Talk:Less

Page location
I object to the page being made part of a larger book. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * so it would just be a copy of less (Unix), isn't it? For now, every books here respect our Naming policy. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 11:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The Wikibooks page would not be just a copy of the Wikipedia page since it can be more expansive: it does not have to be restricted to information considered to be encyclopedic but rather can provide instruction deemed unecyclopedic. Admittedly, the current content of the Wikipedia page is instructional and relative detailed. However, the Wikipedia page is not guaranteed to keep its content if one of those regulators stop by and reduce it to make it "encyclopedic". By contrast, Wikibooks can hold such content without out-of-scope charges.
 * As for Naming policy, where does it say we cannot have a booklet on "less", and where is the evidence of consensus for that? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * look, I respect what you've accomplished on the Wiktionary but your page is just an article today, and it will stay an article even with a few non-encyclopedic paragraphs more, so according to the fundamental policy it should be deleted. To avoid that I had decided to integrate it in the book with the other Unix commands, and I still can't see any other option to provide what you've proposed. What's the problem with Guide to Unix? JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 12:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikibooks is full of utterly useless stubs that no one cares to delete, e.g. Gramma's Grammar, VBA For Business and OIB English. If you are after deleting what looks like stubs, you'd better start with these wholly content-free pages that have been in the same useless state for years. However, I don't believe there is consensus for all stubs to be deleted.
 * Furthermore, I do not believe there is consensus that all books and booklets must have subpages. Windows Batch Scripting, which I did a lot to expand, is a good example of a book that does well without subpages, as is Bash Shell Scripting.
 * If you want to use policy pages to bolster your position, please quote specific portions or at least refer to these portions. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Above, you have referred me to What_is_Wikibooks. That will not do, I'm afraid: I have explained above that the page can host non-encyclopedic content, and that the current content of the Wikipedia page is probably non-encyclopedic and can be trimmed later by someone interested in strict enforcement of Wikipedia's policies. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, some stubs you've mentioned should be deleted in one week, according to our stub deletion policy (cf. query). And Bash Shell Scripting is still in our maintenance categories, to be merged, or expanded and then split.
 * Please take into account that the paragraph I've mentioned on What is Wikibooks talks about encyclopedia-formatted articles, which totally suits to less in its current or near development state. Merging it into Guide to Unix will provide a certain security, until it could reach 10 pages long, and you didn't answer to that. Because now I know this page, it's my duty to make our rules respected by treating it before the other stubs. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 13:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * PS: [//en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Less&curid=376058&diff=3124788&oldid=3124778 Adding you page] into Special:UncategorizedPages will only result to make it treated as an incomplete stub. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 13:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Bash Shell Scripting does not need to be split and I oppose its splitting. It is in a maintenance category only because someone who likes to place various boxes on pages put it there, not because it needs to be there. You should show consensus that points to the necessity of there being subpages; I do not intend rely on your interpreation of the "rules" to tell me so.
 * query is not a deletion policy; the deletion policy is at Deletion policy. If you can quote the relevant part of Deletion policy to support the actions that you plan to take, that would be great.
 * I do not believe the inclusion criterion into Wikibooks is the length of the material; it is its character. The Wikibooks name is misleading: Wikibooks is not for any and all books; it is especially not for fiction. Wikibooks is for non-fiction that does not fit other wiki projects of Wikimedia foundation, and therefore, it is for non-fiction that does not fit the encyclopedia project, the dictionary project or the source/library project, especially non-fiction that instructs or serves as a how-to. A page on the less program that answers the question "how do I use the program" fits the bill. The length does not matter. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Bash Shell Scripting was largely written by Ruakh, the page history shows. If Ruakh wanted to have subpages, he would have created them. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 17:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a slightly other debate because of the different sizes of the current and potential material of that topic (I know this because I use these commands during my job).
 * Concerning less, the length is actually not enough according to the policies and their jurisprudence, whether or not qualifying your 612 characters page of an article rather than a would be a personal interpretation:
 * Deletion policy: stubs that are too narrowly defined... with no meaningful content... Pages that cannot comply with the scope or policies of the project (of books creations, not broadsheets collections).
 * Naming policy: Each chapter.
 * Using_Wikibooks/Starting_A_New_Wikibook: There is no predefined minimum nor maximum length to a book... What is the most important is that the book contains the necessary information. (to be a book according to the dictionary definition indeed). a good book needs several qualities: A good plan Solid infrastructure Sharp Focus Broad Scope Without all these things, books will likely become either eternal stubs, candidates for a costly merger, or complete orphans.
 * Moreover, in the case of less, many man pages are totally more developed on the Internet, this page is pratically a redirection to some of them. So I'm willing to delete this useless double unless it would be a part of Guide to Unix. But it seems that you'll rather keep it as User:Dan Polansky/less than as Guide to Unix/less and you still didn't explain why (would it be simpler if I had created Guide to Unix/more?).
 * I hope that the fact that Category:Freshly started books should be cleaned up didn't mislead you, because it's currently a known problem: Reading_room/General. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 18:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * (outdent) I created Requests_for_deletion. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The word "broadsheet" is not in Deletion policy. I love how above you add words in the brackets that are not in the policy since the policy alone does not do what you want it to do.
 * As for Using Wikibooks/Starting A New Wikibook, it is not a policy and I don't care about what it says. Generally, I care about consensus - especially verifiable consensus, meaningful scoping of projects, and opposition to unhelpful bureaucratic "rules" which all too often are not traceable to consensus. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)