ArchivesWikibooks Discussion Rooms

Discussions	Assistance	Requests	Announcements
General | Proposals | Projects | Featured books	General | Technical | Administrative	Deletion | Undeletion | Import | Upload | Permissions	Bulletin Board

Requests for (Un)deletion Archives
Deletion and Undeletion Close discussion with {{closed}}/{{end closed}} RFDs should be moved to subpages at Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/FullPageName RFUs should be moved to subpages at Wikibooks:Requests for undeletion/FullPageName Transclude subpage; remove after 7 days

Pages and books can be deleted by administrators. These decisions are generally backed by consensus from a discussion on this page under the deletion section. No process is perfect, and as such, pages or books can be nominated for undeletion in this section. The following is the procedure:

1. Locate the page entry in the deletion log or the archived discussion. Some deleted pages have been speedily deleted without discussion.
2. Review the Wikibooks:Deletion policy and Wikibooks:Media. If you can build a fair case on something which wasn't considered before, you can raise the issue here.
3. Please add new nominations at the bottom of the section. Include a link to the archived discussion (or deletion log if there was none) and your rationale for why the page should be undeleted. If the community agrees, the page will be restored.

If you wish to view a deleted module or media file, list it here and explain why. An administrator will provide the deleted module to you in some form - either by quoting it in full, emailing it to you, or temporarily undeleting it. If you feel that an administrator is routinely deleting modules prematurely, or otherwise abusing their tools, please discuss the matter on the user's talk page, or at Administrative Assistance.

This page had several years of editing on English Wikipedia, then was moved over to Wikibooks. I'm an admin on enwiki, so I've undeleted the parent article on enwiki and put it the Draft namespace over to decide what do with the prose (see w:Draft:Effects of different voting systems under similar circumstances). I think it would be possible to create a coherent book about voting systems using this example to tie together the explanations of various voting systems. Since I'm not an admin on English Wikibooks, I can't see what work was done after the move was performed, so I'd like to see what (if anything) other folks were able to do with the material after the move. -- RobLa (discuss • contribs) 21:47, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi @RobLa! It looks like it was deleted in 2012 because it was never worked on after the initial import. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the update, @Kittycataclysm! Could you undelete it? I'd like to work on it. I didn't have time to work on it when it was moved, but I have time now. -- RobLa (discuss • contribs) 06:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

@RobLa: I've userfied it for you. JJP_Master (she/they) 06:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

[[File:Nuvola French flag.svg]] 2600:1700:D480:A020:B046:89CA:1E3E:FF9D (discuss) 18:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am proposing to undelete Cookbook:Dark chocolate chips, Cookbook:Peanut butter and Cookbook:Food coloring because in my opinion I believe it is necessary due to the pipe trick. For example, I entered [[Cookbook:Food coloring|]], which gives you Food coloring, which is currently a red link, so I created this redirect to Cookbook:Food Coloring. What are your thoughts? Xeverything11 (discuss • contribs) 08:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is a good question! When I started out in the cookbook several years ago, I also created redirects like this. However, I was told at the time that Wikibooks does not use redirects in this way. I am open to further discussion about this, especially with the Cookbook, since it does not function like the other books on the project. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 19:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikibooks doesn't allow redirects in mainspace. However, as in Cookbook:Grunt Work, redirects are allowed in Cookbook namespace. Xeverything11 (discuss • contribs) 16:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's an interesting point. In terms of my personal opinion, I am currently neutral about redirects like this. I do think having these redirects can be helpful in some cases, especially given the wide range of terminologies used in cooking and the collaborative nature of the cookbook. However, excessive and unnecessary redirects (e.g. with all potential capitalization options) can create clutter. And, if I recall correctly, it's generally best practice to never link directly to redirect pages, instead linking to the correct end-page and subsection as appropriate. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 17:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Leaderboard, @SHB2000, @WhatamIdoing: pinging users since these users didn't participate this undeletion request in almost 2 weeks. Xeverything11 (discuss • contribs) 13:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Xeverything11 I don't get the relevance of the pipe trick with this. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 15:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't either. --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 20:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure why it would be a problem to link directly to a redirect page. The wikitext doesn't care; the parser doesn't care. I'm not sure why anyone would create a rule against it. WhatamIdoing (discuss • contribs) 06:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

IMO I will have to concur with WhatamIdoing that it's a terrible rule, especially all the more that WP:CHEAP and makes these books more accessible (broken redirects can always be dealt with later); that still said I will say no to restoring these redirects until we get the policy changed. --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 10:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@MarcGarver I believe you were the one who originally told me about the avoidance of redirects at this project. Do you know what the original reasoning was? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's all down to books v articles. A book is supposed to be self-contained. So, a redirect from an alternative BOOK title to the actual book is okay - e.g., from "Fizzicks" to "Physics". But redirects that go to one page in a book are discouraged as it is creating a structure more like individual articles and creates pages that shouldn't exist. E.g., we don't have a standalone page called "Heat exchange", it's a subpage of Physics, Physics/Heat Exchange". Following the same philosophy you wouldn't have a redirect from "heat exchange" because things that aren't subpages should be books, and there is no book about heat exchange. Similarly, cross namespace redirects were discouraged (e.g., from mainspace to the cookbook space) as the cookbook is supposed to be one, very large, self contained book. Anyway, if I recall correctly, that was the theory. MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 14:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

It sounds like they don't want Heat exchange to redirect to Physics/Heat exchange, because someone might later want to write a whole book about Heat Exchange.

That rationale has nothing to do with redirects for alternate (i.e., wrong) capitalization, which I believe is the question here. WhatamIdoing (discuss • contribs) 06:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the information! I think my personal opinions regarding linking are as follows:

• I agree with keeping books separate from each other and therefore agree that simple inter-book linking and inter-project linking should not be done within actual content pages. For example, if a book on philosophy used the word "physics" somewhere in the text, that word should not be wikilinked to Physics. Exceptions could be deliberate connections/references to another book (e.g. "see-also" or "further reading" chapters separate from the main content).
• The cookbook has, for over a decade, been operating slightly differently from the other books in the project. It is its own subproject, which is reflected in the namespace and the way it uses categories. It is also a massive work that is continuously expanding through small additions by various contributors, and its pages are deeply interconnected with each other. Additionally, words for many of the concepts discussed in the cookbook have different names and are different in various cultures—redirects prevent incorrect linking and the creation of pages that already exist. For these reasons, I think it's okay to create redirects for its frequently-used subpages (e.g. ingredient/equipment/technique pages) that are often linked to in recipes.

Cheers! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 18:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree. WhatamIdoing (discuss • contribs) 20:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

+2. --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 06:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Since there seems to be consensus here, I've codified this at Cookbook:Policy#Redirects —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 00:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

See Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Investiture of the Gods for the original deletion discussion; some extra discussion here at Wikibooks is at User talk:Darin Fidika~enwikibooks#Investiture of the Gods. This is a kind of reading guide or explanatory commentary for English-language speakers on the Fengshen Yanyi, a notable historical work of Chinese literature which features extensive references to Chinese folk religion and mythology; it is now being discussed at the Wikisource sister project: see wikisource:Wikisource:Proposed deletions#Portal:Investiture of the Gods and the subsequent discussion here at Wikibooks:Reading room/General#A discussion about Investiture of the Gods.

Overall, it seems clear enough that the merit of keeping this work at Wikibooks was never even discussed or assessed in the first place; an overbroad claim was simply initially presented that it wholly consists of a translation of Fengshen Yanyi ... with no annotations to make it an annotated text for suitable inclusion, which went unchallenged as the work was straightforwardly transwikied to Wikisource, but this is shown to be incorrect: rather, it contains extensive chapter summaries and an explanatory "Categorization of Events" for each chapter, and is not, by all evidence, a verbatim translation of the original Chinese work (if it was such, it could simply be hosted on English Wikisource, which allows for such translations).

ISTM that Wikibooks is the most suitable Wikimedia project for hosting this particular content of clear educational value, given its existing policies on hosting both instructional texts in general and "annotated" works specifically. (For example, Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks?#What is Wikibooks explicitly allows for "extensive book summaries" when they're about a historically notable work of literature. The in-context example is Shakespeare, but considering a work of Chinese literature such as the Fengshen Yanyi instead only strengthens the case for inclusion.) --~2025-27371-40 (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Pages that qualify for speedy deletion do not require discussion. This section is for discussing whether something belongs on Wikibooks or not for all other cases. Please give a reason and be prepared to defend it. Consensus is measured based on the strength of arguments not on numbers. Anyone can participate and everyone is encouraged to do so.

Please add a new request for deletion at the bottom of this section with a link to the page or book in the heading and a justification. Also place the {{rfd}} template at the top of the page you want deleted. If you are nominating an entire book, {{rfd}} goes on the top-level page, but not subpages. Nominations should cite relevant policy wherever possible.

Please format the heading as == [[PAGE]] == in order to let the bot archive it. If there is a subject box, type [[PAGE]] into the subject box.

Doesn't seem in-scope as a book—just seems like a single page on how to do a specific calculation. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Keep -You have to consider also that projects can be merged (I have not checked if there is a possible match) in any case consider it a stub with valid content. It is a stub (November 2018) there is the problem of a namespace collision since it identifies as a specific topic (but as you identified is a very limited scope). Had I the time I would create a structure around it and contribute to it in the subject of Entropy or how our non-existing reality, is also "evaporating" into nothing...

Stubs are promoters to growth, like particles to rain... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 20:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Merge I agree this is not a book by itself, but lots of books have a section about how to calculate half-life stuff -- including some already on Wikibooks: A-level Physics (Advancing Physics)/Half-lives, What You Should Know About Medicines/Half life, or how often to take it, Basic Physics of Nuclear Medicine/The Radioactive Decay Law#Half-Life, AP Chemistry/Nuclear Chemistry#Half Life, A-level Physics/Forces, Fields and Energy/Radioactivity#Half-life, A-level Mathematics/OCR/C3/Special Functions and Transformations#Example of Half-life decay, Introduction to Radioisotope Geochronology/Part Two - Principles of Radioisotopic Dating#Decay Constants and Half Lives, etc. Perhaps this is common enough that Half-Life Computation could be merged/moved into a page of Engineering Tables so that it could be shared across several Wikibooks, in the same way that the ASCII table in Engineering Tables is already shared across several Wikibooks. --DavidCary (discuss • contribs) 01:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Out of scope at Wikibooks since this is already completely covered by Wiktionary. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Comment English-Arabic dictionary/Colors in Arabic gets a nontrivial amount of traffic (~50 views/day). It'd be nice if we could at least preserve this as a redirect to an equivalent resource. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 22:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Keep: a book selecting vocabulary into introductory groups is very different from a lexical database such as Wiktionary. In Wiktionary, one does not know where to start learning the vocabulary. Admittedly, the title gives excessively broad scope, so something should probably be done. (The argument with 50 views/day has some force.) --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Alo, Jonathan!

Bune Ğonatan!

Dag, Jonathan!

Glidis, o Jonathan!

Hai, Jon!

Hallo, Jonathan!

Haloo, Jonatan!

Hay, Jonathan!

Hej, Jonathan! (Germanisch)

Hej, Jonathan!

Hela, Jonathan!

Holo, Jonathan!

Oila, Jonatan!

Salam, Jonathan!

Salom, Jonatan!

Salu, Jon!

Salut Jonathan!

Salute, Jonathan!

Salut, Jonathan! (Interocidental)

Salut, Jonathan!

Salut, ionatano!

Salute, Jonathan! (Novlingue)

Salute, Jonathan! (Romanica)

Saluto, Jonathan! (Ido)

Saluto, Jonathan!

Sesan Jon!

Simi, Jonathan!

Sin Chao, Jonathan!

Terve, Jonathan!

Toki a, jan Jonatan!

Àlŏ, Jonathan!

Òla, Ionatà!

There are a couple of issues here:

1. Beyond their introductions, all of these books are written in languages which are not English, making them out of scope for the English Wikibooks.
2. All but one of these books are in fact written in constructed languages, most of them in recently created conlangs. In some cases (e.g. Sin Chao, Jonathan!), I can't find any reliable sources describing the target language outside of the translation itself.
3. Most of the translations (i.e. other than Salute, Jonathan! itself) were abandoned within the first five or so chapters (out of 100); none of them are complete, and there seems to be little effort to complete any of them.

While I recognize that this is an unusual project, and potentially one which could have some value, it's not at all clear to me that the English Wikibooks is the right place for it. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 00:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm really not sure what to do about these ones. While I recognize that this approach is certainly one method of teaching a language, I'm not sure that it constitutes an educational textbook. We do require that the English Wikibooks be written in English—for language-learning books, this typically means that the instructional parts are in English while the exercises are in the language being taught. I do think that if the language doesn't have much supporting evidence outside the book itself, it can safely be deleted. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 01:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Author of the book here. I originally wanted to put it in the Interlingue Wikibooks https://ie.wikibooks.org/wiki/Principal_p%C3%A1gine but it somehow got locked when I wasn't paying attention and so I ended up putting it here. Getting it unlocked requires going through the process of starting an Incubator and all the rest so I opted for here and then started putting some English-only content once it was done. It's sort of in the same vein as books like Lingua Latina per se Illustrata that have separate versions with teacher notes and whatnot. Salute, Jonathan!/Capitul 1 - with notes After it was done the auxlang community really took to it which was a nice surprise. I think Ido has the largest number of chapters at the moment at 15.

If the vast content of this book could be used to justify a quick reopening of the Interlingue Wikibooks to move it there, I'd love to do that. I imagine that an incubator with 100+ book chapters would be enough to open a Wikibooks and that's what this is.

Mithridates (discuss • contribs) 06:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I just realized that we do have a proposal to reopen the Interlingue Wikibooks: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikibooks_Interlingue along with an Incubator page here. https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wb/ie/Principal_p%C3%A1gine

How easy would it be to migrate the entirety of Salute Jonathan to there? Mithridates (discuss • contribs) 06:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Mithridates! I'm not sure how incubator projects work, but I fully support migrating these books there. You may want to inquire over there and link to this discussion to support your request to move the content over there. Cheers! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi!

Actually I have a third idea to propose after thinking about this again today (haven't been here much since I finished the book): I noticed that there is more English content than I remember and that might make it an awkward fit for the Interlingue Wikibooks. I definitely agree that having all the auxlang translations for new auxlang projects goes well beyond the scope of this Wikibooks. Finally, there are some auxlangs that are notable with their own Wikipedias.

So the idea is the following:

1 Leave the original here and I can continue the work on the version with English notes and grammar. That will make it the same as Lingua Latina per se Illustrata, English by the Nature Method, Athenaze and all the rest.

2 The Interlingua one can move to the Interlingua Wikibooks (maybe Romanica too if they want as it is sort of a dialect of Interlingua).

3 For Ido and Lingua Franca Nova which have a Wikipedia but not a Wikibooks, I'm a little bit unsure...technically they could have their own version like the original one but would require English explanations. I could let them know and see if they are willing to do so and see what they think (work on adding English to the books vs. move the content elsewhere).

4 The rest can move to a Github repo, then be deleted, and the front page of this book can have a single link to the repo.

Any thoughts on that? Adding the extra English content will be easy as it is my book and I know it inside and out. Edit: this page I just added.

Mithridates (discuss • contribs) 13:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for taking the time to consider this! Here are my responses/questions:

• Is the original Salute, Jonathan! (Occidental)? Since that one is quite fleshed out, I agree that if you edit it so the primary language of the book (e.g. headers, instructions, etc) are written in English while leaving the actual story in Occidental, it would be okay and fit in more with instructional language textbooks.
• For your points 2 and 3, I'm not sure how those other projects work, so I'll leave it up to them. I'm not quite sure why they would need to move, since in theory they could be revised with English as the language of instruction? Although, they have been left incomplete for a long time.
• For your point 4, I have no problem with that.

Cheers! –Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 16:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello again,

It's the weekend so I have a bit more time to work on this. I've decided to merge the extra content from the following five chapters since the difference is fairly small and the original chapters should now have this English content. Could you delete these five pages now that they are no longer needed? Mithridates (discuss • contribs) 14:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Salute, Jonathan!/Capitul 1 - with notes

Salute, Jonathan!/Capitul 2 - with notes

Salute, Jonathan!/Capitul 3 - with notes

Salute, Jonathan!/Capitul 4 - with notes

Salute, Jonathan!/Capitul 5 - with notes Mithridates (discuss • contribs) 14:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi again! No luck trying to find a home for the random language translations on other auxlang wikis, can't find one that is actively maintained.

The thought struck me that maybe I could just put those ones on a sub page of my user page, would that be permitted? If not, I think I'll just stick them somewhere in GitHub and call it a day since none of the people who started the translations seem to care enough to do anything about them. I'd rather not see them outright disappear but since they aren't mine I don't care enough about them to do much more work than copy and paste them somewhere.

(I would leave the ones in languages with an ISO-639 code and Wikipedia here, of course)

Mithridates (discuss • contribs) 14:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for checking! I don't personally see an issue with moving them to your user space right now. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 17:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot! I've started a single page where I will put them all here User:Mithridates/SJ and will proceed slowly due to lack of time and also to avoid stepping on any toes / asking you to delete too much at a time and possibly deleting the wrong content.

For this week I have put the content for the languages Audia, Cristianès, Guosa, Lingaust, Mini, Mirad, and Monav on that page as they all have a single page of content and didn't take much time to move. Please delete those. Once they are gone I will add a note on the main page letting people know where they have gone (in addition to a thank you for their interest in the book! I do love how many people have recognized it as a good source material for teaching a language). Mithridates (discuss • contribs) 04:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Keep the translations for languages that have an article on the English Wikipedia, i.e. Guosa, Idiom Neutral, Ido, Interlingua, Lingwa de Planeta, Negerhollands, Neo, Novial, Occidental, Romanica, Solresol, Toki Pona, and Volapük.

Translations for languages that don't have an article can be kept if they have reliable sources, which I was able to find for the following languages (if you think they are not reliable, please let me know):

• Globasa: [1] [2]
• Mini: [3] [4] [5]

Delete and move to User:Mithridates/SJ the rest of the translations, i.e. Audià/Audian, Cristianés, Ekumenski, Germanisch, Interocidental, Lingaust, Lingue Simple, Masa Tang, Mirad, Monav, Monkel, Mundeze, Nordien, Novlingue, Numo, Proyo, and Scuian/Meteza. If you can find reliable sources for those languages, please let me know.

In particular, I could not find resources for Audià/Audian and Monav after searching through 15 and 17 pages on Google, respectively. It doesn't help that their translations don't explain what those languages are and where to find resources for them. This makes contributing to those translations almost impossible until @Caro de Segeda can provide resources to us. It's possible that the resources may have disappared from the Internet, or that those languages were created by Caro de Segeda him/herself. If you can find resources for Audià/Audian and Monav, please let me know.

I'm notifying the primary contributors of the translations: @Caro de Segeda, @Frzzl, @Greatscotteh, @IHateNumbers234, @Jayeless2, @Morozof, @Omnihom, @Omoutuazn, @PovriNaivon, @Sir Beluga and @Tyoyafud. EJPPhilippines (discuss • contribs) 09:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Caro de Segeda said on Reddit that Monav was created by him/her and that he/she didn't publish any resources about it other than Hai, Jon!. With zero other resources to rely on for contributing to the translation, and the fact that Monav is in User:Mithridates/SJ, Hai, Jon! should be speedy deleted. EJPPhilippines (discuss • contribs) 01:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've undone the speedy deletion as Caro de Segeda posted a resource for Monav. EJPPhilippines (discuss • contribs) 07:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

You can delete all the ones that I have created myself, I have already moved them to other places. Caro de Segeda (discuss • contribs) 12:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if this is helpful since it wouldn't apply to most of these, but s:mul: could hold some of these. Arlo Barnes (discuss • contribs) 09:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that would be within the scope of that project. I'm not aware of any other situation where Wikisource publishes translations of texts created on Wikimedia projects - that's usually left up to other language editions of the same project. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 05:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Extremely narrow scope that I don't think is quite book-worthy, especially given the low amount of content —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 01:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned 2 decades; seems like an idea for a book that was never actually implemented (minimal meaningful content) —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 01:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Survived deletion previously on the justification that it could potentially be expanded, but it's since been over a decade with no improvement; extremely minimal educational content —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete - the advice given in this book is all uselessly obvious, e.g. "you can prepare for a programming contest by learning how to program". A book on this topic isn't out of the question, but such a book would need to focus on practical, specific advice, like commonly used algorithms and programming techniques, example contest problems and solutions, etc. (As an aside, most of the contests on the list are no longer active - a lot of contests were halted during the pandemic and never resumed, especially as hiring slowed in the tech industry.) Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 06:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Extremely minimal content; educational/book scope is unclear; abandoned for >1 decade. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 19:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

A collection of fragmentary biographies and interviews of members of the ODU (Old Dominion University) art department. Some of these are individually interesting, I guess, but they don't really add up to a history of the department, let alone to an instructional text. Most editing activity appears to have been around 2008-09; there's almost no activity since then. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 19:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Comment I have to agree here. And, issues with the book's suitability for inclusion here have been raised on the talk page since its beginning. I'm concerned that this ultimately violates WB:WIW, and I can't see it being properly developed at this point. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 16:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Scope unclear; very little content; abandoned >1 decade —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 19:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete - outdated stub; covered more comprehensively by w:National Certificate of Educational Achievement. Unlikely to be improved substantially given that the NZ government intends to phase out the NCEA over the next few years. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 06:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned; single chapter with minimal content —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

In general, I think deletion not solve anything. While the contents is minimal, it's still better than nothing at all. Rather, an invitation should be made to expand on it. --Ooswesthoesbes (discuss • contribs) 06:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Ooswesthoesbes! While I understand your perspective, I unfortunately disagree. Wikibooks has a huge number of abandoned stubs like this one, which I think results in clutter and makes the entire project less useful as a result. Due to their nature and structure, books require a greater committed investment to make than, say, WP articles, and these little scraps are rarely developed here. This book has had plenty of opportunity for expansion since you started it over a decade ago, but nobody has actually made any effort to do so. Based on the evidence from the past decade, when weighing the likelihood of the book being properly developed going forward versus the active negative impact of its continued presence in this state, I favor deletion. Moreover, in the rare case that someone came along later and wanted to revive this book specifically, it could be undeleted. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Consists only of a few paragraphs and then a compilation of links —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not actually a book in and of itself; rather, it is just a compilation of links to other books —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Could this be salvaged as a shelf? Pppery (discuss • contribs) 05:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Seems completely out of scope as an educational book; it's just a list of characters and outlinks —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Adding Character List for Karlgren's GSR and Character List for Schuessler's CGSR for the same reason —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

These three books do make a package and I agree they should be considered together. However, I strongly object to deleting them. They are really extremely useful resources. I use them every week and I know that many people who do work on Old Chinese phonology do so. There are lots of books out there that are lists of characters, these are called dictionaries. For example Axel Schuessler's ABC Etymological Dictionary of Old Chinese, or Pulleyblank's Lexicon of Reconstructed Pronunciation in Early Middle Chinese, Late Middle Chinese, and Early Mandarin. I see it as entirely a good thing for reference works of this kind to be available free online rather than only in expensive books in university research libraries. If this is in violation of a Wikibooks policy, I would at least like that policy to be drawn to my attention and to have some constructive comment offered about which Wikiproject such a resource should fall under. I will also say on a personal note that I have put literally hundreds of hours of work into these projects and it would grieve me a lot to see this work simply vanish, in particular when I know that colleagues around the world use these books. --Tibetologist (discuss • contribs) 07:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Tibetologist, and thank you for the feedback! Official Wikibooks policy does not permit standalone dictionaries (see WB:DICT), though I understand the argument that it is a useful resource. I am wondering if there might be a home for it at Wiktionary or Wikiversity? Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 12:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The policy says to use Wiktionary, but these books cannot be moved there. In fact they link there, you can understand me as having made an index to wiktionary, if you like, where the ORDER of the characters is extremely important, information that would be lost in Wiktionary.

Wikiversity is not a project I participate in, and in any event my books here are older than it, so this option was not available for me at the relevant moment. If you are offering to move my books to Wikiversity, that is very kind of you and I will very graciously accept. Tibetologist (discuss • contribs) 14:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have pinged over at Wikiversity Colloquium to ask about suitability and have looped you into the conversation over there. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 18:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I concur. I'm just an undergrad who tries to learn about Sino-Tibetan historical linguistics in his free time but I've found this wikibook to be incredibly useful, and I keep it open in one tab while I watch Professor Nathan Hill's lectures that he uploads to youtube in another tab, and another tab for taking notes. In fact if I remember correctly Professor Hill actually pointed his students to this wikibook.

I'm not familiar with Wikiversity but if all the content were as accessible there as it is here then I think that could work. ChromeBones (discuss • contribs) 02:43, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Per v:Wikiversity:Colloquium#Import_Resource_From_Wikibooks?, I recommend copying and pasting, including attribution via the edit summary and talk page, add appropriate categories and links, and then it could be deleted locally. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned >1 decade; very minimal content —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Significant NPOV issues; not much content; abandoned for >1 decade —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Delete - this is essentially a self-help book (or at least, a clumsy attempt to write one). I'm inclined to say that this isn't a genre which is suitable for Wikibooks, as any self-help book is inherently an expression of personal opinion. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 01:35, 21 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Multiple pages in this book are written entirely in Finnish, which is out of the enWB scope. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 00:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was going to say whether we should ask any fiwikibooks sysop to maybe see if this could be transwikied to fiwb if it's within the scope there. But fi:Toiminnot:Käyttäjät/sysop indicates that there are only 3 sysops, and only Anr and Zache have made edits this year. If they deem it to be salvageable, then transwiki + delete, otherwise straight-up delete. --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 11:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It seems that the idea behind the book was for the pages to be bilingual, as it’s a language learning book. That’s why there are Finnish texts included intentionally even on the pages that are complete. There are similar books in dewikibooks and ruwikibooks as well. For the English version, I think the easiest way to proceed would be to clean up and adjust the page layout to fit enwikibooks better, and then translate the missing parts. By the way, if anyone wants to update the book’s name in English, it can be titled "Using the Finnish Language" or "Put Finnish Language into Use" for a direct translation. Zache (discuss • contribs) 11:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Used for decorative, not educational, purposes (WB:NFCC#8): File:AAIME Official Artwork.jpg, File:PWAAJFA episode1.png, File:PW JFA Official Artwork.jpg, File:Gyakuten Kenji 2 Official Artwork.png, File:AJ officialart.jpg, File:PW T&T Official Artwork.jpg, File:SMB2 dream staircase art.jpg.

Galleries (WB:NFCC#3): File:Moonflow 27.jpg, File:Macalania 18.jpg, File:Chauncey LM.jpg , File:King Boo LM.jpg, File:Boolossus LM.jpg. — Ирука¹³ 16:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

My thoughts below:

• File:AAIME Official Artwork.jpg Delete purely decorative
• File:PWAAJFA episode1.png Delete purely decorative
• File:PW JFA Official Artwork.jpg Delete purely decorative
• File:Gyakuten Kenji 2 Official Artwork.png Delete purely decorative
• File:AJ officialart.jpg Delete purely decorative
• File:PW T&T Official Artwork.jpg Delete purely decorative
• File:SMB2 dream staircase art.jpg Delete purely decorative
• File:Moonflow 27.jpg Keep low resolution and seems to be illustrating something
• File:Macalania 18.jpg Uncertain
• File:Chauncey LM.jpg Keep seems to be actually illustrating something
• File:King Boo LM.jpg Keep seems to be actually illustrating something
• File:Boolossus LM.jpg Keep seems to be actually illustrating something

Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 22:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

• WikiLang
• about 70 subpages; see Special:PrefixIndex/WikiLang/ for a full list
• Transwiki:WikiLang/Gothic alphabet/𐌰
• Transwiki:WikiLang/Jeju
• Transwiki:WikiLang/Plattdüütsch Phonology

These pages were imported from m:WikiLang in 2021 for unclear reasons. It was originally a proposal for a new Wikimedia project which was rejected in 2017. The main page still contains the project proposal from meta, and the subpages contain a mishmash of encyclopedic content (e.g. WikiLang/Africa), word lists (e.g. WikiLang/Blackfoot/Animals), and miscellaneous project content (e.g. WikiLang/Media, WikiLang/News, etc). While the goals of this project may be laudable, this material doesn't add up to a book, and Wikibooks is not a launchpad for new Wikimedia projects. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 22:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

See m:Meta:Requests_for_deletion/Archives/2021#WikiLang_pages. This also already exists on Wikiversity as v:Portal:Wikilang. I guess we don't need both. Pppery (discuss • contribs) 19:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

• AT&T Mobility FAQ
• AT&T Mobility FAQ/MEdia Net Configuration
• AT&T Mobility FAQ/Data Connect Configuration

An extremely outdated FAQ on AT&T's cell phone services. Most of this document was written 20+ years ago as a Usenet FAQ; very little of it is accurate or useful anymore (particularly the two subpages, which have to do with obsolete configurations for "tethering" a computer to a cell phone). No objection if someone wants to update it, but there's clearly been no appetite to do that. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 22:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm wondering if it might make sense for us to develop some kind of policy on archiving books here. There are many like this one that have a good deal of content but are extremely out of date and just not useful as originally intended. ——Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 22:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Kittycataclysm: See the newly developed Wikibooks:Outdated books. JJP_Master (she/they) 00:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ooh, thanks - something like that seems like it could be an appropriate way to handle this book. A lot of the other outdated books I've tagged have been so incomplete that they wouldn't have been particularly useful even as historical references; this one might at least have some interest.

Any chance we can get a separate namespace (maybe "Archive:") set up for archived book content? That'd make it possible to do things like exclude them from on-site search by default. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 21:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think this might be a more extended discussion, so I'll bump it over to the talk page of the draft policy! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 21:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Chinese edition of the OpenSSH wikibook is only a tiny fragment of a single page which has remained abandoned since 2017. Furthermore, the text which it contains is not even based on the actual book. Please tidy things up by deleting the Chinese OpenSSH book page and removing all links to it, if any, which are found on the main book. Thanks.

If the page cannot be deleted, please at least remove the link to it from the English edition of the OpenSSH book. Thanks again.

— Larsnooden (discuss • contribs) 09:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Larsnooden We cannot do the first one (you'll need to bring it up directly with the zh.wikibooks users), and the second one is also difficult, because the interwiki links are actually hosted on Wikidata and I am not sure if we can remove a link for this reason. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 12:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I understand. Have I marked the page correctly for deletion there? If so, will it eventually be processed by the zh.wikibooks commmunity? — Larsnooden (discuss • contribs) 13:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

It looks like a deletion discussion has been created; however, it also looks like there's very little activity on the discussion page, with some discussions having been open for several years. So I wouldn't hold my breath. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 01:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I personally believe that this, and all of the sections should be deleted for the fact that this goes WAY beyond the scope of what was intended for the Chapter (Algebra II level polynomials). GoreyCat (discuss • contribs) 15:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Split: Deletion here is not the best solution (see w:WP:ATD). Instead, this page and its subpages should be moved to another book, most likely Abstract Algebra. JJP_Master (she/they) 17:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Keep since there is a good amount of content. If Abstract Algebra is appropriate, it seems like a fine idea to move there. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 22:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Eh, yeah, I supposed moving it is better. I just don't think it's suitable for where it appears. GoreyCat (discuss • contribs) 01:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

The following pages are also nominated for deletion: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/History_of_wireless_telegraphy_and_broadcasting_in_Australia/Topical/Biographies/B https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/History_of_wireless_telegraphy_and_broadcasting_in_Australia/Topical/Biographies/C https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/History_of_wireless_telegraphy_and_broadcasting_in_Australia/Topical/Biographies/D https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/History_of_wireless_telegraphy_and_broadcasting_in_Australia/Topical/Biographies/E https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/History_of_wireless_telegraphy_and_broadcasting_in_Australia/Topical/Biographies/F https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/History_of_wireless_telegraphy_and_broadcasting_in_Australia/Topical/Biographies/G https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/History_of_wireless_telegraphy_and_broadcasting_in_Australia/Topical/Biographies/H https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/History_of_wireless_telegraphy_and_broadcasting_in_Australia/Topical/Biographies/I https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/History_of_wireless_telegraphy_and_broadcasting_in_Australia/Topical/Biographies/J https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/History_of_wireless_telegraphy_and_broadcasting_in_Australia/Topical/Biographies/K https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/History_of_wireless_telegraphy_and_broadcasting_in_Australia/Topical/Biographies/L

These are now all duplicate pages that were: (1) originally created by @Xeverything11 in Dec 2024

   by extracting portion of History_of_wireless_telegraphy_and_broadcasting_in_Australia/Topical/Biographies;

(2) then "blanked" (all content removed) by myself in Dec 2024

   contemporaneous with discussions with @Kittycataclysmat and @Leaderboard in Reading_room/General (topic: Page Size);

(3) then reverted by @JJPMaster in Feb 2025 with a suggestion that the pages needed to be referred for Speedy Deletion here.

The individual alphabetical pages are now duplicates and orphans and should be deleted. The original pages have been updated over the last two months and the existence of the duplicate pages serves no purpose and is confusing

Abandoned for multiple years, only one page has any meaningful content, and it's about two paragraphs —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 19:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete Seems abandoned and lacks content. --Xania ^talk 03:38, 17 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

The 2009 UIL Spelling Competition was over 15 years ago; it's unlikely that this outdated word list would be of use to anyone - especially since it was never completed; the last word defined (in alphabetical order) is "casus belli", and the word list itself stops at "futurity race". I'm not sure the full list is even available anywhere, nor that the study manual would be any more useful even if it were finished. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 02:29, 5 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Clearly abandoned, and lacking in meaningful content. I agree with the nominator that this would be unlikely to be useful even if it were able to be finished. MediaKyle (discuss • contribs) 11:31, 5 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete per stated reasoning. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 16:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Development of Puredyne Linux was discontinued in 2012, and the software no longer appears to be available for download anywhere. (An archive of the web site is still up - with a bunch of embedded spam links - but the download links are all dead.) Is this a suitable candidate for archival (cf. Wikibooks:Outdated books), or should it just be deleted? Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 04:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'd just archive stuff like this. Looks like a decent bit of work went into it, and you never know when someone might need to use Puredyne for some obscure project. I'd be willing to bet mirrors exist of it somewhere, or someone has it on a drive. If you want to find some stuff worth deleting, comb through Category:Allbooks categories. MediaKyle (discuss • contribs) 11:30, 5 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

This book aimed to become a catalog of "all known laptop computer models". Whether this sort of database is even in scope for Wikibooks is questionable. But it's beyond question that the book has failed to achieve its objective - out of the many thousands of models of laptops that have been manufactured, this book only has information on a few dozen, mostly from around 2010 (when it was written). Most of the subpages are incomplete, and there seems to be little interest in improving or updating the book. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 20:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Intuitively or from heart, I would delete the material as per above: it is too underdeveloped and has been so for a long time. However, it is not clear that it matches policy. To address a possible policy problem, I started Wikibooks:Reading room/General#Deleting stale stubs. The policy states: "In general, keep stubs that can be improved on, but delete stubs that are too narrowly defined or do not have a decent definition of what they are about." --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

  As a matter of policy, I'm fairly certain that a book of this nature would already be out of scope per WB:NOTWP. If an encyclopedia or dictionary is out of scope as insufficiently "book-like", a catalog like this is only more so. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 20:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

  That seems right: "Wikibooks is not an in-depth encyclopedia on a specific topic nor are pages encyclopedia-formatted articles. Books build knowledge from one page to the next, with interdependency between pages. Books in progress are sometimes organized in an encyclopedic manner until developed into proper books. For an encyclopedia, see our sister project Wikipedia." However, I think this is a bad policy as formulated, in part since it would lead e.g. to deletion of Windows Batch Scripting. That is to say, I do not think chapters/sections/parts of a book should be required to be integrated, one building on another. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 19:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

The book is mostly copied from https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq, which is licensed only under the GFDL. This violates WB:COPY, which says that "you cannot import information which is available only under the GFDL". jlwoodwa (discuss • contribs) 02:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

JJPMaster said in an edit summary that the copyright holder was "contacted with instructions to email VRT". jlwoodwa (discuss • contribs) 03:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Much of the content was copied before dual licensing was introduced at Wikibooks and is therefore not a violation of the policy that was in force at the time. This is therefore not a valid deletion reason for any content that pre-dates the introduction of dual licensing MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 11:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete - the fact that the content of this book is almost entirely copied from an outside source is itself a problem, regardless of the license of that work. The purpose of Wikibooks is to develop new freely licensed texts, not merely to create copies of existing texts. A 2009 request for deletion was closed as "keep on the condition it is developed and not hosted as a completed work". Over fifteen years later, this still hasn't happened, and there's no indication that it ever will. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 04:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

This isn't exactly a request to delete the template, but rather to merge it with {{Copypaste}}. The {{Qr-twwp}} template serves the same purpose as {{Copypaste}}, but without the seven-day period after which the page is deleted. This leads to confusion, as well as a perpetually full Category:Queried pages. JJP_Master (she/they) 17:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Was never fleshed out into a proper book and consists only of code tables —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 00:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned for over a decade; very little meaningful content with no plan for development —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 00:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete - what little content exists in this book is badly out of date. Computer security has changed a lot over the last ~20 years; the basic recommendations made in this book like "you should have a configuration management system" or "make sure your server cabinet is locked" simply don't cut it anymore. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 22:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned for over a decade; no meaningful content; just lists of terms —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 00:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete - this is just a list of objectives for the exam, and the current objectives of the exam are completely different than those shown here. (Unsurprisingly so, given that this book was created in 2014, and that computer security hasn't stood still in the meantime.) Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 22:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned for multiple years; little meaningful content; was never more than a list of outlinks to enWP —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 00:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned, fragmentary manual for a piece of web design software which was discontinued in 2008. Further development seems unlikely; no substantial edits have been made in the last 15+ years. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 20:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Copied Wikipedia article, per WP:NOTWP. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 23:48, 25 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Immanuelle requested that this be imported in December 2024 (Wikibooks:Requests for import/Archives/2024/December#Multiple pages for User:Immanuelle. @Immanuelle: Do you have any plans for this page? Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 05:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Omphalographer Yes I do have plans for it. I was meaning to import it to here User:Immanuelle/sandbox/Suwa_Faith and work on it. But I thought the request was never responded to. It is part of a project for making a book talking about types of Shinto shrines. Although I cannot promise I will complete it soon. Immanuelle (discuss • contribs) 07:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and if that's the case, you can move this and I'll withdraw this request, is that correct? Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 00:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can we merge in the history here? Immanuelle (discuss • contribs) 22:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned multiple years; no meaningful content —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned page and out of scope (single story) —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:28, 28 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned >1 decade; orphaned; minimal meaningful content —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:47, 28 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Per WB:SOURCE. The previous RFD was closed as no consensus though there was reasonable evidence to delete. Previous discussions had suggested that the book could be improved, but it has now been several years without progress or moves to annotate the book for compliance with WB scope. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 15:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned; educational book-like scope unclear; minimal content —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:06, 2 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned with minimal content —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Seems to be an orphaned essay, which is not within the WB scope. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 22:43, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete - looks like an inadvertent duplicate of Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2018-19/Imperialism: a black and white issue?. That book may need to be reviewed as well; it appears to essentially be a collection of student opinion essays. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 22:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The book itself is fine - it's a student-created resource. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 17:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned with no substantial content since 2009. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 22:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The language is now Xojo. Unsure if an update is feasible or useful. 2603:8081:2700:330:F97F:D3B8:CF1D:E78F (discuss) 01:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

There's effectively nothing there to update. The closest this book comes to actual content is REALbasic/Programming/Databases, which is still "waiting for someone to write the rest of this". Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 06:29, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete per stated reasoning —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 22:24, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned with no substantial content since 2004. Most of the current page appears to be an attempt to create a community home page (e.g. a list of project ideas and a link to a defunct Yahoo chat), not a book. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 23:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that a plot summary of a book is in-scope here. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 18:43, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete - at least, not a summary of this book. A summary and/or study guide to a notable work of literature might be in scope, but this is certainly not one. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 21:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I am the creator of the pages of this book. If I understand correctly, it has to be a summary of a notable work of literature? So what exactly is defined as such? I only started this as I thought it would be fun, interesting and encouraging to others who read the Arkham Horror novels, and I thought it was permitted as I've seen other summaries of books on wikibooks. Dayne90 (discuss • contribs) 13:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Your problem is it is just the plot... it needs to include an educational textual analysis to be in scope MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 12:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

And ideally it'd be a text which has already been the subject of literary analysis, such that the analysis on Wikibooks isn't original research. A notable work of literature like Frankenstein or Moby-Dick would easily meet that requirement; a tie-in novel for a tabletop RPG probably does not. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 22:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned with minimal content. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 15:48, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Author of the book/page here. I wouldn't call it "abandoned": it's still a start, but I'm here and do plan to fill out the rest (most of the annotations are for the early part of the book though).

I'm an experience editor at Wikipedia and Wiktionary, but am not very familiar with Wikibooks standards. When reading this book, I found myself looking up unfamiliar terms and quotes and thought some annotations would be helpful when reading or especially studying the text. It's a notable book by a notable author (extensive Wikipedia page). Here the source text is not freely available, but annotations are easy to add separately. I looked at WB:AT and existing examples of annotations and tried to follow them. Per WB:WIW, the scope is instructional texts (including annotated texts), and minor works are in scope.

I'll grant that this is not large and not likely to become very long – many books only need minor annotations – but the content would certainly have been helpful to me when reading this book.

Are there specific changes you'd suggest or general guidelines to follow in this kind of book?

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 02:42, 3 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned >1 decade, minimal content and one subpage. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 15:52, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

This book consists almost entirely of computer source code, including an extensive "library" which the example code elsewhere in the book relies on; there is almost no text in the book to accompany the code. This type of content is not well suited to Wikibooks. The code might be more appropriate on a source code hosting site, such as Github or Codeberg.

Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 23:54, 17 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

You are right. I left the explanation of the mathematical part to the Wikipedia articles. I explained step by step the functions allowing to write the main functions of the library, such as for example the functions calculating gauss jordan, the QR decomposition The eignvalues ​​and the eigenvectors The pseudo inverse.

I think that this work is an interesting educational work as well for programmers as for beginner mathematicians to familiarize themselves with linear algebra.

You can either just use the examples to familiarize yourself with linear algebra, or study the algorithms to eventually rewrite your own library. Xhungab (discuss • contribs) 07:54, 18 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Some additional explanations:

I provide explanations for calculating using the determinant,

• The coefficients of the equation of a line (Det)
• The coefficients of the equation of a plan (Det)
• The coefficients of the equation of a parabola (Det)
• The coefficients of the equation of a circle (Det)
• The coefficients of the equation of a sphere (Det)

I provide explanations for calculating using the gauss jordan,

• Network analysis (TP)
• Analysis of an electrical circuit (TP)
• Graphics Applications: (TP)
• The coefficients of a polynomial (TP)
• The coefficients of a conic (TP)
• The coefficients of a circle (TP)
• Balancing a chemical equation (PP)
• Mathematic Applications: (PP)
• Find a basis for ... (PP)
• Change of basis (PP)
• Matrix of a linear application with respect to the basis B: (PP)
• Projection onto a vector subspace: (PP)

I provide explanations for calculating using the QR decomposition:

• Network analysis (QR)
• Analysis of an electrical circuit (QR)
• Graphics Applications: (QR)
• The coefficients of a polynomial (QR)
• The coefficients of a conic (QR)
• The coefficients of a circle (QR)

I provide explanations for calculating using the the eignvector:

• The Quadratic forms: M[R2,C2] (eigen)
• The Quadratic forms: M[R3,C3] (eigen)
• The Projection of a plane onto a line (eigen)
• The Projection of a space onto a plan (eigen)
• The Projection of a space onto a hyperplan (eigen)

I provide explanations for calculating using the the pseudo inverse

• Network analysis (Left inverse)
• Analysis of an electrical circuit (Left inverse)
• Graphics Applications: (Pseudo-Inverse)
• The coefficients of a polynomial (Left inverse)
• The coefficients of a conic (Left inverse)
• The coefficients of a circle (Left inverse)

Thank for your help.

Xhungab (discuss • contribs) 08:23, 18 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Code can be the primary purpose of a book though; is there a rule against such books on this wiki? Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 08:29, 18 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is this a problem that can't be solved with userfying? I agree that a book that is basically just code with no actual introductory text and explanatory material is not really a textbook, but in principle, hosting code that is useful for learning is appropriate for here or certainly v:. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:50, 18 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Keep Why not contributing to improve the book ? -- ◄ David L • discuter ► 10:01, 18 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Because that would amount to writing a completely new book around this code. To "improve" the book, there would need to be something resembling a book to start with. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 20:28, 18 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

See the first post:

This book is criticized for providing a library. If you look at programming books that cover a particular topic, they are usually accompanied by a library that is printed in the text. The library in this book represents a quarter of the book and can be downloaded in 2 hours which seems reasonable.

The goal of this book is to familiarize students with the properties of linear algebra and to present some applications of linear algebra. "Github or Codeberg" don't seem suitable for this kind of work, wikibook does.

Study of properties:

This book lists some properties and provides for each property a file working on random values ​​to test the property. The result of this file is given in the book and allows to verify this property. "This book is not composed almost entirely of computer source code", since half of it is composed of the execution of that code. This represents the numerical verification of a property. The proof of the property is left to mathematics books.

• Some properties Determinant
• Some properties Dot product
• Some properties EigenValue

Study of some application:

The applications are given with the mathematical theory which allows to understand the proposed code:

• The coefficients of the equation of a line Deteminant
• Network analysis GaussJordan
• Analysis of an electrical circuit GaussJordan
• Balancing a chemical equation GaussJordan
• Find a basis for ... GaussJordan
• Change of basis GaussJordan

Study of the code:

This book provides a step-by-step guide to how the main function works, such as the one used to solve a system of equations.

• Gauss-Jordan Total Pivoting
• The Inverse

Some algorithms are explained in simple words.

• eigs_mR();

Xhungab (discuss • contribs) 05:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Re. If you look at programming books that cover a particular topic, they are usually accompanied by a library that is printed in the text.: This is, quite simply, not the case. Modern books about computer programming are virtually always decoupled from the software they describe; they are usually written well after the software has already been made available to users, by authors independent from the creators of the software. Publishing software as printed code in a book is not a thing which is done. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 23:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

You're right today. In my day, a book on C language and the graphs and data structures gave a library to copy at the end of the book. A book on mathematics and the C language gave its small library to test the book's examples. A book on Pascal and graphics gave its library. Unfortunately, I lost the references. Xhungab (discuss • contribs) 09:31, 21 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I denested book and there is a page which is useless now https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Projective_Geometry/Classic/Projective_Transformations DustDFG (discuss • contribs) 07:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

The book is abandoned, generally has zero content and scope of the book is the same as other C++ books. It is entirely useless DustDFG (discuss • contribs) 10:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I disagree that the book is empty. Its a stub,

Due in large part for my efforts our project started to be able to handle different books around the same subject but with distinct POVs and educational structure (diversity should always be welcomed and even celebrated when it also is able to share the sandbox), this lead to at least two other C++ projects one has not only been feature but C++ creator gave it some accolades.

If I recall the history correctly the project was started by User:Darklama (to prove a point that a different structure should be adopted and more valid to learning C++, we had a clash when he wanted to reformat C++ Programming). I remember that my contributions to this different project was more an olive branch an empowerment to Darklama´s constructive contributions a prompting to make it evolve into something more than an index created to make a point, as Darklama was more about format that content. That was why we clashed on C++ Programming expecially when he started using admnin rights to delete pages and their edit history. In any case I feel this stub and the simple content present is valid and should be preserved. If you strongly feel there is little content, I wouldn't object a merge another C++ book (some of it can even be used in another programming language work as its mostly introductory IIRC). --Panic (discuss • contribs) 22:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Do you wish to correct the obvious punctuation errors in the above, suggestive of great carelessness during the composition of the above? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 19:35, 8 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Play the ball, not the man please. MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 16:56, 10 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete. What little content exists in this book is presented poorly, and is often simply wrong. For example, Understanding C++/Objects - one of the more fleshed-out chapters of the book - claims that:

C++ defines 8 basic object types. char, short, int, long, long long, double, long double, and bool.

Even discounting that these are fundamental types, not "object types", this list completely omits types like void and float, or the signed and unsigned variants of each integer type (which are each a distinct type). The page doesn't even acknowledge the existence of pointers or arrays, either - both of which are critical to C++ programming.

(As an aside, I'm not impressed by the quality of other C++ books on this project like C++ Language or Intro To C++ either - none of these books take an appropriately rigorous approach to describing the language.) Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 20:44, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

There is also C++ Programming, which was brought into a very bad state (by my assessment bad) by user Panic, who is commenting above. I proposed to undo some of the damage on the talk page on the book, to no avail. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 19:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Delete per nom and Omphalographer or move to user space. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 19:18, 8 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Stubs are not a good enough reason for deletion (and this is more than a stub) and moves to user-space only by user agreement an no opposition. In any case what user would you ask about it ? --Panic (discuss • contribs) 21:53, 9 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned as a new book for several months with minimal content. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 18:22, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete - the single partially written chapter of this book, A History of the Afghan Military/Nik Mohammad Sahak, is largely a copy of an old revision of en:w:Nik Mohammad Sahak. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 23:40, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned with minimal content —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 20:17, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Appears to be a source text already at Wikisource which is against WB:SOURCE —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 12:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete - poor quality OCR. I've actually nominated the Wikisource text for deletion as well, as it's an incomplete, noncompliant transcription. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 22:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Lone, abandoned page that doesn't seem to have an instructional book-like scope established —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 21:55, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete - this is typical vague, unsourced LLM slop. It wouldn't pass muster as a Wikipedia article either. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 22:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete provides no usefulness to the project in its current state. Ternera (discuss • contribs) 14:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned and never fleshed out; seems to be only a handful of paragraphs in the whole book. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 01:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)Reply