Wikibooks talk:Featured books/Nominations

Completeness and Formatting
I agree with Xania that formatting is relatively minor thing, and that it would make somewhat of a bias towards books written by those who know more about wiki markup to favor those books with good formatting. Also, I think that if we feel formatting is the only thing keeping something from becoming a "featured book" then we should collaborate to fix the formatting (for the sake of any authors that do not know how) and then it'd be good to go.

As far as content is concerned, I think that there needs to be some break-point as far as how in-depth the book goes on a topic, yes I agree with Xania that formatting isn't as important but I would beg to differ about the amount (and, even more importantly, the quality) of the content. I agree that a good book doesn't need to be that long (eg the survival guide, which covers a rather narrow topic but does so well; also chess only has 7 pages I think but they cover the most essential topics regarding the game) but I feel it does need to cover a significant amount of the proposed topic.

I think part of the problem might be that we need to think about whether we want this project to be a list of good books or a list of the best books on the project, because it seems to me at least that there's some disagreement of which is which. I'd suggest that perhaps we should develop a more specific set of standards so that we know what we're looking for in content particularly before we vote on something (because we have several guidelines for formatting but only 1-2 very general points as far as content is concerned). I myself would vouch for the latter since the project is, as far as I can tell, reader-oriented. Mattb112885 (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm really trying to put our best books forward, because I think readers will be more impressed by the "cream of the crop" then by a whole bunch of books that are  just "good enough". I will entertain criticisms that I am being too myopic. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree completely with Whiteknight. It's far better to have a shorter list of truly excellent books than a long list of books that are just ok or even "good" ("good" is a really undescriptive word, and not really that high an accolade). I also don't like how we use the term "good books" in some places and "featured books" in others. Is there a difference? Is one an older naming convention than the other?
 * On Mattb112885's points, I think that both formatting and actual content are equally important. When looking at a textbook, there's nothing more daunting than a huge pile of unformatted text. No matter how thrilling the prose its, it's still just text and you won't learn much from it, in my opinion. On the other hand, substandard content cannot be improved by making it pretty; formatting alone does not a good book make. I believe that we need to require both good content, and good formatting, in order for a book to be featured. These are supposed to be the showcase of the website, and if they're lacking in either area, they're clearly not showing our full potential, or a standard for which to aim.
 * I also agree that we need to set some proper descriptive standards that encompass everything, so that we're all working from roughly the same page when voting.
 * Kind regards, Celestianpower 22:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That is true, it can't be completely UN-formatted, I'm just saying that as long as the basic formatting is there we probably shouldn't look past the book just because it doesn't use fancy templates and what have you, as long as whatever is there does the job. Mattb112885 (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We also have to ask how much effort, exactly, does it take to properly format a book to a minimum standard? The breaking of different subjects into different headings is one of the most important, and easiest, steps in formatting a book properly. Using bold on keywords, or italics on items that need emphasis are good too, but not always necessary. Other formatting tools such as tables, image captions, definition lists, etc are all nice but certainly not needed (and not always applicable). In the end, the formatting required is very very small, but that minimum level should not be ignored. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing featured books
Should books that pass the nominations be removed from the list? RobinH 08:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Re-nominations
Marketing has been re-nominated. Perhaps there should be some criteria for renomination. I would like to see, as a minimum:


 * 1) A link to the original nomination.
 * 2) A description of how the concerns raised in the rejection have been addressed.

Marketing is an interesting example for re-nomination because voters suggested changes that would make it eligible for featured book status rather than rejecting outright. RobinH 07:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, this just makes more sense than simply repeatedly posting something and hoping it passes. Mattb112885 (talk) 11:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I changed the text of Good books to say that a book may not be renominated for at least one month (which is arbitrary, i know), or until the criticisms from the first nomination have been addressed. Providing a link to the previous nomination, if it can be found in the archives, is a good idea too. The Good books page is just a proposal right now, but if we keep doing what it says and nobody objects I think we could just make it into a guideline eventually. --Whiteknight (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Algorithms comments
I definitely like the idea of an Algorithms book, and I do somewhat enjoy the tone. With respect to Xania's comment, the abbreviations and jargon are explained in the mathematical background, but you might have to wade through them to understand. This book is much more formal/theoretical than it is technical, so there are some inherent limits to how friendly one can make it. Friendliness would be brilliant, of course, but for an algorithms book (as opposed to a programming book), the priority is more to be correct than it is to be understandable. Overall, we can forgive this book for not being completely accessible to the general public. This book is likely suited for students in computer science programmes, and 'practical' computer programmers interested in catching up on their formal training -- Kowey 07:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am a former computer science student and graduate yet I will not support any book which doesn't aim to be "understandable". The worst thing about computer science today is that jargon and technical language is unnecessarily frightening for unfamiliar users - and it doesn't need to be. Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 20:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to be honest with you Xania, i dont see anything in this book that is particularly complicated or unaccessible. Remember that textbooks are not collections of articles, and that there is an intended reading order. If you start at the beginning of the book, and don't just flip to a random chapter, all the necessary terms and "jargon" are explained. Alot of the algorithms may not be intuitive or obvious, but that's because many of them deal with specific data structures. For instance, you dont need to know algorithms for manipulating a binary tree unless you know what a binary tree is in the first place. --Whiteknight (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Xania - I'm still trying to decide how to vote on this one. Could you offer some concrete suggestions on how the authors could make this book more accessible? That is, not just "avoid burying the user in jargon and technical language", but specific points that could be made clearer. I would also be willing oppose if you could show a better way; otherwise, I'm leaning towards support.

Also out of curiosity, what kind of computer science did you study? Theoretical computer science with automata and what not, or more practical programming-oriented stuff? -- Kowey 08:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the late reply. I now see the appendix and explanations of terms that I had previously confused me.  I'm willing to support this book.  I studied 'Computation' which is geared towards a very broad study of all things computer-related, from software programming, statistics, social consequences of computers and modern technology, using computers for learning, computer architecture and software quality.  Basically a little of everything. Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 22:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I think that's why this book seemed a little bit incomprehensible at first; it really does lean towards the theoretical part of computer science (well, it's halfway in between theory and practical, I guess).    It will be a useful resource, though -- Kowey 06:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

New look
I don't like the new look with the table of contents down the middle. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 02:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was the result of deleting a |} by accident. I've fixed it.
 * never mind. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 03:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Archiving this stuff
Some of the nominations on the main page are two years old and long closed. I was going to move them to an archive but not sure where. I found a whole page of archives but they are all placed in a page of their own which seems very inconvenient and moving each closed nomination will be too time-consuming. Can we not just archive them as we would archive anything else and have one page for each year of nominations?--ЗAНИA talk 20:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hm. One-to-a-page is the way we archive deletion discussions, too.  The advantage, I suppose, is ability to automatically generate a link to it (or to them, if there are multiple nominations).  This is an instance where a bit of semi-automation to make the operation easier to do "by hand" would be a big help.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 21:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah I forgot about the delete discussions. Seems a lot of work for something that almost nobody would ever want to read again.  I'll leave it until somebody has the time to move them to their resting place or a bot does the work for us.  It would be much simpler if we just moved them all to one page and then copied the main comments and a link to the archive page onto the book's Talk page.--ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Estonia.svg|15px]]talk 21:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The other example of this I've seen was on Wikinews, where someone tried to set things up so that requests for privileges would all be filed away neatly in per-request archive pages, and whenever someone requested any sort of a privilege, a complete list of all their past requests for any privilege whatever would automatically pop up. Which makes all kinds of sense for Wikinews because it's quite common for any regular Wikinewsie to have multiple such requests, except that it was going to be too much work to maintain.  So there's clearly a market for a tool that would make this sort of per-request archiving easy to do.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 01:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Drive-bys
The most recent comment under the section about nomination for addition of the wikibook on OpenSSH looks like a drive-by and unintended to help the book. It is mostly addressing problems that don't exist and appears trying to change the scope of the book. It looks like the account owner has not read the book introduction even, especially about how the scope matches the title. There aren't even any missing or dead links in the section referred to in the nomination comment. I've looked at the comments that account has left in the book and there's not much on-topic there either. That said, I have tried gleaning what liitle I can from those. What should be done about the apparent drive-by account or its comment in the nominations? Larsnooden (discuss • contribs) 11:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you are referring to the in the discussion? --12:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not so much the vote itself as the erroneous comments accompanying it. Larsnooden (discuss • contribs) 12:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There appear to me to be two possible approaches, that call I think for careful weighing before doing either: reversion or reply. I've been thinking about how best to do each of these.
 * On my own I wouldn't revert because I wouldn't be confident enough of whether this is really vandalism; I'd be interested to know what thinks of this, as someone more familiar than I with the material (and an admin who has dealt with some subversive vandalism).  If I were reverting I'd likely use as edit summary a more compact form of the reply I'd most likely write.
 * The reply I've tentatively considered reads "It's not clear to me that these criticisms are consistent with the book material they're directed at (a concern also raised by Larsnooden)."
 * --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 14:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll think about it more.  Larsnooden (discuss • contribs) 14:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not a vandal because the critic is skilled and founded, so we shouldn't revert it. I'm going to reply... JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 20:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've considered some of the points again. 1)  The chapter on Public Key Authentication has been reworked.  2) The chapter on Host-based Authentication has also been reworked.  3) A chapter on Certificate-based authentication has been added.  4) The section on Managing Keys had been reworked slightly but there is not much to say since the main activity there concerns managing files, an activity related to system administration.  5) Automated backup has been touched up ever so slightly.  However 6) X-Windows is already covered in the section on Remote Processes, albeit briefly because anyone needing a tutorial to find the -X option is not going to be happy with the latency, so I'm not seeing merit in expanding that.  7) I'd expand on Automated Backup if I can see a way to do it without going off on a tangent and turning it into a shell scripting tutorial.  As it is now that chapter seems clear and to the point.  Larsnooden (discuss • contribs) 09:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean Wikivuyo (discuss • contribs) 19:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)