Wikibooks talk:Book of the month/September 2005 voting

Programming books
I beg to differ. The Computer_science_bookshelf quite clearly states that every programming languages has it's own book. It would not make sense to have a single book for all the programming languages. There are so many programming languages out there that there is also a Programming languages bookshelf for them.

There is, however, also a language independent book called Computer_programming.

Besides, Naming conventions is only "proposed policy"" - if it became fixed a loot of books would need to be renamed.

--Krischik 06:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

bookshelving policy overhaul
However, Computer science bookshelf, as with all other bookshelves, is severely outdated (mainly due to a bookshelving policy overhaul). Programming languages bookshelf is also not among the canonical list of bookshelves as they merely lead to sections of the same book and thus acting as a table of contents page for one book (which itself violates WB:NC). Although WB:NC is proposed policy, it is only so because the details of whether to use ":" or "/" as the sole delimiter still needs to be resolved - in all other aspects it is enforced. KelvSYC 07:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Contributer
Change the policy and 30 odd books become 1 - good way to alianate the contributors. Remember: Wikibooks is done by humans - and humans have feelings. And you are going to hurt those feeling big time when you degrade there work from book to section with a stroke of a policy-pen.

In this respect anouncing your new policy right here on "Book of the Month" - where hopes are high - was just perfect to get the maximum effect. That is: if hurting other peoples feelings was your aim.

Or are you going to help us in changing 204 pages + 20 odd Template + 3 Categories from "Progamming:Ada:*" into "Ada programming/*" before the end of the month so we can continue to run on "Book of the Month" without you objecting?

And I am shure that 99% of all Programming:* contributors think the same: Programming:* is a bookshelf not a book and they are woking on books not sections.

PS: Programming:C -/- -/- had a run in August and July and Programming:C in June - without your objections - so why now.

--Krischik 08:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

merely enforcing policy
I am not trying to alienate contributors, but merely enforcing WB:NC. One of the biggest outstanding problems is that our policies are not being enforced or ignored altogether, which we are trying to address. Why is that Programming:C -/- -/- is allowed to exist any longer than it has, instead of being merged to Programming:C plus plus? It's because WB:FP isn't being enforced. Why is it that General Chemistry contributions continue to break WB:NC? Because they are not being enforced. Even Deletion policy isn't safe. Wonder why in the past nominations on VFD lasted upwards of 6 months without any action, even though a consensus existed? That's right, no enforcement.

And it's not just that they are not enfoced, in some cases they do not even exist. Why is it that there is no policy on how bookshelves are to be managed? Why is it that there is no policy on having a consistent book style across multiple books? Why is it that there is no policy on book title pages?

As for Programming in general, the style of naming books originated in a (since long rejected) idea of having each book in a separate namespace. However, creating new namespaces would mean having to modify the MediaWiki software, and it was rejected for that reason. The good parts about that idea, ie. using ":" as a separator for content that is more graph-oriented, was moved to WB:NC.

In short, I am not trying to alienate contributors, and this is not something that has been unilaterally implemented (see the various policy overhauls that have been suggested by User:Aya). Obviously timeframes are inconvienient for many books and book authors to conform to WB:NC and other policies, and it's going to be a while before existing modules are moved to that effect. I am not trying to invalidate the nomination of Programming:Ada or any other section of Programming, but if they are meant to be separate books, then it should follow WB:NC and not be named as to imply that they are merely sections of a larger book. KelvSYC 23:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

policy
I confess I misunderstand the WB:NC - having seen programming first I thought it is Bookshelf:Book:Chapter.

I am fully in favor of enforcing policy and I can live with "Your book got the wrong name - change it".

I will talk to the other contributors and our readers to agree on a new name for Programming:Ada. Prehaps you would like to join.

--Krischik 06:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, policies are hardly fleshed out. Perhaps you would like to join existing discussions and pitch in with your ideas. KelvSYC 07:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Programming:Language links have been lying around in the Main Page and in Bookshelves as books for a long time. It is a bit harsh to claim they are not books but sections, precisely on this page. They are books, because their authors have decided them to be so. Whether they are not following a naming policy is another matter. I was the first one to claim for subpages, but never thought they would turned back on Programming:Ada as a stone law. Let's take calm on this and don't allow this discussion to affect the Programming:Ada and Programming:C -/- -/- nominations. ManuelGR 20:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

August 31, 2005, 00:00 UTC ...
... has passed 14:00 hours ago - So what happens next? Or was actualy meant: "August 31, 2005, 24:00 UTC" - which is the first minute of the next day.

--Krischik 14:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)