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%2F…
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(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia textbook discussion <textbook-l(a)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(a)cretin.net <listspam(a)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(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l