Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Errata

Errata
Does not seem to comply with WB:WIW and looks like a dumping ground for editors' notes. -Matt 00:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I think Errata is great idea. If you want to delete it, please tell me a more appropriate place for this content. The section WB:WIW seems to specifically allow annotations like this. What part of WB:WIW doesn't allow it? --DavidCary 07:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * WB:WIW does not allow content like this in regards to annotated texts. This is not an annotated text since the original work must be included. The pages in Errata seem to have little to no context here at Wikibooks; a visitor to the book merely sees a big long page of footnotes and there is little to nothing explaining what these notes connect to besides an ISBN number. Wikibooks is not a general repository for notes or a webspace provider. The content in this book looks more appropriate for someone to personally store on their own site somewhere. Although this content has a purpose, in my opinion it isn't here. Wikibooks seems like a note dumping ground for this book. -Matt 17:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - Errata is not an annotated text, but it is an instructional resource that is appropriate for Wikibooks. We already have Atlas Shrugged (a plot summary of the book) and Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter. --Kernigh 03:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Errata violates this part of What is Wikibooks: Wikibooks is not an in-depth encyclopedia on a specific topic. This is sometimes called a Macropedia, and is discouraged because most projects of this nature can be dealt with directly on Wikipedia itself anyway. Books generally have a stronger organization that builds knowledge from one module to the next with a suggested chronological order to the content. Encyclopedic entries usually stand alone with only passing reference to other content, demonstrating a difference between Wikipedia and Wikibooks. I wonder if I should change my vote... --Kernigh 04:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. This isn't a book on it's own, nor is it an annotated text of any sort. It is a partial listing of notes on various books. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 05:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep this section is linked to from Wikipedia via the w:Special:Booksources page (defined at w:Wikipedia:Book sources) and is used to provide Errata for books described there. I agree, the current content might leave something to be desired: some of the entries are lists of mistakes, but without any indication of what the correct version should be. Maybe someone ought to fix it rather than throwing the baby out with the bath-water? —Phil | Talk 16:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's linking to the book in no way should reflect this VfD. Your mentioning that fact makes me question this book further because I think that connection suggests Wikipedia is using Wikibooks as a dumping ground for content they don't want to hold or is too large. As explained above, I don't think it fits into Wikibooks policies and the book would need to be totally redone to make it so (for one, the book organizes by ISBN and is a long list of cryptic references). I notice you have only made four edits in the past year and Wikibooks policies have changed quite a bit since then. What was possibly acceptable then is most likely no longer true in my opinion. -Matt 17:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Move to Wikicities, per Whiteknight. Seahen 18:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep or Move to Wikicities if an appropriate landing place can be suggested. This book is envisioned a community resource.  Its entire utility derives from it being a wiki editable project.  It is not a dumping ground for any one person's notes, nor is it in any way a dumping ground for Wikipedia.  (The content of Errata obviously has nothing to do with Wikipedia; it has to do with books and printed articles.)  Errata is not a textbook in the traditional sense, but it could be compared to a reference handbook that can be consulted by students or teachers who are concerned about errors in textbooks they are using.  As such, Errata could be a very valuable resource in the teaching of courses that use popular but error dense textbooks, especially those whose errors are particularly confusing, such as math and science texts.  --Chinasaur 00:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I definitely support a move to Wikicities. Although Wikibooks has extensive resources, I think writing a book that contains (possibly) references to the errata of any printed book in the world is a bit large. This content needs to go to its own specific wiki. -Matt 19:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the fear of overloading Wikibooks resources is a little outlandish as the main idea is to focus on heavily used but error-laden books, a group which is numerous but not overwhelming. Also, many entries in the current Errata are links to editors' own Errata sites, which are still useful as these are not always easy to find with a simple web search, but which don't take much space or resource to maintain.  --Chinasaur 18:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't take part in the WIWB discussions, but ultimately it seems to me that this comes down to whether WB is supposed to be an open-source vehicle or an academic resource. Errata very much belongs in a domain with other books used by academics for learning or teaching purposes.  However, if you see WB as an attempt to eliminate the need for commercial textbooks then I can understand how a resource that increases the utility of commercial books would be out of place.  Where in wikicities would this go?  Or can someone suggest a good free wiki host?  --Chinasaur 18:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think there's a lot more to it than what you've just said. This book seems like a dropping point for large amounts of cryptic information. Lots of it. I've listed many reasons above. You can create a new project at Wikicities and request a subdomain. -Matt 05:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This is starting to irritate me: what is cryptic about the goal of this project? Nobody is writing in code; the whole thing is explained clearly on the front page.  "This equation should be corrected in the following way so that you do not spend 2 hours yelling at your calculator".  What is cryptic about that?  Now, I am prepared to move the project on the grounds that it does not fit the latter-day determination of what is appropriate for WB.  "It is not a textbook."  Fine, I agree.  (Although it has the potential to be useful to many more real students and real teachers than a book about "fighting video game moves", etc. .)  But I am annoyed by off-base criticisms that lead me growingly to suspect that you only glanced at the project before listing it here and have not yet taken a second look.  Anyway, I will look through wikicities for another place, and if anyone can suggest a wikicity or best available free wiki host, that would be appreciated.  --Chinasaur 19:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Mainly, this book looks like a big database. Since it is organized by ISBN, the book has little browsability. Many of the pages are seemingly stubs, some over a year without edits. Many of the pages also only have links to authors' own corrections, making this book look even more like a database and a link repository. I only see approximately one to two dozen subpages even though this book is over a year old. A significant effort would need to be made to develop this large subject matter. Also, the material is like a project of its own; the topic itself that the book tries to organize is massive. That definitely suggests that this should be an independent project. I think it should be moved and deleted here. -Matt 23:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Summary as I see it: Errata is not a textbook, and so does not fall under the current WIWB definition. This remains the only solid criticism.  Other criticisms are basically ruminations of this point, or are simply ruminant.  Whether the current WIWB definition is sacrosanct is a difficult question.  Whether the WIWB definition is being fairly enforced on other questionable "textbooks" is a secondary issue.  The current votes on Errata are inconclusive.  I have agreed to look for a new home for the project.  There are several places on wikicities that seem appropriate.  I would like to look at locations outside of wikicities in case any other infrastructure seems better suited.  This will take a few weeks, so let's check in again towards the end of March.  If we want to move to wikicities, is there an admin who can manage this transition?  --Chinasaur 07:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete or Move, whatever, get it off here. It may be useful, but it's not a textbook. --Tetraminoe 08:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete or Move. Not a textbook.  Moving to Wikicities should count count as a delete since we are deciding what is appropriate for Wikibooks, not what is appropriate for other wikis.  --JMRyan 11:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that move should be counted as delete. At least one said only to delete if a good landing place could be found. Some of us value the content, even if unsure where it should be. --Mathwizard1232 22:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I changed my vote to Delete or Move. Moving satisfies my interest as I don't see it as belonging here.  But I certainly have no objection to moving it first.  I don't even have any objection to moving silly books (which this clearly is not) before deleting them here.  I am somewhat sceptical about the project:  keeping up with all the errata through multiple printings of multiple editions of potentially a gazillion books seems to me a thankless task, and I'm not so sure it is really worth the effort.  But that scepticism is irrelevant to my concern.  Worth the effort or no, the project seems better suited elsewhere as it is too unlike a textbook.  --JMRyan 00:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Although I agree it's off-topic, I'm interested in the argument: I think your skepticism is off base. Errata needn't be all-encompassing to be useful.  My hypothesis is that Errata should inherently weight itself towards "important" errors.  The more a book is used, and the more error-laden it is, and the more problematic its errors are, the more likely it will appear in Errata.  That's why I consider the prime demographic to be math and science textbooks used in large undergraduate classes, or old classics that many people keep on the reference shelf but that haven't been republished in decades.  I wholeheartedly agree that some errata are not worth correcting (at least for now), but I think you would agree that some errata are worth correcting and publishing to the world.  Hopefully I'm correct in supposing that the latter are inherently more likely to appear in our wikibook.  --Chinasaur 08:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep It is instructional and useful. In the long term, however, I think a textual wiki is not the best way to go about this-  you really need a database, so you can do quick searchers based on ISBN, author, title, etc.  If/when WikiData ever comes into being, this would be a great fit there and I'd vote to move it.  --Gabe Sechan 19:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I like it. I however wonder if we should not have an entirely new wikipedia just for that. ISBN's. Really I think this is a logical place to have it. And is some cas perhaps it should be placed in a section or tool on wikibooks called the "ISBN Almanac for wikibooks." --72.57.8.2I5 03:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Like you just said, this book can be its own project. How would ISBN lookup benefit Wikibooks as a tool? Books here do not have ISBNs. This project is a data dump / repository. -Matt 06:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't particularly care where, new project, here, wikicities, whatever. However, I think this is valuable information that should not in any case be deleted, and we should be very sure that its destination will welcome it before we remove it here. --Mathwizard1232 22:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure I understand your vote to keep when you have explained it should just go "somewhere." I don't see how a vote could be made when you mention that the book's true location might not be here at Wikibooks. -Matt 04:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Sj 04:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is an attempt to create a new Wikimedia project using Wikibooks as the seed wiki. I'll say it before and I'll say it again, I think this is a good role for Wikibooks, but the powers that be don't like to see it done that way, and for consistency sake it shouldn't happen.  A major complaint I have is that this content is not really integrated into Wikibooks either, as I would imagine something like this ought to be.  If/when Wikidata ever gets up and going, this would IMHO be a perfect project for that db engine.  Indeed a new Wikimedia project proposal on this very topic was created, with surprisingly the very same conclusion I had here was also made by none other than Angela.  Furthermore, comments like this one by the person who started this project seem to reinforce the fact that Wikibooks is being used as the seed wiki for a brand new project. I agree that this is very valuable information, and it is something that does deserve attention and should go somewhere useful.  It would be nice to have a "seed wiki" setup for precisely projects like this that don't seem to fit quite anywhere on any Wikimedia project, but have general value to the Wikimedia community.  This isn't a textbook, and it really isn't source material, even though the content perhaps ought to be protected in a manner similar to Wikisource texts.  Some considerable effort has gone into this content, and it is not random gibberish but content of general value.  The real question is if this belongs on Wikibooks (and perhaps even featured as a special project next to Wikiversity and Wikijunior) or moved to Wikicities or a separate Wikimedia project?  My vote is to move the content, but there really isn't a place to do that right now (unfortunately).  --Rob Horning 06:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep or Move I just checked Wikicities and apparently they just recently rejected it, and the only reason given was that it already exists here! Like others, I don't care where it is (I find some the purism voiced here amusing - y'all take yourselves and your policies way too seriously) I just want the content to exist, and to exist as a public wiki.  If the purists here really need this content to live elsewhere, can they please inform the powers-that-be over at Wikicities that there is no intent to have duplication: it is desired that this content _move_ over there, not live in both places.  But as I said, I for one don't really care where it lives.  DG

--Dgoldsmith 21:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

--Dgoldsmith 21:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Request If/when the decision is made to remove this book, might I be given notice and some time to try to recruit an alternate host? Thanks!  DG
 * I just started a new proposal on Meta with Wikikernel. Indeed I mentioned this content as an explicit reason to create this new project, because it needs to go somewhere and does serve a valuable function for Wikimedia projects as a whole.  As far as Wikicities rejecting it, supposedly Wikia is a totally separate organization from the Wikimedia Foundation, but sometimes it is hard to tell.  Perhaps in the proposal to create the new Wikicity you should have mentioned that it was up for a VfD on Wikibooks?  --Rob Horning 01:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

A small list of similar projects like Errata in other languages:
 * de:Project:Löschkandidaten
 * es:Project:Páginas para borrar
 * fr:Wikilivres:Pages à supprimer
 * nl:Project:Te verwijderen pagina's
 * pl:Project:Strony do usunięcia

Removed vfd tag, kept for now. There are apparently reasons to delete Errata, but there is no agreement concerning what the reasons are, and there are also plenty of keep votes. Because of this lack of consensus, Errata might again reach VFD in the future. --Kernigh 00:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that if this could be moved somewhere else, or a proposal for a new Wikimedia project be started, now would be the time to do so. I'm going to give this project some breathing space as well for now, but I'll likely be the next person to mark if for VfD in the future if somebody else doesn't beat me to it.  This project certainly should not be used as a rationale to keep similar new projects on Wikibooks.  --Rob Horning 13:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)