edits get reverted by Panic2k4. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Again this change was opposed, it can't even be seen as beneficial and should be undone. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 22:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

On most of the computers I have used the top part of the larger text was always cut off. The current form seems to be an improvement. Thenub314 (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

You had mentioned that before (not on this work) and I thought that it was a problem solved. (An alternative that some have adopted was to use an image) Do you have problems with it in other pages ? (interesting to note that google can't detect "{{DISPLAYTITLE:"). The works I contribute to are not the only using it to permit a distinction in title size (or removal of it completely and substitute the function by an image) but all have been moved to that setup check On spies and stratagems I think is using exactly the same font configuration that was active on the C++ Programming (if and when you have the time try tweaking the fonts characteristic and size and see if it does anything for you). (PS: Bonus point if you can name the owner of that eye without clicking on the image :)... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 22:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Sadly I am scoring no bonus points today. Looking back through the history more carefully some versions cut off and some do not. It does seem to be fixed in the most recent version. I was looking back at the version referenced by Ruakh. For what it is worth, I find the smaller text more appealing, but it seems it is a purely aesthetic matter. Thenub314 (talk) 02:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Even if restoring the previous state would not void the position presented by Dan Polansky. In case a Be Bold action the any opposition means the preservation of the status quo previous to the opposed change. That is the right to block an alteration and proceed a discussion toward a consensus to validate that change. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 21:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure I follow your logic above. You seem to say there is a "right to block an alteration"? Whose right? And I am very unsure what you mean by the sentence "Even if restoring the previous state would not void the position presented by Dan Polansky"... I am taking it to mean: "Restoring the previous [big text] state will not void Dan Polansky's position". Correct me if you meant something else

In any case, this is the situation as I understand it. Ruakh comes along and removes the display title and gets reverted by you. Dan Polansky agrees with Ruakh and changes it back, I come along and agree with both of them. You disagree with your fellow editors, ignore their input and change it back to a big text display. This seemed a bit heavy handed to me, so I changed it back and suggested we give the conversation a bit more time to reach a consensus (via an edit summary).

Am I understanding your comments from my talk page correctly? You find this to be illogical and contrary to common practice and Policy? The rest of your comment suggests we have different opinions about when one can/should use the undo tool, but let's put that aside for the moment. And focus on the title. Thenub314 (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyone is (and should) be able to block any type of alteration within reason (modicum of commonsense) and valid argumentation, lets say the "Because I do not like it" types of arguments will not justify a block and that those that will attempt to block must be able to at least listen to the motives behind the proposed change.

This type of logic is basic. Lets say I alter any page, I will not require justification nor permission what is asked is that I recognize that others will be permitted to object to that change (by the Be Bold) and that the change will be addressed by the normal decision process.

Imagine that I change any page, any WIkibookian will be allowed to block within reason my alteration, the change is reversed and the decision process initiated. High impact alterations, that we could even argue that altering a work's cover page may constitute, especially if it has active editors would even require a proposal of the intended change before making it (it depends on the change and the state of the work) I have altered many cover pages or restructured works but never attempted to impose my structure in works I'm not involved.

You also state a wrong understanding of this particular situation. See the date of the discussion of Ruakh (that was addressed properly on User talk:Ruakh), put that in context with the general actions of Dan Polansky, and you will have your answer regarding validity and intention. In any case I gave 7 days for Dan Polansky to continue exposing his view that is resumed to "oppose inserting big text to the top of the main page of the book" that my last action does not go directly against, granted that it is a thin distinction. I simply restored a earlier proposal by a previous Wikibookian that users an image, even as an attempt to address the concerns you expressed here. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 23:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

If I understand correctly you feel the current version doesn't meet Dan's complaint because it is an image of text instead of text it the CS sense? Thenub314 (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Since Dan's complain does not go beyond opposing the insertion of big text to the top of the page (something that was in place for at least several months), it is hard to decide what reasons he has for it or give any validity to his position. There are plenty of works that use the same solution (I have taken the idea from other works in the first place). I see no reason at this time to validate or heed Dan's objection, but in place of reversing it (again) I have opted by an image in accordance to your own participation on the discussion (that it seems also had no technical ground) but serves the same purpose and was in place for several years before I substituted with the text. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 02:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I cannot speak for Dan, but personally I don't find switching for text to an image a reasonable compromise. The comments were more the display size rather then the method by which the characters are formed. As an aside, the number of months is irrelevant, as new editors get involved in existing projects they will invariably be changing things that had been in place for quite a long time. Of course existing editors also have a vested interest in the project, and they opinion should be considered equally with the new editors. In this case I suggest we leave the title as is now until Dan returns to clarify if he is happy with it, or until someone else chimes in. Thenub314 (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It was not an attempt to compromise, since Dan's objection is not fully explained (and understood). But as I said it was also not a reversal or in direct opposition to Dan's statement.

The number of months is not irrelevant. One thing is to object to a recent change like I did, another is to object to something that obtained consensus by no timely objection (discussions do not remain indefinitely opened, unless that is a stated consensual choice). This is how things work, I can not come to the project and state that a policy or a guideline is not valid because I did not participate in its discussion or I dislike it even if I have extremely good arguments for a change. One can only propose the it is changed. In other words what you are stating is that anyone could go altering any page (even cause disruption or havoc) without consideration for what others have done before without ever bothering about obtaining consensus, the Be Bold specifically states that this is not the way to go (this in not about editorial control, but civility). Even if Dan continued to object to the change, the best option failing a consensus agreement would the be the preservation of the status quo that existed before he took any action, because my objection is not founded in a rigid attempt to be uncompromising, that this it was unique to this work and ultimately if the issue is merely esthetical both views have the same value. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 03:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I have protected the book's main page while there is an ongoing disagreement to stop escalation and multiple reverts from continuing per previous precedence. --darklama 18:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Noted but I express my reservations and will address the action properly at a later time. I must state to the record that per previous precedence you had all incentives to exclude yourself for taking any action. To me and taking in consideration the version you decided to make static, the action was not impartial nor proper. I see nothing that was addressed by the protection, besides a validation for you own reversion. Since there was not a real conflict going on, a discussion yes but with Thenub314 not the original proponent for the change. If Thenub314 was promoting escalation by the user that was at best being unreasonable, you action is just baffling (but sadly not totally unexpected even if I hopped people had gained some sense, as for me I'm only being consistent).

There are better ways to make a point and win an argument, recourse to this type of harassment can never be seen as positive or productive action. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 19:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The page is how it was prior to the objections raised by this thread. The edit protection addresses the recent pattern of repeatedly undoing an edit that is objected to instead of discussing and reaching a consensus before taking any further action on the matter. Within the last 50 edits, 15 relate one way or another to the objections raised to in this thread, which includes the edit I made to restore the page to a prior revision ^{(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15)}. --darklama 20:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Get off your high horse Darklama, you are soiling it with mud. Why this thread, if the first objection is on the user's talk page ? There was no undoing I reverted Thenub314 1 time and he reverter me the same amount (argumentation closed in in-satisfaction only for me, since I did not reverted it to the initial state and any of Thenub314 "me too" argumentations is incoherent at best), this one day before your action. If this was not occurring I wouldn't believe it to be possible, the freaking title was an image of text before I removed the redundancy, this thread is of such absurdity that any validity was a stillborn. I stick to what I have said, again an improper user of administrative tools. The simple and undeniable fact is that simple dialog would have removed the need for the protection, and there is no argumentation against that simple fact. You have openly accused me of many things but never of being unreasonable, in fact I'm still here by being extremely reasonable and consistent on my position, even admitting my own shortcomings. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 22:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I am unable to understand your train of thought. Thenub314 didn't start this thread. I have no opinions about whether the title should consist of an image, some text using a big font size, nothing, or something else. I agree that simple dialog without repeat use of the undo/rollback/revert tool would have removed any need for protection. Everyone is free to disagree and state their objections, what they are not open to do is to force their views on others, this includes you. By repeatedly undoing a change reinstated by different people, you force your views on others. Even if you disagree, the simple fact is people will continue to remove it as long as they are not swayed by your arguments and do not see the merits of your objections, creating more work for you. --darklama 13:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a lot of poppycock! People in this case are at most 3 users, including yourself, against my alterations (each one time) and not in succession. And all reversions made are not about the content (remember that this is about aesthetics), but of proposed alterations, that were as valid as the first proponent.

That you have no opinion about the issue I can accept a true but not that your action is impartial and done to the intention you claim (to avoid conflict and expedite a resolution).

The facts are that the original proponent is not participating, the second has had his objection addressed and the third, yourself had all the reasons in the world not to revert it in the first place. As I said poppycock... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 17:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

To get back to the original subject, I did not like the image, as the text was still rather large, but I was willing to tolerate it, for the purposes of ending the fight, unless someone else cared. In hopes of trying to build a consensus we could simply use something like {{book title}} which I believe uses a smaller font but still nicely centers the title. It is also seems to be a widely used template. Thenub314 (talk) 07:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Continuing in this path is useless, or you fight for a general agreement of the community around book-titles (and general format) or you let those that are working on the projects decide whatever makes them happy to continue working.

If you have a distaste with the solution go find one of the projects that has it implemented that has become stale and change it, if not respect primacy and the right for blocking changes that do not infringe anyone's rights, degrades works or puts in any risk Wikibooks or Wikimedia, any other course of action ultimately is damaging to the project.

It is also clear and reasonable, the feeling I have of suspicion. Why is it that I, that actively and vocally speak for my viewpoints am the preferred target for this type of harassment... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 07:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

┌──────┘
Continuation since the questions made in 15 April 2012 (UTC) were not answered properly and the issues have arisen in another discussion.
My understanding today is that there is no way in hell that Darklama agrees with me on how to address edit conflicts or how his interventions have always been destructive. My view is simple. Be Bold everywhere, but be civil and respectful of objections. An opposition to a Be Bold action can only be resolved by a reversal of the action, preferentially by mutual agreement, but that is not always possible, and should be a door for the process of consensus. Process that may not be forced (coerced, lack of participation results in failure to advance ones motion) and may even not end in consensus, but in a block position to the change. Deadlocks are ultimately temporal, participants with less motivation will drop the issue or time will provides a solution. A block of a decision should not be seen as permanent (our decision process permits a majority bypass of a block, but that should be a drastic exception not the rule, if not all decisions are by majority).
I'm only stating this for others. I know Darklama's position is antagonic and unlikely to change. But it is at the core of dispute resolutions (and most of my past conflicts with Darklama).
A reverse war (edit conflict) arises when 3 edits are made in close succession by at least 2 people around the same edit content (it can be argued how close or similar the changes need to be, as to become relevant) and 2 of these contents are reversals (real - functional, or practical - content change). A single change and a subsequent reversal is not an edit conflict by itself if well commented and/or dialog is opened (I only do this with registered users, this is common practice).
Darklama raises the issue of past conflicts, something that I do not recognize as relevant. A conflict or dispute ends in time after a process of dialog is terminated (it can be conclusive or inconclusive but it terminates if neither part takes more action during at least 7 days 30 max, depending on the relevance). I have always worked to address any conflicts, this is so documented.
I do not recognize Darklama's (or any other Wikibookians) claim to represent other Wikibookians interests/views/opinions or wishes without those users explicit consent to it in a timely (on a valid time frame near the relevant discussion) and verifiable fashion (logs on project), exceptions were policy or guidelines are being violated. Not the case. Being this my view. I do not recognize Darklama's as lawful (right or based in Wikibooks policy or guidelines) or called for (requested by another, justified or necessary) and in fact abusive and intentional by the simple fact that dialog was not attempted first and the change validated by administrative action was against my block position and is an imposition by Darklama on his on behalf, to this is added our previous history of permanent conflict in all things linked to this book. In fact acting here as he did goes against claims made by himself previously, since the reason for action was not significant (in fact avoidable) it makes it all more difficult to comprehend or why and from whom is the page still protected ? --Panic (discuss • contribs) 21:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────┘
I do not know why you feel harassed. I think there is nothing I can write that can assure you that harassment is not my intention nor a motivation. I cannot, do not, have not, and would not claim to represent anyone. The page is still edit protected to encourage and give people ample time to represent their own case through dialog. In time, the edit protection will be lifted.

I believe being bold everywhere with civility and respect for objections is an accurate interpretation of the policies, guidelines, and practices. I believe most people most of the time engage in dialog and address objections without reversing actions made in good faith because it is considered civil, out of respect for the possibility that the actions that are objected to may also be due to objections that were addressed through be bold action, and to break the be bold cycle through self restraint that might otherwise continue indefinitely with increase escalation. I believe reversal is not the only nor the recommended means of addressing objections to low impact decisions made in good faith. I believe civility and any decision making strategy requires people compromise and reach a consensus to address objections if decisions are to endure and have any value for awhile. --darklama 07:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

How do you classify actions that have repeatedly and with exhausting efforts attempt not only to thwart my participation (this is clearly one sided, I have not reciprocate in any occasion), or jump to every minor chance of escalating conflicts that I'm involved, this is almost persecutory. Granted that until this last one thing had calmed down. But this page protection is a repetition on how you use the admins tool badly (another example was the situation with james that resulted in my block, exactly the same and uncalled for). So yes this is harassment compounded by effects on the past spread of misinformation and character attack.

My actions in the project speak for themselves I should not have to endure this special treatment and by my work on the project should be given a medic of leeway when handling conflicts (just like most admins give to each-over when they address issues or even when they go out out of control, this is one example of such events). What outcome have you gained by your intervention here and what was your motivation as I do not accept the justification you gave as valid nor see any benefit to the work, project or community in general.

Everyone reverts actions on the spot, it depends a) how has done the action b)what action was take. I do this every day multiple times some I execute a rollback, some I explain the reversion and some I do not revert but open dialog, the number of times this occurs with me and others makes your statement intentionally deceptive and ultimately false.

What I do not accept is that a new change be recognized as valid in face of objections to that change. This is the common practice on how we apply the decision process we do not implement changes before they are agreed upon.

This is also extremely damaging to the project as this book that ultimately depended on my efforts is one of the more active work on Wikibooks. Creating false conflict situations and bypassing other available methods of resolution, to me can only result from an intentional attack or results from incompetency, since it clearly has no considerations for any other factors and consequences (now or in the past, including you initial support for the deletion of the book).

In any case time again will prove me right and show that you used the tools for your own personal purposes... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 12:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not know why you feel persecuted. I do not know why you feel you receive special treatment. I am also confused because you seem to feel persecuted and harassed for receiving special treatment while wanting to receive special treatment in how you handle conflicts. I do not know why you feel you should receive special treatment in addressing conflicts. I do not know why you feel administrators give each other leeway when actions are, as you put it, "out of control". I do not know why you feel my actions are out of control. I do not understand why the past continues to influence your actions and emotions. I do not know what your intentions are by discussing the past. I do not understand why you feel or think recent/current concerns can be addressed by discussing past events. I do not understand why you feel or think the action to protect the book's main page from edits is about you and not about unresolved objections to the book's main page.

I can agree that this book may be one of the more active books on Wikibooks. I can agree that how things are addressed here might be extremely damaging to Wikibooks. I can agree that the community may need to clarify when reversions are and are not an appropriate course of action. I do not understand why you would suggest that bypassing other available methods of resolution is the result of an intentional attack or incompetence while you bypass other available methods of resolution. Maybe I have misunderstood something, but thus far what you have written suggests, in my opinion, that you expect special treatment in other ways too which have not yet been expressed. Should I take your statement to mean that your reversions are the result of an intentional attack on Dan and thenub314, or the result of incompetence (in case of confusion, this is a rhetorical question because I do not know how I was meant to take it or what I was meant to think)?

I assume every revision is the wrong revision, there is no right revision, and people will be unhappy with any revision standing while there is no resolution to objected to revisions. I have and do consider that stepping in to stop reversions from continuing may result in other problems and people focusing on other things besides the original objections. --darklama 14:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You are being disingenuous to say the least. It only requires to take a look on how we have being in conflict in multiple times to clearly observe that I've been not only persecuted, but you have used your administrative powers to escalate issues whenever you could. As I said previously this new "intervention" is extremely similar on how you blocked me on my dialog with James. Only anyone that is not aware of our past divergences could believe in your sincerity regarding that statement. The issue is also not much about our divergences, some are justified and normal. But your constant lack substantiation in your arguments. You consecutively argue about points that have no rational defense ((mostly, I'll grant you that it not always). One could examine the issue you made about the inclusion of the text of the GFDL on print versions and other such previous issues that I had to engage with you about simple commonsensical issues, even this "intervention" will not lead anyware and so becomes clearly abusive and detrimental to the project.

I will agree that our core divergences are in a gray area, but by now we should have a full understanding on our mutual positions. One thing I do not recognize in you is the admission that you have at times been wrong, acted wrongly and that ultimately all you conflicts with me have lead nowhere and have caused damage to the project. One look at the RfD about this work, will serve to see how you quickly put you personal distaste for me above the good of the project. On my part my actions are not personal, I have no personal beef with you beyond your attitudes that from now on I will not excuse as based in bad judgment or as accidents, but fully consciously directed in support of a personal feud you have with me.

Have I ever gone out of my may to prevent you from participating in the project, obstructed you to express your opinions or even commented on your contributions outside of police or guideline discussion ? Have I ever attacked your judgments, qualifications or integrity beyond your actions as an administrator and your actions against me ? Could you say that you have never spread misinformation, deprecated my contributions to the project and connived to do my participation in the project harm. No, you can't, this was clearly admitted. A conspiracy of sorts did exist...

It can further be proven undoubtedly that every time you acted against me has damaged the project unnecessarily, mostly all resulting in annoyances to me, in a continuous process of defamation, even to the point of alienating several Wikibookians, as people do not come to the project to spend time arguing.

I understand your faulty rational of how to deal with reversions. Faulty because it can't be justly implemented. It clearly is an example of your impartiality that you chose the revision that I opposed to be the one locked in place by the page protection. A protection that again I state that is not justified and serves no purpose, since no one objected to my change (this has been clearly stated).

I hope this is the end of this sordid business, time will prove once again who is right or wrong. I have better things to dedicate my time. I will no longer continue to expect you to take the high road, ever... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 22:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) I would like to get back to the actual content issue at hand. Above I made a suggestion about using the {{book title}}, does this seem like a reasonable compromise? Thenub314 (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thenub314 what in view of the previous discussion makes you think that there is an issue at hand, artificially creating an issue is not advancing any open discussion, it only serves in a contrived way to provide grounds to justify Darklama's action. Unless that is the objective please stop...

There are other stale books you could better discuss the title issues or implement your visions without conflict, but in regard to this work lets agree that we had a compromises (between me and you) and let the issue rest.

That is not to say that I stopped defending my right to block the initial change. This is probably a point to initiate a new discussion, we can even come to a communal understanding on how to resolve edit conflicts once and for all, if you see that as important or support the way Darklama intervenes in such issues, as he states above, by all means initiate a discussion on the reading rooms. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 23:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The reason I think there is still an issue is that, despite anything that has been said by Darklama, yourself or I, nothing has been attempted to find a compromise that also takes into account Dan's view on the title. I would be satisfied with the template, it uses a smaller text size so it takes in to account Dan's sense of style. If your also satisfied with it then we have a compromise that works for everyone and the main page of the book can be unprotected. Seems straight forward enough. How do you feel about the title generated by the template? Thenub314 (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You seem not to want to leave the carcass alone. Dan's view is ultimately irrelevant since he is not and did not defend it beyond the initial statement, this is why this subject is unworthy of the trouble it has caused and the time spent on it. There is no compromise needed just because there is no one to compromise with.

In any case I disagree that a sense of style is a valid justification to make a change in a work without granting those working on it an option to veto it. But again this issue is too broad to be made regarding this particular work as I said some posts early if style is something that should have a special treatment or guidelines, or exception to the normal decision process then it should be discussed more broadly.

No one in his perfect senses would object to a clearly beneficial style change but when we star discussing colors, font types etc those it is only a show of civility that those invested in the work should have a say.

I feel that we should not accommodate this type of behavior and still defend Wikibookians right to block any alteration they do not agree with, any edit in any part of Wikibooks. That is the normal process, I do not see any reason to do otherwise. The initial state has been, and is, the point where all discussions begin, the outcome (alteration or not), is reached by consensus. If we must paint the bike-shed, we don't paint it pink and then ask for consensus about keeping the new color we ask consensus about pinking it pink in the first place... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 05:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I feel like this is rephrasing a lot of what you said before, but you fail to address the question asked. What do you think of using the book title template? Thenub314 (talk) 05:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I was not intending to escape the question but the answer had became irrelevant.

In generic terms I do not like the template because it does not address the issue of visually duplicating something that is already stated on the page title. Of course that if we suppress the page title then the template serves more of less the same function than for example the image use I restored in this book. But it then becomes mater of aesthetics, I do not like to see the "From Wikibooks, open books for an open world" alone nor the completion state chevron insulated on the top corner of the page without the title near it. But these are my preferences and aesthetics. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 05:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The title, slogan, and chevron can be suppressed in the book's stylesheet for the book's main page only with .page-C_programming h1, .page-C_programming .subtitle { display:none; }. "+" is stripped from the class name because of its special meaning if anyone is wondering. --darklama 13:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

In this case I would like to propose the following. We use the template to display the title, and suppress chevron and slogan as Panic suggests. This should be a compromise that hopefully works for everyone and then we may unprotect the page. Is this acceptable to everyone else? Thenub314 (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I still do not understand what is the goal in pursuing this thread. Unless you intend to make yourself a party on the discussion regarding the future of this specific item, but that is a new discussion and as I said before badly timed, serving only to put salt on the wound, therefore it is unproductive, not to call it intentionally malevolent by the discrimination made about this particular book, the selection of the time to argue about it and the context in what it is made.

You can not state to be promoting any compromise since there is are no two parties that can establish a compromise.

If you are now defending your own position on the subject, that would constitute a new proposal. In any case the subtraction of useful metadata can not be seen as positive. Darklama was merely being informative.

Your intervention in this subject, as stated, was in defense of Dan's position but not to state your own (when you intervened the discussion was about over since no reply was made), you shouldn't have reverted and if you did revert to impose your own vision that would constitute an abusive move (not that I interpreted it that way), since the discussion on the subject had already happened and you acted with previous knowledge of it. My subsequent alteration (not a reversion) took in consideration Dan's objection ("no big text") and was agreeable to your concerns, ending the issue as you and I have now also stated multiple times. Even if not toward my satisfaction (I continued to prefer the previous version).

Since Dan's was the initiator of the discussion but he did not pursue the subject further in a timely fashion, the course of action now is simply to revert it to the state previous to Dan's intervention since there was no consensus found for keeping the change. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 20:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thankfully understanding my goals is not necessary to discuss content. But if you must know, my goal is to build a consensus. I don't know where you got that I did not have a personal position on this subject. I wouldn't have joined the conversation if I did not. I am not simply defending Dan's position, but also advocating my own. And no, that does not constitute a new proposal.

Where did you get the idea that your alteration was agreeable to my concerns. Let me quote myself about your last alteration: "I cannot speak for Dan, but personally I don't find switching for [the] text to an image a reasonable compromise." Outside of a small grammar issue I think this is pretty clear. My statement that we should wait for Dan to resurface was because at the time I didn't have the energy to argue with you endlessly. When it is just the two of us we rarely come to an understanding. Don't confuse this to mean I have more energy now. I do not. But with the page protected I have been given a bit more motivation to actually try to work with you and build a consensus, rather than the throwing up my hands a walking away. So from this point forward can we please keep the discussion to finding a font/format that we are both happy with? Thenub314 (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Time of discussion does not preclude significance, in fact it is a demonstration of interest to come to a common understanding, non participation however not only serves to demonstrate lack of interest as in this project serves as to indicate a conclusion (as a block, consensus or non-opposition). In fact there is no time limitation on active discussions.

I read that as you validating it as compromise, but not that I was required to also compromise with you. This indication now that you reverted my change based on your own aesthetic opinion, knowing that a recent discussion existed only aggravates your action. I have fully qualified above the event of this type of consideration.

I think most times we discussed we came to an understanding of divergence, but nevertheless an understanding, most of the time a compromise can be found but in situations every view is equally valid and they can be non-consensusal, there is no issue with that... I personally see diversity of thought as being important and valuable, but at the right moments and the right places and toward something of significance. My objection to Dan's alteration was not simply about aesthetics, but in context to his other actions a refusal to validate his irrational activity.

If you read my answers carefully I've already replied to you multiple times (hence why I see no purpose on you forcefully continue to dig in deeper). I don't see on how reestablishing a new agreement between you and me, since one existed previously to the page protection is of any benefit or relevance. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 00:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Should I take this to mean your unwilling to discuss and try to find a compromise regarding specific formats for the title of the book? Thenub314 (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't. In the context of what I said, what part of "I don't see on how reestablishing a new agreement between you and me, since one existed previously to the page protection is of any benefit or relevance." did you fail to comprehend ? What are you after ? --Panic (discuss • contribs) 02:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I suspect there is a communication issue here. I honestly do not understand your reply. On the one hand your response to my question says "Yes I am willing" (or more exactly "No, I am not unwilling"). But your second sentence states that there is not benefit or relevance to doing it.

In response to your question, I thought I understood it well enough and just wanted to confirm, but now I am doubting myself. In response to your second question I am after building a consensus between you and me that meets some of Dan's concerns so that we can make a change and hence get the page unprotected. Thenub314 (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

(*reset indent) Consensus between you and me has been established long ago. I do not recognise Dan's position as valid or relevant. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 18:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

We never had a consensus about the size and font of the text. At best we agreed to wait on further changes until Dan could rejoin the conversation (at this was my suggestion). At least, that was all I ever suggested. Thenub314 (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Now as before, I oppose inserting big text to the top of the main page of the book. So does Ruakh in this diff. I do not have much more to add to the conversation. I do not think this subject needs those 6000 words already spent in this thread. I am not interested in making any compromise with Panic2k4 as long as my preference is supported by a supermajority. If you agree with me that there should be no big text at the top, and if you thus agree with Ruakh in this diff, please state so in a dedicated bullet point below mine, so that we can see what the consensus is, if any. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

  To clarify my position, I support that there is no title text in the C++ Programming wikibook other than the wiki default. Thus, I prefer this revision over this revision with font size of 65pt using DISPLAYTITLE:, this revision with font size of 300% using DISPLAYTITLE:, and this revision with font size of 400%. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

C++ Book Main Page

I made a PDF Version of the C++ Book. The C++ book main page is protected. So I can not link it. Could you link it there please. Dirk Hünniger (discuss • contribs) 10:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I note that you are using the Full Book Print version (if you look at the first page with content) you will notice that a warning is displayed indicating a limit on Wikimedia software regarding transclusions. To solve this problem you can use the Collection feature of the system (the is more versatile to reflect changes, I think it had a problem regarding code highlights) or use the by chapter print version.

Adding this PDF version as is, is not therefore beneficial. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 11:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I am using Latex and generating form source loaded by load.py . Thus I am not using MediaWikis transclusions at all. Thus I am not affected by any limits on MediaWikis transclusions. Thus adding this PDF Version is beneficial. If you want I can remove the box in the beginning. Dirk Hünniger (discuss • contribs) 12:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.

The Print version of the same page seems to be complete I did a quick look and did not noticed any cut in content (can it be that the limitation was resolved).

On your PDF I was looking on the content from the back and notice a list of contributors identified as authors (that is incorrect). Liked the image list (sadly part of it is not populated). No code highlight also.

Without the box and a title correction to the list of contributors I have no issue with it. Seems complete for the examination I gave.

To me the wikipedia and even links to the same book would be great if they could be excluded (there are other links to other Wikibooks that would best be preserved).

On the All version page (the last 2 transclusions are not included the WEBLinks and Book References) but appear on the PDF. So the box warning shouldn't be permanently removed on the source page. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 12:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I will make a new version solving the contributors and box issues. Code is highlighted if and only if it is enclosed by a source tag. In order to populate the list of authors one has to add Information templates to the images on the File: pages respectively. I might do that, once upon a time. I can disable internal links globally. But some of them might be useful since you can click on the footnotes in order to jump to linked page in the pdf, so I don't think that is a good idea. Dirk Hünniger (discuss • contribs) 13:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I missed any highlight code (and the linking on the PDF) I used the internal viewer maybe that is probably why.

The wikipedia links would be great to include as a generated glossary (and simply not show in full text at bottom, but actual links like on wikibooks, including links to the same book). I've never created a glossary page on Wikibooks because it seems not only redundant but extremely complex to maintain consistent with the rest of the work (even duplicating some content). In any case these are my preferences, the points I saw as negative were the box and the labellings on contributors. Thanks for having the time to address that.

You said that the you were not using the full page version, IIRC the box warning is only added there. Did it came from anywhere else, it shouldn't... If it facilitates to remove it you can use set another type of box that is unique on the source (making less problematic to create an exception).

I have a vague memory of already have talked about a generator this type of issues... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 13:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I am using LaTeX as pdf generator and there are libraries for glossaries and I have well documented extension points (custom template mechanism (templates.user)) where you can implement this. I don't really think it is a good idea to make a glossary out out links to wikipedia and related sites, but if you really want that you can implement it yourself, its not that hard. To have a glossary you can also simply create a list of book internal links and include that list as a new chapter called glossary. I am using the full page version. But I am not using MediaWikis transclusion mechanism, that is why my PDF contains the full text. And thus there are not parts missing as you found out yourself. Since I got the LaTeX Code on my local disk I can easily remove the box with a text editor. But before I can do anything like that I have to wait until Daniels contributers.php on the toolserver becomes stably responsive again. We can also have a template for that kind of box. I can map that template to null in my configuration file, which simplifies the generation of future versions. Dirk Hünniger (discuss • contribs) 13:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

If you want you can play with my generator de:Benutzer:Dirk Huenniger/wb2pdf. The compiled binary version is ok, but in order to get exactly the same output as I do you have to build from the source in the SVN repository. Dirk Hünniger (discuss • contribs)

I do see the highlighted code using the internal viewer. Just look at anything using the source tag. Dirk Hünniger (discuss • contribs)

Nope. Images appear in color but the code and most other things not (the notes are gray). Even the highlighted keywords do not appear distinctive only underscored. It shouldn't be a problem with the the skin so I don't know how we get different results. I've now downloaded the PDF and locally get the same (page 56 for instance) using FOXIT reader on Windows. The file version is the 15:09, 18 April 2012 (We can't be seeing two different things locally!). --Panic (discuss • contribs) 15:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I uploaded a new version of the pdf file. The chapter Authors has been renamed to Contributors and the box on the first page has been removed. So in my opinion the requests of user Panic have been fully resolved. Also the link to the pdf file has already been added to the main page of the book. So to me it seems that consensus has been reached in this point. Dirk Hünniger (discuss • contribs) 15:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes no objection here. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 15:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem with highlighting is our different understanding of the word highlighting. You think about colors and I think about bold font, italic font and underline. So from my point of view the two example images you uploaded are highlighted correctly. I can indeed enable a colorful highlighting, and it is quite easy to do so. But I opted for the monochrome highlighting you see. This is for many reasons. Firstly it is usual to do so in books and scientific articles. You may look at an example from the inventor of C++ Bjarne Stroustrup [1]. He also uses a monochrome highlighting. The other reason is a practical one. Many people you monochrome Laser printers. And print offices usually charge monochrome pages a factor of 4 lower that color pages. Dirk Hünniger (discuss • contribs)

Much information is lost without the color (and it is not even coherent, images are in color). The issue of color or not should be left to the final user, not on the generation of a mostly intermediate format. I do not support your color idea, if the possibility exists to permit higher definition without detriment to the content why block it in the first place...

Scientific articles/papers are a bit different they fallow strict normalizing guidelines (there is no normalization in syntax highlighting, color) and are intended for cheap dissemination, number and visibility are often more important than content ;)... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 17:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Well as you said the images are in color. The only thing where I don't use color is syntax highlighting of source. The source is still highlighted by bold, italic and underline. I don't think that the code will become significantly more readable with colored highlighting. If I used color, the source might turn very hard to read when printed with a monochrome Laser printer, or watched monochrome EbookReader. So basically I want to keep it like that. If somebody really wants color he can just paste in the proper LaTeX header and gets the color scheme s/he wants. Dirk Hünniger (discuss • contribs)

Never had any problem but I trust your experiences. I noticed the underline, on the web environment it makes sense that the links are rendered so, but on a PDF it shouldn't look underlined (the bolds are on line for removal and being substituted by the highlight, there are some bits here and there, that missed being conversion). I don't remember how it looked on the collections but the simple print version removes all those WEB artifacts. In any case I hope you understand that I'm only commenting on my preferences. The highlight it this book is not extremely important, small pieces of code, but there are wikibooks that have more complex source code that would greatly benefit from having it show.

Did you include something about your PDF creator on the generated book. Like created by xpto get it here source here. Probably as metadata that is visible on the PDF properties ? It would be interesting for the final user. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 22:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Well Ok, I think I will just keep the highlighting the way it is. Otherwise you could maybe discuss with some professional typesetter including my arguments and develop an new highlighting scheme. Technically defining a highlighting scheme is easy, but making reasonable definition, that suits the needs of a broad group of users is hard. If you are done with that I will include into my generator. Currently I am not including any links to my generator in the pdf. I am not really sure why I do this. A reason might be well described by the German word Bescheidenheit, which unfortunately does not directly translate to English. Possible translations are understatement, meekness, modesty, although none of them really fits. Or put it more simply I don't want to advertise my generator like a commercial product. Still it is easy to find out for the PDF that it comes from Wikibooks. On the Wikibooks webpage it is easy to find out that I made the pdf and where my homepage is, on my homepage there is a link to the generator, so it is not so hard to find outDirk Hünniger (discuss • contribs)

Agree and that it is your prerogative (in regards to the highlighting).

I was again just pointing out that it could be useful to anyone, not specifically wanting your generator, to know how to build something similar or derive from your software creation for their own purposes. Seeking recognition for your own work and be proud of ones accomplishments is nothing to be ashamed, it is even your legal right, it depends on good taste and it even can be made modestly. You also have no guarantee of the duration of the project or how long a PDF will be attached to a particular book, not mentioning that why would a person take the trouble in finding more about it, there is 1001 ways to generate a PDF file, if the information is not provided, it seems a lot to assume that simple curiosity would make your solution visible and generally used. Even among Wikibookians (you could post something in the general reading room).

Of course this is up to you and your goals in dedicating time/effort to the software creation and how you intend it to be used. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 15:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe some more advertisement is maybe in order. So I add the follwing to my standard header:

\lowertitleback{
{\small
This PDF was generated by a program written by Dirk Hünniger (a graduated physicist from Germany), which is freely available under an open source license from \url{http://de.wikibooks.org/wiki/Benutzer:Dirk_Huenniger/wb2pdf} and is provided as a binary for the Windows operating system, not requiring any installation procedures. 
More than 100 different software components were used. In particular  LaTeX, Python and Haskell are involved. All software used to generate this book is available under open source licenses.
}
}

Since I don't speak English as a native language, I am very happy for anybody with more linguistic understanding to change it. Dirk Hünniger (discuss • contribs)

See if you find it an improvement. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 16:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

So I used your suggestions, but made it significantly shorter. I made a new version of the File:Statistics.pdf so you can see how it looks (second page, page between title page and table of contends). From time to time I will make new versions of Wikibooks which will contain this advertisement information. Dirk Hünniger (discuss • contribs) 05:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it will create more visibility to your work. It is not an obligation or requirement but benefits both parts you the creator and ultimately the user that will have the chance to know about the software, something that it would probably never know.

I just posted something in regards to copyrights, acknowledgments Wikibooks:Reading room/Proposals#Request feature: Author namespace in regards to a discussion to grant these notices more protection and ease the burden of the community. Not exactly the same issue but parallel and in line with what you said above about modestly. Since the parent claimed that such things are about vanity. It could be an interesting read for you if so inclined.

You probably have also a better understanding since you defensively have had to sign your papers and know the importance at least of attribution and reference. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 05:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggested improements

• The images in section http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/C%2B%2B_Programming/Programming_Languages/C%2B%2B/Code/Statements/Flow_Control#if_.28Fork_branching.29 should be conerted to svg thus from raster graphics to vector graphics.
• The image File:TaxonomyofProgrammingLanguages.png is to detailed to be printed on paper in a reasonable way. It is a good idea to create a less detailed version as SVG.
• The source codes should not use more than 80 characters per line. First of all because it is often done that way, in particular a limit of 80 is chosen. And secondly since the size of paper is limited and thus a limit like this makes sense for printing on paper. You can look at the PDF version, at which places additional line breaks were added by the pdf generator to fulfill the 80 characters rule, and thus make the source fit to the width of the page. Dirk Hünniger (discuss • contribs) 08:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• There are a very few places were line numbering of the source tag is used. In the case line numbering should also happen in the PDF version. Dirk Hünniger (discuss • contribs) 08:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Dirk Hünniger (discuss • contribs) 11:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I have implemented the first bullet. Thenub314 (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Pictures of Visual Studio

I did a complete semiautomatic check of all licenses. There are only for files which are not free. I excluded the chapter containing them. I basically does not contain more than these screenshots.

• 
  25
• 
  26
• 
  27
• 
  28

Dirk Hünniger (discuss • contribs) 17:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

What is the issue with images that are not free ? Wikibooks supports fair-use. The book is still free with them, in fact I have no clue what countries do not support fair-use but assume that there maybe some that do not (or have another name for it). In mine educational purposes and the amount and substantially of the "copy" expressed here suffices, it even is not clear if there is any copyright over a software interface image (even in the USA)... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 18:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The point is that I want to upload the pdf to the commons and they don't want nonfree contend, also not fair use. For now I did div class noprint. This means the chapter will be visible on but not make it into the pdf and also not into the list of figures. Dirk Hünniger (discuss • contribs) 18:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Ho I see, good catch, I was racking my brain attempting to understand what could be a valid reason for the exclusion.

In that case in place of altering the main print version, create a new print version that transcludes the "normal" one and on that put noinclude on the offending section, create a new box for the TOC pages and explain that that version does not use the fair use content this will keep both version actualized and give a greater choice to users and ease the actualization of the PDF.

It would be interesting to know if other works here are violating commons because of that. Yet an easier solution would be uploading it here (on the rational that there really is not a good reason to avoid fair use). Commons does it, I think, because it avoid any errors in judgment, for example of art work or even photographic works, something that here is a bit more limited in usefulness in a textbook. Personally I would prefer the PDF to be kept in this project so changes to it could be easily monitored. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 19:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

PS:On the images' comment you edited it says "See below." but the licensing is on top. I was going to fix but did not know if you intended to do something else (it seems that I guessed right that it had to do with the list of images on the PDF). But the issue with Commons did not come to mind, besides thinking that all those images should be moved there. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 19:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

the see below is autogenerated you may move the licence template to the (to be added) license parameter of the information template. I was just careless in this respect. I have got an other suggestion on how to exclude the image from the pdf. I would simply add a new template that simply passes through its first parameter. So essentially it does nothing. In my local template mapping file I can map this template to null. So it won't make it into the pdf. Certainly you have to add documentation to the template describing its intended use. I would be very of you, if you created that template, because of my minor knowledge of English and the Template policies on this wiki. This template of course also solve the problem about the transclusion notice in the beginning of the file. Dirk Hünniger (discuss • contribs) 19:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Well the images I think I've fixed the issue I mentioned. (Will see about a solution for the rest, today there seems to be chapters missing that were there before).

See page 669 on the active PDF the Appendix B: External References, Books seems broken (reports a broken link and does not match what was on the page here). Not important but the order also does not match it show the books then the links.

The books are listed 2 times on the PDF before and after the WEB links, can't find out where it is getting the first version.

I've removed the of the print version it existed because of the requirement to have the GFDL license text and the TOC being displayed. The direct link to the print version on the cover removes the TOC issue and the GFDL is no longer necessary since outside of WIkibooks the book is single licensed as CCSA that does not have the requirement of including the license. It probably would be neater do the reverse but with the page protection as is it serves. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 20:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I am really tiered now. I just uploaded a new version of the pdf file. To me it look ok. I will check your issues tomorrow.Dirk Hünniger (discuss • contribs) 21:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok I saw a duplication of a dead tree book on the online books and jumped the conclusion that the list was duplicated, it wasn't (the broken link was a comment added to a non working link, and edit that I had missed. One fixes a broken link or removes it). My bad. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 21:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I just uploaded a new version of the pdf file. I think this is Ok and we can stay with the revision for a while. The list of figures is now fully populated. According to my semiautomated checks there is no non free content. All licenses that require their inclusion are included. I can not find any obvious typographic error when skimming the book. So basically I think this pdf version is done. Of course the wikibook will evolve and pdfs will be made from time to time, but I think the current version is quite usable, looks quite beautiful and has no issues with the policies on commons and no legal issues.Dirk Hünniger (discuss • contribs) 05:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks especially because of the transclussion limitations the PDF may be of special usefulness to some user. Can the print protections be removed ? --Panic (discuss • contribs) 13:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes you can remove it. I had some problems seening the pdf template on the main page of the book on a different machine today, and clicking disussion and then book again seemed to solve the problem.Dirk Hünniger (discuss • contribs) 18:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Make an annotation somewhere about the changes their location. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 01:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I still suggest creating a template for that. Like a general one. LaTeXVersionNoInclude and a spectific one LaTeXVersionNoIncludeCopyRighted delegating to general one.

LaTeXVersionNoInclude

• Documentation: This templated passes through its first parameter. This is true for the Webversion, the Printversion and PDF Version generated by MWLib. But it evaluates to the empty sting when compiles with [MediaWiki to LaTeX]. In this respect it is similar to the nocinclude tag. This template is often used to exclude nonfree content, since the LaTeX Version is hosted on the commons and nonfree content is disallowed by the guidelines of the commons.
• Implementation:

  {{{1}}}

Dirk Hünniger (discuss • contribs) 06:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Vocabulary

I know the term STL is largely used (including in some ISO proposal) but please, consider changing the term STL with a more precise term. The name STL (Standard Template Library) does not appear in the standard (I checked C++03 and n3290) and can mean a lot of different things. (quoting nolyc ##C++ bot at freenode) STL can mean:

1. C++ standard library
2. the library Stepanov designed
3. the parts of [1] based on [2]
4. specific vendor implementations of [1], [2], or [3];
5. the underlying principles of [2]
6. The parts of [1] only in C++03
7. The Standard Thread Library (part of C++11 standard library) (nolyc11 needed :) )

If you mean [1] and insist on abbreviating, "stdlib" is a far better choice. 89.224.77.117 (discuss) 18:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I had this issue in mind and I have made an effort in the book to provide a correct view of what it is. The name is more a historic artifact to define a change to the standard.

It can't be the seen as the C++ standard library (as it is only a faction), it is not the library Stepanov designed since somethings have changed and others added.

The third is only wrong because it excludes alterations and improvements to the proposal and this makes the The forth continue to be incorrect.

The fifth is correct but does not define nothing concrete.

The sixth covers more than needed.

The seventh does not make sense to me.

Since the first is not exact, if you have a better idea. One could streamline this conversation into something informative to a reader and add it to the work. I have not rechecked what is stated by I remember attempting to make this points clear. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 01:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, the terms "STL" and "Standard Template Library" do not appear in the current standard. The Standard Template Library refers collectively to various containers, iterators, algorithms, and functors which do however appear in the standard. The Standard C++ Library might be an appropriate term substitution, but "stdlib" is not an appropriate abbreviation as that is often understood to mean the standard header "cstdlib". --darklama 17:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I propose that whenever you mean the entire Standard Library, use "Standard Library", if you want to discuss a specific component, use the official terminology from the standard, e.g. "Containers library", "Strings library", "Iterators library", "Algorithms library", etc. SeySayux (discuss • contribs) 15:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

editprotected

Please add a interwiki, ko:C++ 프로그래밍. Thanks. --Ha98574 (discuss • contribs) 05:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it a translation or a close approximation of this book ? If not this should be added to the C++ subject page... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 05:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is. "C++ 프로그래밍" in Korean means "C++ Programming" in English. ko:C++ 프로그래밍 is a book about C++ Programming. --Ha98574 (discuss • contribs) 00:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I've used a web translator and it does not seems the same book (these are not articles) I will add it to the subject page since it is there that all C++ programming books are listed. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 02:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks your effort. But ko:C++ 프로그래밍 is not subject page. In Korean Wikibooks, subject pages should be on "위키책:"(means Wikibooks:) namespace:4. Even though the interwiki is not added in this article, I think the interwiki may be not added in Subject:C++ programming language because ko:C++ 프로그래밍 is not subject page, "C++ 프로그래밍" doesn't mean "C++ programming language". --Ha98574 (discuss • contribs) 03:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It really does not matter to us (local community) and to the local reader, the local structure limitations at the Korean Wikibooks. The concept of these interwikis is to let readers find out best match content in other languages. Since the book at Korean Wikibooks is not a duplicate (or a close approximation) of the C++ Programming book, the only sensible thing is to point to the Korean Wikibooks', I suppose, single C++ project. This should be done from the Subjects page as I have stated (regardless of it not being a Subject page on the Korean Wikibooks, if in the future a subject page is created there then it should be corrected here).

Linking two works that have nothing but the subject matter serves no real purpose (and misses the rest of the target readers here), ultimately it would mean linking every C++ book here to the single book at Korean Wikibooks (very unmaintainable). --Panic (discuss • contribs) 05:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that an interwiki between a book and a subject page may not make sense. Are there reasonable similarities between the Korean C++ book and this book other than both are about the C++ programming language and their titles are basically the same when translated? People at English Wikibooks often seem to believe Interwikis links only make sense for books when two or more books across projects intend to educate the audience in the subject matter with reasonably similar approaches, the order in which things are explained are reasonably similar, the educational outcomes or goals are reasonably similar, and the books have reasonably similar scopes, depths, coverages, presentations, style guidelines, prerequisites, audiences, etc. --darklama 12:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Basic functioning example?

From what I've seen, this book starts with a very in-depth explanation of C++, but there isn't any minimal, complete, functioning example of C++, i.e. a Hello World in C++.

I'd recommend the following example:

#include <iostream>

// My first C++ program
int main() {
    std::cout << "Hello, world!" << std::endl;
    return 0;
}

Note a few things:

• I include the iostream header. Certain compilers might not require you to do so, but it's bad style.
• I include iostream, not iostream.h, which is deprecated (although some C++ textbooks still use it)
• I do not use using namespace std, as it pollutes the main namespace and is generally discouraged.
• I give an example of a comment.
• main returns int, not void.
• The "Hello, world!" is fairly basic. Note that I finish with std::endl, not with \n (which does not flush) or no newline at all (certain operating systems might insert these for you -- not all)
• I return 0, though it is not strictly required to do so.

SeySayux (discuss • contribs) 15:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you be more specific. The Hello World example we use has been stable since 28 July 2010‎ C++ Programming/Examples/Hello World and conforms to your proposal. We also do have a complete, functioning example step by step examination right there in the beginning of the book there is a link to Hello World - Writing, Compiling and Running a C++ Program.

I disagree that being verbose is ever bad style even if the compiler does some stuff for you putting stuff into the source code can only help to document your code and prevent errors. As per your own example of returning 0... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 01:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I never said being verbose is bad -- I said not being verbose (i.e. not including iostream) was bad. My apologies if i phrased that wrongly.

Secondly, this book seems to be more of a depth-first examination of C++ (take one topic, and discuss it completely to the bottom) instead of a breadth-first examination (gently introduce the reader to the basic concepts of programming and C++ and then build on that knowledge).

The first chapter of the book starts with explaining headers and source files, showing how they are used with classes (while simultaneously handwaiving the concept of classes until "later") without even showing a basic program. If there is a link to an example in the first chapter, my apologies, but I -- and probably most readers -- haven't noticed it. Examples of working code should be a fundamental part of teaching the basics, not an aftertought you stuff away in some appendix. SeySayux (discuss • contribs) 13:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes the example is linked in the first "page" of the book (the introduction to the language). I have tried to introduce concepts in sequence but at times that is extremely hard and I intentionally chose to introduce basic concepts first including the portion regarding the C library before going into the more complex abstractions and concepts, in any case I have attempted to provide always a cross link to other avenues of going about the material.

Note that the book in the past did attempt to cater simultaneous to other presentation structure and format but it proved to be impractical and disruptive. There are now other C++ wikibooks that may conform to a different approaches, including one that is strictly practical (see the C++ subject page).

As for the lack of code you should take a look into the monolithic chapter views, examples only start to be common after the introduction of the concept of functions. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 15:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

transclusion

My understanding is that in nearly all Wikibooks, the only page in that Wikibook that transcludes any other page of that Wikibook is the "print version" page that directly transcludes *every* other page of the book. ( Using Wikibooks/Print versions and PDFs )

If the C++ Programming Wikibook were like those other books, then C++ Programming/Print version would directly transclude every other page in the book, and it would be the only page that transcludes any other page of the book.

At the moment, the C++ Programming "Print version" page (C++ Programming/All Chapters) directly transcludes C++ Programming/Chapter Beyond the Standard, which in turn transcludes C++ Programming/Code/Design Patterns, which transcludes C++ Programming/Code/Design Patterns/Creational Patterns.

My understanding is that this nested structure was created as a work-around to try to avoid a bug that (incorrectly) truncated the last few pages when viewing or printing the "Print version" page.

Has that bug been fixed? Is there any other reason to keep this nested structure? --DavidCary (discuss • contribs) 18:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@User:DavidCary: This could be fixed if we could go back to the flat page structure of 2010. See also #Flat structure. I support going back to the flat structure of the book, thus, not C++_Programming/Programming_Languages/C++/Code/Statements/Variables/Type_Casting but rather C++_Programming/Type_Casting. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete this page

The template include size is exceeded on this page and therefore not everything shows up, not to mention it takes five minutes to load. The book is too large to use a combined print version. Chapter print versions should be linked to and someone wanting a copy can print all of them. This page is not operational or manageable. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 00:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've examined by eye the page and can't detect the cutout. The Wikipedia:Template limits describes a way of examining were it occurs but for now the page serves its purpose to provide a (now somewhat) complete view of the project. I've added a note to inform users and enable any willing to push for a resolution of the problem (it seems an extension can be used or some setting changed). --Panic (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)