Wikibooks:Reading room/General

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Jump to: navigation, search
Replacement filing cabinet.svgArchivesWikibooks Discussion Rooms
Discussions Assistance Requests
General | Proposals | Projects | Featured books General | Technical | Administrative Deletion | Undeletion | Import | Permissions

Welcome to the General reading room. On this page, Wikibookians are free to talk about the Wikibooks project in general. For proposals for improving Wikibooks, see the Proposals reading room.

Editing News #2—2016[edit]

m:User:Elitre (WMF), 17:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Open call for Project Grants[edit]

IEG barnstar 2.png

Greetings! The Project Grants program is accepting proposals from July 1st to August 2nd to fund new tools, research, offline outreach (including editathon series, workshops, etc), online organizing (including contests), and other experiments that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers. Whether you need a small or large amount of funds, Project Grants can support you and your team’s project development time in addition to project expenses such as materials, travel, and rental space.

Also accepting candidates to join the Project Grants Committee through July 15.

With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) 15:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Save/Publish[edit]

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion[edit]

Every book with a lack of enough content (e.g. with a development stage less than 25 percent) should be deleted IF it is abandoned for several years like Nuclear Medicine. I think this rule can be added to Using Wikibooks/Deleting, Undeleting, and Importing. Doostdar (discusscontribs) 14:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Wow, I would find this a good idea if everyone could awake a sleeping project. But as the administrators are the only users who can restore these pages, I believe that deleting them will engender some recreations from the scratch. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 15:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
One thing Wikibooks shares with Wikipedia imho is that there is, and absolutely properly should be, no deadline for completion here. I helped to breathe new life into a Wikijunior book that had lain dormant at an under-25% level for years. It's in the nature of our books that there can be long gaps of time between contributors. I do hope to develop semi-automated tools to help with things like coherently stepping into the weave of an inactive/underdeveloped book. But deleting such things would be counterproductive. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 22:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I think in this case Wikibooks should behave in the same way as Wikipedia. Users should add templates like "Template:Proposed deletion" to incomplete books. Long gaps of time between contributors would decrease the number of active users as we see currently in this project. We are not going to asleep this project for long time, are we? Doostdar (discusscontribs) 06:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I've just created Nuclear Medicine/Print version to have a quick look on the whole book and it doesn't seem totally stubby.
Moreover, I can't see how this could be related to the number of active users, because personally I didn't come here the first time for one book and decided to create another one ex nihilo: I began by continuing an unfinished but respectable work (which was quite much easier for a beginner). JackPotte (discusscontribs) 07:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
This is not a project with hundreds of administrators and tens of thousands of editors. The Proposed Deletion process from WP is inappropriate here for a number of reasons not least because, unlike WP, typically one person edits one book. There are very few collaborative projects. Therefore if someone is away for, say, three months, they could come back and find their work deleted for no reason other than "tidiness". For genuine cases of truly abandoned stubs there is already a process. I for one am completely opposed to any proposal to delete things for being "incomplete" particularly as nothing is ever complete - there's always more to add to any book. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 07:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Any way the book is 0 percent developed and the audience should know that the print version is not complete. By the way it does not have a cover page. Maybe it needs preface, index, images, etc. I see no labels that inform me how to read the book or how to edit it while it has been abandoned for years. How do you solve the problem? Doostdar (discusscontribs) 13:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Books tend to have one editor at a time. Projects that have fewer editors like that tend to be more respectful of what was done in the past; one thinks of oneself as collaborating with others who aren't present because they're located in the past or future, a sort of 'consensus across time'. Adopting a book is a Thing here. Part of this is having a lot more respect for relatively incomplete works than a large Wikipedia might. Imho English Wikipedia (the one I have direct experience with) does damage even to itself by its cultural dismissal of past precedent; even within Wikipedia's own context Wikipedia should do better on that score, and smaller projects have, and need to, maintain a much more respectful attitude toward past contributions. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 13:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Since there is no predefined minimum nor maximum length to a book so you are right. You can keep the book but there's a problem that how should the volunteer author or the reader guess the final length determined for that book or which content is not yet completed? --Doostdar (discusscontribs) 14:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I assume that you're right about the fact that {{status|0%}} at the bottom of the wikicode, displays a non-explicit and discrete icon at the top right which says 0% developped on hover (as described into Help:Development stages). But it could be precised with {{Todo}}. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 14:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)