Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/The GIMP -- Noob to Pro

1st time
Per discussion on Talk:The GIMP: Noob to Pro, this book does not have a significantly different scope or target audience. Work should be done to improve The GIMP rather than starting a new book. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 18:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol keep vote.svg|15px]] Keep I still think that this book should be kept. It does have a different scope. It's just really hard to see the scope of a book before it is written.Nick.anderegg (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC) moved from Talk:The GIMP: Noob to Pro. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 18:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol keep vote.svg|15px]] Keep but rename - I still think that the use of colons on the bookname is problematic. As for the need of yet another book on the subject, I still haven't been convinced by the argumentation that we should force people to restrict themselves to improve already existing content, this is a bit different than a fork (we still don't have a fork policy), but is common understanding that we (wikibooks) should strive to keep forks/duplications of subjects low (using the scope subterfuge), this point has clear consensus, but if the new contributor wishes to start from a clean slate (because for whatever reason he feels incapable of building on the previous existing work) would it be beneficial for us to prevent the creating the new work ? I don't think so, we should press the point that it should be the last resort but ultimately we should encourage people contributing content whenever we can. This is no big problem since the community will reserve the right to take steps later on, to reduce forks/subject duplications, in the form of proposals for merge or even deletion. Merges at a later date are almost guaranteed even in the strictest of consensus, there will always be a later date were a unworthy projects will cease to have any support on the community. This approach enables peaceful resolution to conflicts, generates more free content (not only for the project) and fosters competition to generate quality work. --Panic (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol comment vote.svg|15px]] On the topic of renaming it, I don't feel that this will be problematic. I actually got the idea for the title from Blender 3D: Noob to Pro, because I like the way it was set up. Blender 3D, is even a featured book, and it utilizes the colon, so I don't that that is will cause any problems. --Nick.anderegg (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You maybe right, but historically the use of colon (named as the colon convention) regarding page names indicates a specific namespace (and as I said earlier on it is still recognised as such by the Wikimedia software), like all existing programming books were under Programming: this is made even more clear if you look in the Cookbook: namespace, this convention was deprecated (personally I didn't participate on the discussion) but for what I read on the naming policy and the discussions that took place this convention should be avoided (and if you think a bit about it it seems reasonable that we should use a single standard, or it becomes very confusing), as for the Blender 3D: I don't know why it still uses the old convention (probably it is an old book) but for consistency sake it should also be renamed... --Panic (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As per your request, I have changed the title to The GIMP -- Noob to Pro for now until I can come up with a better way to separate the subtitle. --Nick.anderegg (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why two hyphens(-)? Why not one or —? Soeb talkundefinedcontribs 20:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh... I don't know. Old habit I guess. I will leave it with two until I can come up with a final name. Check out Talk:The GIMP -- Noob to Pro, and help me pick the new title. --Nick.anderegg (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Txs, that was the last request I had standing, thanks for addressing all and again I'm sorry if I pressured you into action in any way, it's my normal procedure: page created by anonymous user, no content, tag as speedy deletion
 * Due to the new way pages are being validated (we don't have any hint that a page was already patrolled), I tend to pick newer and easy to resolve pages. I will attempt to deal with the other colon book :) as soon as this discussion closes. --Panic (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It was created by an anonymous user because I forgot to log in. :-) I really don't think there is a problem with the colon. I opened it up to discussion in the book talk page because the name follows the naming policy. It wasn't allowed under an old policy maybe, but it is allowed now and it is the standard way to subtitle a book in print. --Nick.anderegg (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Humm no you have misunderstood me, the colon was the original way of naming books on Wikibooks, sometime ago due to the need of sub-pages in books and a way to access those the "/" slash convention substituted it. I remember at a the time being asked to rename the books I was working on to remove colon, being the rational more or less the one I gave you above, this is the standing policy even if it doesn't clearly state the exclusion of the colon as it is today I will examine to see if something has been lost over the edits the approved text has gone in the meanwhile. --Panic (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol keep vote.svg|15px]] Keep Let's see what will grow out of The GIMP: Noob to Pro. If it will not be much different, then we can merge it or remove it. Soeb talkundefinedcontribs 20:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol keep vote.svg|15px]] Keep I'm surprised why there should be a need for a second book, and I suspect this will just duplicate work. That said, I don't see why this should be deleted. As Soeb mentioned it can be merged later. Merge suggestions can be taken up on the book pages any time. --Swift (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol keep vote.svg|15px]] Keep I think the real options here are for a new user to duplicate work, or for a new user to not contribute to Wikibooks. With the former, we stand a chance of improving Wikibooks.  With the latter, we do not. --Jomegat (talk) 04:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * WB:FORK may not be policy, but it's generally accepted that forking is bad unless there is good reason - usually a significantly different scope or audience. This book has nothing close to a significantly different scope or audience. Merging the books is wasted effort, and I rather unhappy that Nick is putting the community in the position of having to expend that effort. Nonetheless, the book should be deleted. Instead, chapters should be merged into The GIMP (or vice versa) ASAP. Incidentally, the colon was much better than the current title and Panic would do well to stop misrepresenting the naming policy. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 22:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fantastic, now I'm misrepresenting the naming policy a publicly accessible document, at most I gave my informed opinion on the subject, elucidated the user about what has been discussed and even made clear that there are books that use that convention. --Panic (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we can close this now. It has been one week and everyone has voted KEEP. --Nick.anderegg (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)