Mark Williamson wrote:
My main problem with the transwiki'ing thing is that Wikibooks has considerably different rules, where the major contributors to a specific "book" get more say in what can go in and what cannot, or what they want it to look like.
As the person who coined the term "transwiki" I need to comment on its intent. It was meant precisely to deal with the kind of problem that you mention. This is a completely different problem from deciding _what_ should be transferred. For purposes of this discussion let's at least assume that choosing to transfer was the right course of action.
The assumption was also made that a person in one project would NOT be familiar with the rules and customs of the receiving project, nor would he even know if the material existed there, though perhaps with a different title. (That difference may be the result of different naming policies that he would not be expected to know like the Esperanto Wikipedia's policy of putting surnames in all capitals.) He probably also has no wish to become an regular participant in the receiving project.
So he copies the article on Topic A as it appears to [[Transwiki:Topic A]] on the receiving project. A member of the receiving project can then start the procedure of dealing with it in accordance witho that project's rules.
Ec