Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/MediaWiki Developer's Handbook

MediaWiki Developer's Handbook
I suggest the whole book MediaWiki Developer's Handbook should be deleted. http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual now contains all necessary information. -- Xypron (talk) 10:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * On the chance that this book is developed into a more pedagogical resource. Thenub314 (talk) 10:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep not redundant if it's in another project. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 13:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete: while there's always the chance it could be developed further, keep in mind that MediaWiki Developer's Handbook, MediaWiki Administrator's Handbook and MediaWiki User Guide are all competing against those three same divisions of content (developer, administrator, and user) that MediaWiki uses to organize its content. In fact, the coverage of MediaWiki is exactly what the MediaWiki wiki is all about.  I personally believe that these three books are basically the equivalent to having MediaWiki.org as a sub-project of Wikibooks and that WB:WIW should be updated to exclude these books.  I would support using existing material to supplement the Help namespace material but I do not support duplication of efforts between WMF projects. – Adrignola talk contribs 16:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the books are within scope, I just think the Developer, Administrator and User books aren't particular good and are outdated. --dark lama  16:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * One thing to keep in mind is the the difference between the two wiki's. The pages at mediawiki.org will probably never have linear page ordering with navigation, (I don't think) it is not possible to organize the pages there into collections and order pedia press copies, and they will probably never aim to have a pdf or print versions of their work.  I won't be heart broken if we delete this book (because it so under developed relative to the competition), but I don't think the documentation there is ever meant to be developed into a book, but just a wiki. Thenub314 (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't agree with Adrignola here. As Thenub said, a documentation and a book are different. Also, a Wikibook on the same thing can be more textbook-like so that they go from the basics to the tougher bits. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 23:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been recently rethinking this issue to see if there is some room to compromise. I think it should be noted that Xypron is a main contributor in the book, and as such his opinion is important.  Additionally I agree we should try to duplicate effort.  But when I read through the "case studies" section of MediaWiki Developer's Handbook/Add JavaScript I think to myself that this is an excellent example of how a textbook and a manual can be different.  But then again I am no technical expert in this field, so I want to be careful.  So let me ask Xypron or anyone familiar, are there examples of simple, heavily comment code like this at MediaWiki Manual?  If not, do they have a place there in the manual there, or is a section like this more suited to wikibooks? Thenub314 (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As a MediaWiki.org and kind of MediaWiki-nerd (:P) I think this manual is still educative, and should be kept. Diego Grez (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * as per Diego. Sj (talk) 07:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)