Wikibooks:Reading room/Proposals/2016/May

Cookbook
Subproject Cookbook contains content which is different from other contents of Wikibooks. How about seperating it from wikibooks? --Doostdar (discuss • contribs) 17:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I know of no disadvantage to having it here, and frankly I think it is an advantage, since it allows the administrative infrastructure of Wikibooks to efficiently serve Cookbook along with the other books here. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 22:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In many languages such as Persian the Cookbook has enough pages to be a separate project. --Doostdar (discuss • contribs) 03:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * When you say "enough pages to be a separate project", you seem to be supposing it would desirable for it be a separate project. I've already given a reason, in my preceding remarks, why it would be more practical to have them be a single project than to separate them, which also implies that separating them would be undesirable.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 04:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The structure of cookbook is different from other books here. By the way in my experience in Persian Wikibooks users who edit cookbook usually are uninterested in other parts of the project. Cookbook pages may not be part of class projects and are not used by Wikiversity. They can usually have interwikis while usual books don't. --Doostdar (discuss • contribs) 05:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Some thoughts.
 * Books have different structures from each other; Wikibooks is by its nature a collection of smaller projects each of which has some of its own character. Books have higher-level structure; Cookbook has less than some books, but more than most projects &mdash; more than Wiktionary, Wikipedia, Wikinews.  The sort of books hosted on Wikibooks have different assembly rules than Wikinews or Wikisource (on the strict side) or Wikiversity (on the permissive side).  But Cookbook is a pretty good fit.
 * If folks come here and are only interested in one book, that's not a problem; it'd be great to get them interested in other parts of the larger project, but failure to do so doesn't provide any sort of motive for sending it elsewhere.
 * Other books sometimes do have interwikis. That too varies from book to book, and greater success of one book than another in multilingual sharing does not seem to me to be any reason to separate projects.  Here again, I simply don't see that the one (density of interwikis) has anything to do with the other (common administration).
 * Frankly, any time things have enough similarity to be handled under a single project, they should be. There are cases where it really isn't practical, where the administrative considerations are genuinely different enough in structure that it makes sense to keep them separate (something that some of the more insular Wikipedians just don't get); but when there's no need for separation, shared infrastructure is desirable.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 13:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Requests for new projects are made at Proposals for new projects, not here. However, given that Wikibooks already relies on a tiny number of admins and the global sysops to just about keep things under control, I strongly support Pi zero's view that splitting it would be a mistake. The Cookbook is a target for mass copyright violation which is difficult for global sysops to deal with; splitting it off would likely create a festering pile of vandalism and illegal content with nobody to curate it. Even if that wasn't the result, I can't see how it gains anything from being split. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 12:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I love the cookbook and i think it would do well as a separate project. it would probably be better to be separate as it would have a clearer identity. however, because i love the cookbook I'd like to see it stay here on Wikibooks because I think it makes Wikibooks that much better. ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_the_Isle_of_Mann.svg|15px]]talk 04:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)