Wikibooks:Book of the month/January 2006 voting

The voting for the Book of the month for January 2006 is open from December 1st, 2005, and will close on January 1st, 2006, 00:00 UTC. The book of the month will be featured on the main page of Wikibooks.

UK Constitution and Government
(Automatically renominated with 6 votes for November) Votes:
 * 1) DSYoungEsq 14:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Rob Horning 22:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Odd bloke 01:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) MateoP 18:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) JMRyan 21:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Much better choice than the incomplete and barely organized selection for this month. DSYoungEsq 14:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I learned a lot. --MateoP 18:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

LaTeX
Votes:

Comments:

America's Army: Special Forces
Votes:
 * 1) Rob Horning 02:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2)  04:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Klingoncowboy4 06:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments: I think last month's comment to not vote for this Wikibooks is ill founded on the logic that because it may be deleted it shouldn't be featured. I am using this Wikibook as an example of why Game Guides perhaps should be included in Wikibooks instead. I don't intend this forum (Books of the Month) to become the battle ground for the discussion of having guides like this on Wikibooks. Simply support or not support this Wikibook as an example of high quality writing and something that should represent the best of Wikibooks. IMHO, this is what a well written game guide ought to be somewhat looking like. --Rob Horning 02:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Bulgarian
Votes:


 * 1) Vanka5 07:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Neva 13:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) bulgaria_mitko 20:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Nplus 16:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) BloodIce 10:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Rashev 08:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Plamendp 13:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Webkid 19:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Kwiksilver 22:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments: While I admire the desire on the part of the participants of this Wikibook to try and bring attention to their culture and language, I don't see this as the "best of Wikibooks", or even the "best of the Languages Bookshelf". This Wikibook, as it currently stands, only has one module, of less than 32K of content, and is mainly a syllabary of words in Bulgarian. While an impressive first step, and something that can be expanded upon, I hardly see this as an exceptional Wikibook. I would strongly recommend that this be moved to collaboration of the month, which would also get the front-page attention that you seem to be wanting. --Rob Horning 18:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. That is a good idea. Although this book does not really look like a book at this point I think it has the basics for a book and with a little formating and descriptions here and there can be brought up-to-date fairly quickly. I believe if it is formated properly it can be a better selection than the current winner for this month which lacked some of the content, especially in the beginning of the month, this book has. When do you think is a good time to move it as a Collaboration of the month? What happens to all the votes? Thanks. --Vanka5 23:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I just created the nomination for Bulgarian on the Collaboration of the Month page. I would strongly recommend that you vote there and perhaps see that it gets renominated in January for the February Collaboration of the Month.  With seven votes (much more than typical for the CoOM page), I don't see a realistic competitor for next month.  I do wish you luck in trying to get this Wikibook going, and slavic languages in particular need to be worked on with Wikibook.  I hope you can turn this into a book worthy of the Book of the Month title.  --Rob Horning 05:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyone who voted for the Bulgarian wikibook here please also vote on Collaboration of the Month/January 2006 voting where it was moved. Thank you. --Vanka5 19:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Chess
Votes Comments: A nearly complete Wikibook that goes over the mechanics and theory of this ancient strategy game. The use of templates for displaying chess pieces is particularly innovative (although copied from other Wikimedia pages).
 * 1) Rob Horning 17:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 04:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Klingoncowboy4 06:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Looks good Gerard Foley 15:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Dragontamer 22:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Sauron 08:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) ftdbb49 00:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looks very good. Snargle 08:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Spongefeld 18:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) 5ko 18:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) MasterSheep 20:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) --Drelac 01:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It got my vote simply from its innovative use of Templates. --Dragontamer 22:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

As a good club standard chess player (~1900 FIDE) who's worked a lot on this Wikibook, I would not recommend it as a BOTM. Yes, the use of templates for diagrams is to be praised, although in practice they aren't consistent across all the pages, some of them seem to have technical problems, and there aren't enough of them - some of the concepts in Tactics and Strategy are nonsense without a diagram backing them up. Yes, much of the subject matter is covered in the book's current form, though I don't think it's as 'nearly complete' as it looks (glossary in 'Playing the Game', en passant and castling missing from 'Notating the Game', Zwischenzug not really explained at all in 'Tactics', big sections missing from 'Strategy' and 'Endings', and 'Variants' is currently a waste of space.)

From a chess player's point of view, I'm not convinced by some of the content. The approach to sacrifices is conservative to say the least. Gambits and thematic minor piece sarifices, and what consitutes compensation for them, are a major factor in chess, yet the only example given is of a well-known 'shamcrifice' (Philidor's Mate), i.e. not a sacrifice at all, but a forced combination, since checkmate on the next move is certain. A better example would be something like Botvinnik's famous exchange (rook for bishop) sacrifice against Alekhine. On the Strategy page, passive pieces are slated without qualification - there's nothing at all wrong with Black's passive e7 bishop in the diagram, it's preventing a nasty pin. A passive piece that is a handicap to its owner would be something like a rook in an endgame defending a pawn from the side. On the Basic Openings page, we get the following two statements: "[A]void moving your queen in the opening" and "Once your pieces are developed, king safely castled and your rooks are combined [connected?] the opening is over." So you can't move your queen in the opening, but the opening doesn't end until you have. As a chess player, I know what the writers of those pearls of wisdom are driving at, but it won't be so clear to the average punter. Incidentally, castling isn't always a good idea - many games have been lost by players castling into kingside attacks. As for "Avoid moving pieces more than once in the opening" - what's White supposed to do after 3...a6 in the Ruy Lopez, or 3...cxd4 in the Open Sicilian? To the extend that this opening advice is valid, I would class it as strategy (strategy is no less strategic when it happens to occur in the opening). The part of this section that does deal with Basic Openings - actually telling is what they are - is brief to the point of being counter-productive; the maxim 'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing' was never truer than in the opening of a game of chess. At least the fundamental plan for both sides (e.g. 'kingside attack', 'endgame advantage based on pawn structure' should be given for each opening.

I'm being very critical of this book, purely because of what's at stake - it's got a lot going for it, but Book of the Month? The cream of what Wikibooks can offer? Come back in six months' time. Chi Sigma 17:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Have you seen this month’s choice!? Gerard Foley 10:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Fine. That's the beauty of democracy, you're quite within your rights to vote for a book on the basis that it's just as bad as this month's. Chi Sigma 22:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not as bad as this month's, it's a lot lot better! Gerard Foley 22:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)