Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/category:pywikibot

All pages contained in category:pywikibot and it's sub-cats.
I propose this hole pywikibot manual for deleting. The origin pywikibot manual is hold by, you'll find it as mw:Manual:Pywikibot with all it's content. The pages at Wikibooks are just older copies, they are outdated and nobody will update it here. The local copy may confuse developers and the duplication is not useful at all. Xqt (discuss • contribs) 16:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Why don't you propose that the media wiki book be only hosted by Wikibooks (it seems the better project to have it), not that I particularly care, only addressing your duplication concern. I really don't see lack of advancement in itself as a proper reason for deletion. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 16:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The manual is nearby the Mediawiki software (and its manual) where it concerns to. Maybe it was the first thought coming from meta. It does not make any sense to spread manuals on several platforms, especially when nobody keeps it up-to-date. This would be confusing bot owners. It is a property of that instruction manual of an often used bot framework in perpetual beta state to be outdated within a short time. Therefor I guess it would be a good idea to delete this page duplications, which you can verify by the version histories. Xqt (discuss • contribs) 19:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I fail to see the rationality in discussing notions like "nearby" when we are talking about the same Internet software infrastructure and same hardware setup (Wikimedia) especially after the merging efforts being made. In any case this isn't the place to argue about that particular need.
 * I'm not taking a position of opposition against your request at present, just pointing out that the grounds your are formulating it are very weak and in my view misdirected...
 * In regards to Wikibooks the nearness to the software isn't an issues, nor is it the duplication, in fact the issues you raised (confusion, etc) are good points to press the developers to, especially in light of general Wikimedia policies that fragmented the scope of each wiki subproject, move the manual here (in fact every manual that resides in the Media Wiki project), even facilitating future translations of the same. Our project is the best one to develop manuals and textbooks, that unarguably is our raison detre. Look for instance how we centralized our use of images on Commons, the logic is the same... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 20:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that since these manuals are for Mediawiki software, and are self-referential to Wikimedia, they should be kept at Mediawiki, especially since the software is used for non-Wikimedia sites. If we imported the manuals, it would follow that we should import all the descriptions of extensions and parser functions and so forth. That's what the Mediawiki website is for; to host it all here would muddle our mission and would be self-referential. But that is all a whole debate in itself. If we're going to have one, we should have them all, and so it makes no sense just having this one manual here, which is only an outdated version of the one at Mediawiki anyway. Liam987  talk 21:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per my rationale above. Liam987  talk 21:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. it is a mess, unlikely to be fixed. this was imported from meta, Pywikibot/userlib.py is some automated code documentation, which we already have on https://doc.wikimedia.org/pywikibot/. John Vandenberg (discuss • contribs) 14:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. As above: confusing, outdated, and inconsistent with the status of the rest of our (MediaWiki-based) documentation. Fhocutt (WMF) (discuss • contribs) 20:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

What's the status on this? The discussion's quiet and I see a clear consensus to delete. --Fhocutt (WMF) (discuss • contribs) 12:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per Liam987. 46.254.186.36 (discuss) 23:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Things happen when they happen here. It'll get deleted when an admin has the time and inclination amongst dealing with the spam and vandals. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 13:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate it if this can be resolved quickly. We have Google Code-in 2015 coming up, and these pages cause confusion for beginners, because they appear high in Google results, seem authoritative because they are 'Wikimedia pages', but they are wrong/misleading/out of date/empty/etc.
 * If they cant be deleted quickly, how should we tag them so alert the reader of their lack of utility? John Vandenberg (discuss • contribs) 22:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A notice can easily be added at top of every page pointing to an updated resource (not a generic portal) or a portal can be prominently displayed on the cover page indicating that the book is out of date.
 * I dont agree with the arguments for the deletion, will not support but also not object to it as the content seems to be freely available elsewhere in an updated form. My view is that Mediawiki manuals should be on Wikibooks, the same rational that made us move our images to Commons all the other non-Wikibooks issues are just that, not a Wikibook problem that we need to address. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 05:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Panic, then I must ask you to look at the content again. It is not a manual.  Most of the pages are auto-generated junk.  e.g. Pywikibot/family.py - what do the plus and minus mean in those lists?  Some pages like Pywikibot/Basic use could be used in a manual, but however is full of incorrect information about pywikipedia (a dead project) instead of pywikibot, and anyone wanting to seriously write a manual about pywikibot for a real audience would start by using the equivalent pages on MediaWiki, such as mw:Manual:Pywikibot/Basic use. John Vandenberg (discuss • contribs) 05:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * per Liam987 --Vito Francisco 23:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I doubt that Wikibooks is the right place.--Abramsky (discuss • contribs) 10:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)