Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Python Programming/Q&A

Python Programming/Q&A
This page is full of Questions regarding the Python Programming language. The questions are General in nature and do not relate to a particular section of the book. Is Wikibooks a Reference Desk? 33rogers (talk) 09:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Symbol comment vote.svg Comment: WB:WIW says that Wikibooks is not a dictionary or encyclopedia; nothing is said about a reference desk, though. Study help desk is no longer active.  Perhaps the page could be turned into a frequently asked questions page (that remains semi-static) rather than a dynamic discussion forum. -- Adrignola talk contribs 12:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * With Python, a person will get support faster via IRC #python @ freenode. The page referenced above cannot be turned into FAQ, because there are no answers? With regards to the last question "I would like to understand the reasons for using dictionaries, tuples, lists, etc. I can't see the reasons for doing most of the things in this language. There are never an explanation of why you'd want to use certain things. Hires an editor (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)" I think it would be more appropriate for it to go into the talk page of the book. --33rogers (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I moved that to the talk page. I don't think there should be a problem deleting the page now, but I'll give some time for any objections. -- Adrignola talk contribs 12:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete - questions about ANY TOPIC should be asked at Wikipedia, not on wikibooks. I mean, whoever saw books automatically answering people's questions! :P Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 13:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That may be your personal view, but there is no rule that forbids book contributors. See Adrignola's comment, posted an hour before yours. Also, note that apart from the fact that your argument on books applies no less to Wikipedia, Wikibooks is not paper. --Swift (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is unwise to have question pages here, since we any particular book rarely has an editor attending it to. But I have seen many books here that have such question pages. But I fully support the idea of turning it into a FAQ.  On a personal note, I don't see why it makes sense to ask questions at wikipedia.  Wikiversity should really be the place for wikipedia's reference desks in my opinion. Thenub314 (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For deletion also: Chess/Q&A
 * If Q&A has no answers I propose that it be deleted from Wikibooks.
 * As such Q&A pages are abandoned on Wikibooks.
 * For turning it into FAQ, the Q&A page could be kept if it has proper answers etc.
 * However, I still think the Talk page serves all Q&A pages purpose.
 * --33rogers (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete As others mentioned, a static FAQ makes perfect sense as a book module. Even a dynamic Q&A section can be useful for the authors of a book as an alternative way of for gathering reader suggestions about which areas could be improved. That's why I wouldn't agree with a hard rule on deleting Q&A pages. However, such pages would have to be clearly labelled as resources for posting questions that the book left unanswered, and not as general-purpose reference desks, as both this and the cited Chess page are. So, delete, or at least refactor to a more well-defined scope (which is unfortunately unlikely given the low activity in that book).--Duplode (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There's already a Q&A section for wikibooks. To reach them, click the "discussion" link at the top of the page, and ask a question associated with the given page (or the main book if necessary.) In these cases, content questions are usually indications that the person asking them hasn't read the page, but can otherwise be clarifying questions. I'd also like to draw attention to C Programming/Q&A - at one time, I did a cleanup on that page, removing questions that turned out to be word purée, duplicate, or from those who simply can't be bothered reading the book.  There were also homework questions, and and drive-by questions (e.g. post a question but make no attempt to assist others.)  --Sigma 7 (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Talk pages are specifically for discussing their corresponding pages, not necessarily the general topic of the book. Comments posted on these are only noticed by those watching those pages so there is a benefit to having a local page where users can ask questions or ask general feedback. That is not to say that Q&A/FAQ pages are necessary or even useful on all books. Simply that some book contributors may find them useful and as long as they're not harmful, we would do well to respect the wishes of those contributors. --Swift (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol comment vote.svg Comment I have created several Q&A pages but all in the talk namespace, not as part of a book. They are generally important and useful. They permit clarification of the subject matter, detecting missing information on the work, helps to improve the quality of the content and even in helping readers (a happy reader will often turn into a good contributor). I'm not as yet contributing to Wikiversity but a Q&A can be an extremely helpful tool to bridge a book into Wikiversity. --Panic (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Someone should start a fresh RfD for Chess/Q&A and C Programming/Q&A and place an RfD templates on those pages if we are are serious about deleting them. Otherwise the editors working on these books might not realize they are being discussed. Thenub314 (talk) 10:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've undeleted the page and reopened the prematurely closed discussion. Seven days can be, but aren't always sufficient for hearing all views and reaching a conclusion. Furthermore, with only four statements for delete, one for keep and comments noting that the content is within scope and potentially useful, consensus has not bee demonstrated. --Swift (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep as per my several comments above that may be summarised as follows: Q&A/FAQs are within the scope of Wikibooks, have their uses and while I wouldn't choose these for the books I'm working on, I believe that as long as they're not harmful, we should give contributors leeway in how they structure their books and interact with their readers, as has been the culture here at Wikibooks. --Swift (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)