Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Wikibooks:Card Catalog Office

Card Catalog Office
With apologies to Rob (who I know has spent quite a bit of time on this), the CCO is not really the way people search for things. As such, is it time to dispense with the CCO and concentrate on other ways of searching for content? Jguk 21:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I suspect such classification would be useful to librarians for finding and reccomending books to their patrons. Using mediawiki categories instead of a hand-maintained list may help, however. Kellen T 23:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I just think that librarians trying to find anything on wikibooks at the moment would, if anything, be struck by the paucity of our coverage if they went to CCO (even though we do have a fair number of good books out there), Jguk 07:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - This is an organizational page to do exactly what is being discussed as the "Collaboration of the Month" this month as a way to organize the books on Wikibooks. The page is set up to centralize the discussion of book organization, rather than having it scattered across dozens of pages or have the discussion lost in the Staff Lounge discussion.  Of course I've spent quite a bit of time on this concept, and there is much more to be done.  As stated on the page, it is eventually to be an organized method of trying to catalog new Wikibooks.  I hardly call that justification for deletion and if not this page, then something very similar is going to have to be established.  This is a Wikiproject in the classical sense as can be found on Wikipedia, but oriented toward Wikibooks instead.  Is cataloging books on Wikibooks a bad thing?  --Rob Horning 17:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Rob, I certainly agree that we need places to discuss the better organisation of wikibooks, and I hope this month's collaboration goes a long way in improving it (it'll also be the first collaboration on here that I hope to participate in:) ). The main issue I have with CCO (and I really do appreciate that you have spent much time on it, and don't want this discussion to in any way denigrate your efforts) is that it concentrates too strongly on the Dewey and Library of Congress systems. At present Wikibooks is small (you estimate 1,000 books - of which around 100 will leave when the games walkthroughs get transwikied in due course), whereas the Dewey and LoC systems have developed to deal with libraries that are much, much larger. And we have seen portals, such as the yahoo one, become (after pure search engines, which don't really work on Wikibooks) one of the main ways of searching across webpages. I feel this is the way to go - and accordingly that the effort on Dewey and LoC is probably misdirected. The general idea of having a centralised place to discuss all organisational issues on WB is, however, an idea I feel comfortable with, Jguk 19:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The CCO has little to nothing to do with the LOC or Dewey classification by itself. It is just a way to organize the books.  I also have no idea why it is necessary to delete or remove classification of Wikibooks through either, both systems, or perhaps other classification systems.  IMHO, the more ways that you can provide that organize the content on this site the better off we would all be.  If you think the effort for Dewey and LoC classification is misdirected, fine, don't participate.  Nobody is forcing you but you shouldn't be forcing anybody to not do it either.  Present you case as to why it is a poor idea and let people decide for themselves.  BTW, Wikibooks is going to be much larger than just 1,000 books, so I think it is wise to try and see what other classification systems are doing that we might be able to adopt or even improve upon.  --Rob Horning 18:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep This project seems understaffed but active. This is where I believe that I send links that I add to Template:New. --Kernigh 06:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)