Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Cascading Style Sheets/Dedication

Cascading Style Sheets/Dedication should be deleted. Wikibooks are not dedicated, and certainly not by a single editor who contributed almost nothing to the book. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 21:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * He actually made 38 edits to that book. Nevertheless, I agree with the sentiment that he shouldn't have added a dedication page.--Abramsky (discuss • contribs) 13:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Do we have any policies about dedications? Seems like a nice idea to me and helps personalise books a little.--ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Estonia.svg|15px]]talk 22:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No policy as far as I can tell. I've no problem with dedications per se but it would have to be by consensus of the book authors or at least somehow relevant. This dedication seems irrelevant to the content and not added by consensus of the authors QU TalkQu 10:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. The other issue is that since this is a wiki, what's to stop any other editor changing the dedication to refer to someone else?--Abramsky (discuss • contribs) 12:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that a dedication is not prohibited but editors must understand that they are also no protected, as you state any other editor may make changes and any reproduction of the work outside of the project may simply discard it, removing any usefulness from creation one so in general should be avoided as they simply may degenerate in points of contention.
 * Some type of enforcement or protection may be granted to the page using a Book convention that establishes by consensus (as QuiteUnusual indicates) establishes special considerations or requirements for changes, but ultimately there will not way to protect the content outside of the project.
 * Due to its ineffectiveness I wouldn't oppose making it clear in a proper guide/policy (this discussion should be resumed on Reading room after it closes). It can also be something to add to the manual of style. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 01:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete in boldface, to make it clear I am serious about the nomination. Why don't you just delete a dedication made by an editor who contributed no substance to a book he has dedicated? How can making such a dedication ever be considered reasonable or acceptable, just for a second? You don't need a policy for that. If you agree with me, please post boldfaced delete so we can delete the thing. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 17:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't know if the "you" is directed to me but will extend my view on the issue to why I did not express agreement with this particular deletion.
 * The first issue I have is with global community exerting control on generalized issues regarding specific works and failing to rule permanently those issues. This of course leads to people feeling to be target for special treatment and can lead to injustice, as it enables the active vocal/participatory minority to be able to make radically different decision in similar situations. Then there is the waste of time in repeating the same discussions over and over again especially if those participating are not aware of past discussions, have forgotten past argumentation or have no interest in having them revisited because they do not support their view.
 * The other point is that I feel that project specific editorial disputes should be resolved inside the project that has them first, only failing to get a consensus there should the general community be involved. I'm generally opposed (will not support) RDFs of pages in works that do not violate general policy/guidelines and to a lesser degree established common practice. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 12:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete The user's contribution to the book appears to have been infrastructure, but a dedication without consultation does seem a somewhat high-handed gesture. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 23:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)