Wikibooks:Collaboration of the Month/November 2005 voting

Voting Rules
The following are the rules and conditions for voting for the Collaboration of the Month:


 * 1) Only registered users with 20 or more edits to their name may vote.
 * 2) You may vote under as many nominations as you wish, however, you may only vote for each book itself once.
 * 3) Sign your vote with a number sign and four tildes, #~, after the most previous vote under the book's nomination. Unsigned votes will be removed.
 * 4) Any nomination which receives 3 or more votes in one month will automatically be renominated the next month if it is not chosen.
 * 5) If you wish to include a short comment for your vote, then you may do so. Make sure that if you leave such a comment, that you are also voting for that page.
 * 6) Do not post objection votes as these will have no effect on the final tally.
 * 7) Voting will end at 00:00 UTC on the first day of each month. In essence, when a new month begins voting ends. Any votes added after this time will be discarded.
 * 8) The nomination with most votes will be chosen as the Collaboration of the Month. In case of a tie, the older Wikibook will be chosen.

Raising Chickens
Votes:
 * 1) Klingoncowboy4 18:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments: Unless this book gets three votes I will stop renominateing it I promise. Klingoncowboy4 18:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think many wikibookians are able to add something to this book. Is it good choice? --Derbeth 23:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Cookbook
Votes:
 * 1) Nmontague 06:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC) I think that the Cookbook needs a serious looking at, as it is there are many recipes and ingredients which do not fit in with the rest of the book, massive categorization gaps exist and such. If we can get a few people to just run over the whole thing a couple times it could flesh out much nicer in only a little time.
 * 2) Rob Horning 15:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC) - I'm going to add my vote here because this is a neat resource and with just a little bit of effort to do some minor cleanup it would be a good candidate for Book of the Month. This is also something that Wikibooks has had some signficant success in trying to organize that is otherwise out of place elsewhere in the Wikimedia realm of projects.
 * 3) Juliusross 14:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)This book needs some tidying up, so outside help could be put to good use.

Comments:

I think it's a good nomination: subject is common, scope of the book is well-defined. It only needs cleanup of discussion page to provide newcomers with well-organised information how to contribute. Maybe there should be separate page describing book organisation, templates etc.? --Derbeth 23:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Please see Cookbook:Policy. Kellen T 20:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

This book is not at all needy, and thus should not be chosen. This book is probably the most active in fact. Excepting books with really obscure subject matter, any other book would be a better choice. AlbertCahalan 18:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Algebra
Votes:
 * 1) Catcher.in.the.rye.and.all 19:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC) The book is maybe halfway done. A collaboration might give it a little more oompf, a little more completeness.
 * 2) Klingoncowboy4 20:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) AlbertCahalan 18:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC) This book needs work, and we all should know the subject matter. AlbertCahalan 18:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments: Maybe this book has too much content to be nominated for this. I don't think so...and anyway what needs to be added is much more abstract and complex than what is there, and therefore far more work to add. Catcher.in.the.rye.and.all 19:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think algebra is too specific topic and it would be hard to attract many contributors. Anyway, it's quite a mature book. --Derbeth 23:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Algebra wins - votes are 3 to 3 but Albebra was created in 2003 and Cookbook was created in 2004. --Derbeth 10:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Politicaltheory
Votes:
 * 1) Klingoncowboy4 20:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments: It's hard to believe a subject that evokes so much discussion and argument on the other wikis is so ignored here. --albamuth 07:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * But look at it, there is hardly any text in it. --Derbeth 23:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)