I don't think we want a Cookbook-specific guideline, especially as this relates to all maturing textbooks.
Personally, I have already assented to deleting these on the request of main contributors to the textbook under the part of our deletion policy that says we can speedily delete:
"A page that has been nominated for deletion due to a general reorganization of the Wikibook by the contributors."
although I confess I was unaware of the next sentence which says: "In this situation, please note the location of the relevant discussion that occured regarding the page cleanup." (which is particularly difficult to achieve if a book has only one main contributor!)
Although for maturing textbooks, we can in the vast majority of cases prettymuch go with what the main contributors say on this issue, I do think we also need to keep provisions allowing for community review. This must be by allowing individual modules to be nominated on VFD (with due weight being given to experts in the subject area) and by being able to review speedy deletions on VFU (whilst acknowledging that if material is reinstated, it probably ought to be moved out of that textbook into another).
I would still appreciate more comments on:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Inclusion_criteria/Proposal
Some bits have changed since originally proposed, and these amendments can be seen here:
http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikibooks%3AInclusion_criteria%2FP...
I am looking to see it replace the current wording at WB:WIW in around a month, provided the text can be agreed. (It isn't really meant to be a fundamental change to what we do in practice, even though it is a fundamentally different way of expressing it.)
I would add that I would expect the inclusion criteria to be read permissively rather than restrictively. Like every policy, this is intended to be an aid to us developing Wikibooks productively going forward, not a tight straitjacket - so the phrase "worthy of study" is meant to mean that some people consider a subject to be "worthy of study", not that the whole world considers it to be so.
Kind regards
Jon
----- Original Message ---- From: Lord Voldemort lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com To: Wikimedia textbook discussion textbook-l@wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, 18 June, 2006 6:54:56 PM Subject: Re: [Textbook-l] Rewrite of Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks
On 6/18/06, listspam@cretin.net listspam@cretin.net wrote:
Sure, but the more important issue is deletions desired by the contributors of larger books. For the cookbook this is especially important; we get lots of piecemeal, unfinished or downright bad contributions by more people than any other book. We shouldn't need a full scale VFD for each module we want to do away with and yet marking these modules as speedies raises objections from admins who see potentially usable content. There needs to be a greater degree of trust in the major contributors to decide what is not appropriate for their book.
Okay, then let's make another template for speedies within the cookbook namespace. Make it a be subcategory of the regular speedies. Then, if it is a regular author of the cookbook, we will be more liberal in deletion. (Is there some page where regular cookbook authors are listed? Sorry, it's been awhile since I checked out the cookbook.) I dunno, just throwing out an idea. --LV _______________________________________________ Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l