Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/C++ Programming/TOC2

C++ Programming/TOC2
Page no longer serves any purpose (last edit 2007), as per proposal to what page creator stated no objection to the deletion (stating "Its not my problem any more."), this action will address a major problem with the book. This VFD was initiated since Whiteknight expressed concerns on the reason and the way previous discussions reached the deletion conclusion and has excused himself to perform a speedy deletion (a request that I directly addressed to him as the last admin that took an action on the subject.) To my knowledge there is no active dispute to the action ( TOC2 Discussion page), the last metrics I saw this month indicated that by day ~257 users reach the C++ Programming page and ~68 clicked on the TOC2 page. -- Panic2k4 (talk) 01:18, July 22, 2008


 * [[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|15px]] Delete Based on the above reasons and due to a multitude of comments on and off wikibooks on how the problem stood. --Panic (talk) 04:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol keep vote.svg|15px]] Keep TOC2 arose as a great improvement on TOC1 I've hard no rational argument for its deletion, and a war of attrition isn't a good way to make progress. James Dennett (talk) 05:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the work is not on the VFD for a reason to delete, but for getting objections and because you are an editor to the work but sadly you didn't state any objection before (on the proper forum), what are the valid reasons to keep this stale page, since it doesn't have/serve any real purpose at this time?
 * I call your attention that this is the first time the page was tagged or proposed for deletion. Calling it part of a war of attrition is a bit of an overstatement. I state again that I don't have any problem with the existence of other TOCs or even TOC2 if properly maintained. But we have deleted previous TOCs, in the same manner and for the same reason. (TOC2 creator removed 2 previous existing TOCs before implementing the TOC2 page after stating exactly the same reasons I do now).
 * Do you feel the page reflects the book, or serves the propose of a Table of Content ?  --Panic (talk) 06:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to know where you are getting your page hit data from, I'm not aware of a functioning page counter and I think it would be good to have for other books as well. If ~190/257 users are indeed going to the TOC1 page, I would like to know what effect ordering has on that number. If we reverse the order of the links, will more people still go to your TOC page, or will they just click the first link on the page? User:Darklama did indeed dispute deletion of this page, and you've said twice now that he didn't (are you reading the same reply I read?). When I protected the page C++ Programming because of wheel warring, I said that the page would not be unprotected until the authors of the book arrived at an acceptable agreement and compromise. If I remember correctly (and memory is all I have, since the talk pages appear to have been mangled beyond recognition) you, Panic, said that you preferred to leave the main page as it was and not work towards compromise. How you can claim now that a decision has been reached without any apparent discussion or compromise from anybody in the past few months is beyond me. I don't think that VFD is a good forum for forcing this issue, however. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 02:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Metrics from a link posted on the Wikibooks:Analytics page (196 on the C++ Programming/TOC1 page :) most people do enter it directly and it is a must for navigational purposes, thats one reason that I bitch so much about that problem, it is even a major reason that I reduced contributions to the work as most of the time I forget and get sent back to the title page (It wouldn't surprise me that it would also happen to other users, then TOC1 would have the most clicks)...
 * In any case the main page is not the topic of the deletion request, nor is the TOC1 page directly relevant to this discussion, as I see it the TOC2 should have a reason to exist and someone dedicated to update and complete it so that it mirrors the work, it seems only reasonable, and I wouldn't have supported this path to solving the main problem otherwise (probably this is why James labeled it a war of attrition ), whatever order is implemented (I think James problem is how TOC1 is structured, but he is free to a) propose alternatives b) do them himself if they will not cause any major snafu (I've stated many times that James knowledge on the subject of standard C++ at least is better than mine, and he has more practical experience, the only comment I can make from his stance on C++ is that he seems very OOP oriented for what I could extrapolate for the comments he made so far, this could lead to a very small NPOV since the book should be kept paradigm agnostic, but I may be wrong on how I read things since I never asked him directly).
 * Aren't we reading the same statement ? (I posted it on the VFD proposal) and even indicate the part that DL puts himself beyond the discussion (you have to consider the time frame), he is only commenting the situation as it existed at the time he replied not passing the problem of finding a solution to anyone else. (Is that how you were reading it ?)
 * Since you are putting other issues on the same discussion, (I have avoided doing so). It seems that addressing the simple validity of the present TOC2 page would by default resolve any other pending issues. But you know perfectly well that I don't view the solution you made on the main title pages was impartial, right and in accord with the best practices as I see it, but lets not rehash the subject, if TOC2 survives and I hope you rethink your vote on the merit of the page as it stands now in place as merely taking sides again in a long passed dispute. If the page is given a purpose I will be the first to change my vote. Probably then we will have to revisit the title page situation since even you can seem how other people are being affected by it. (PS: Sorry taking so much space on the VFD page but since it is now a public discussion that got outside of the normal namespace of the book project, past events. I feel the need to avoid past errors and attempt to be clear to any outside audience. I also know that some of those reading this seem to like this sort of tripe, please do try to at least to understand the problem before commenting.)   --Panic (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That you accuse me of "taking sides" is laughable. If I had my way, and if I were acting in what I thought to be the best interests of User:Darklama, I would block you from wikibooks forever, unprotect the page at C++ Programming and redesign that page to support both TOCs in an aesthetic and explanatory way. I have been absolutely impartial in my actions there, stopping both parties from engaging in an edit war, adding both options to that page, and not taking any further action until the authors of the book reach a compromise. As you made perfectly clear previously, you were not interested in working towards compromise, and you should take some responsibility for that. You're asking the Wikibooks community to overrule the wishes of a book's authors and act, in an uncompromising way, to absolve you of the need to discuss the issue civilly and reach consensus. Forum-shopping does not preclude the need for discussion and compromise. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 02:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not accusing you of anything just asking that you provide a objective reason on the topic at hand and provide a reasonable analysis of the page that is proposed for deletion. I will not address past event here and don't see your last response as productive. But please don't say things that aren't true or I'll be forced to reply with the facts (history logs). Most of the events aren't as you describe them, repeating unrelated and unsubstantiated events as justification for your vote option doesn't seem productive to me nor a valid argument to substantiate your vote decission. I have already taken responsibility for the things I did and was driven to do and even been punishment for situations/conflicts I didn't originate. You're asking the Wikibooks community.. this statement is deceitful, you have been given the reason this option was taken before you made this statement, but ultimately, your own actions drove it to be so, you chose not to address the issue and failed to provide a non imposed solution, consensus or cooperation can't be reached by imposition. You would be hard pressed to prove an event were I dind't attempt to reach a consensual decission even using a purest form of the concept (with no objections). I'm not attacking you or any other Wikibookian the action was initiated to address a pressing issue that needs a solution, more I consider my participation on the community as productive as yours, veiled block threats will not cow me (most probably the opposite) when you make statements like those you just did you lose any credibility on the situation, fact DL was informed of the situation before any escalation of the problem, the decission process was the same that has been used by the book community. I only took action since Wikibookians and even other editors have requested the issue to be addressed on that base I proposed a viable, transparent and conflict free way out of the problem. --Panic (talk) 03:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|15px]] Delete. If I remember correctly, TOC1 was the original TOC, and should be the only TOC. TOC2 caused a huge edit war(as I understand it) and has, basically, become a parasite to the whole C++ book, forcing all editors to stop edits or edit on both if they want to properly contribute to the book. Having said that, I don't care which of these gets deleted, as long as one does and we can start working on the book as a whole again. ~VNinja~ 03:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Txs for your input. Just to clarify things TOC2 didn't per se create a edit war (were multiple reverts were performed) it was a lot more complex than that (the only reversions done were on the title page), but you got the time frame right and I share that reason with you (primacy in grade and order). Deleting the now stale TOC2 page as proposed would resolve that issue and the last proposal passed as a book convention will address future alternative TOCs, not by blocking them (as I read it is you opinion we should) but putting them beyond a be bold action. --Panic (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)