Wikibooks:Book of the month/January 2006 voting

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page.
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Vote for the book of the month of January 2006.

The voting for the Book of the month for January 2006 is open from December 1st, 2005, and will close on January 1st, 2006, 00:00 UTC. The book of the month will be featured on the main page of Wikibooks.

Voting rules

Nomination

Every user can nominate books of interest for voting and add them at the end of the voting page.
A featured wikibook cannot be nominated again for one year.
To nominate a book just add that book to the voting section of the voting page using this Wiki code: === [[Book Name]] === where "Book Name" is the name of the book. When you have done this add {{Botm}} to the top of the front page of the Wikibook.

Voting

Every registered Wikibooks user can vote for as many of the nominated candidates as they like.
Only registered Wikibooks users should vote while they are logged in (check by history of page). This is because it is impossible to detect multiple votes by a user using different anon IPs.
Due to previous voting irregularities, we now require a user to show they are intending to participate with Wikibooks by showing a minimum of 20 edits in your edit history. This number may increase in the future if continued problems persist.
The use of sock puppets as a way to pad votes is strongly discouraged. While you are not restricted to only one user account on Wikibooks, please use just one account for any voting activities on Wikibooks including the Book of the Month voting. Suspicious cases of duplicate voting may be reviewed using the CheckUser services of MediaWiki software.
To enter your votes, simply edit the appropriate sections by just inserting a new line with # ~~~~ to add your username and a time stamp in a new numbered list item.
Please add only support votes. Opposing votes will not affect the result, as the winner is simply the one with the most support votes (see w:Approval voting).
You may add short supporting or opposing comments to each candidate, signed with your name. These comments do not count in the voting process.
Votes can be retracted by the voter until the voting closes.

Evaluation

Voting ends 00:00UTC on the day specified.
The winner is the candidate book with the most support votes.
In case of a tie, the older book will be selected (by book history).
Books with 3 or more votes will be automatically nominated for the following month.

voting rules are adapted from the Wikinews logo contest voting

Nominated books

UK Constitution and Government

(Automatically renominated with 6 votes for November)
Votes:

Comments:

Much better choice than the incomplete and barely organized selection for this month. DSYoungEsq 14:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I learned a lot. --MateoP 18:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LaTeX

Votes:

Comments:

America's Army: Special Forces

Votes:

Comments: I think last month's comment to not vote for this Wikibooks is ill founded on the logic that because it may be deleted it shouldn't be featured. I am using this Wikibook as an example of why Game Guides perhaps should be included in Wikibooks instead. I don't intend this forum (Books of the Month) to become the battle ground for the discussion of having guides like this on Wikibooks. Simply support or not support this Wikibook as an example of high quality writing and something that should represent the best of Wikibooks. IMHO, this is what a well written game guide ought to be somewhat looking like. --Rob Horning 02:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian

Votes:

Comments: While I admire the desire on the part of the participants of this Wikibook to try and bring attention to their culture and language, I don't see this as the "best of Wikibooks", or even the "best of the Languages Bookshelf". This Wikibook, as it currently stands, only has one module, of less than 32K of content, and is mainly a syllabary of words in Bulgarian. While an impressive first step, and something that can be expanded upon, I hardly see this as an exceptional Wikibook. I would strongly recommend that this be moved to collaboration of the month, which would also get the front-page attention that you seem to be wanting. --Rob Horning 18:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. That is a good idea. Although this book does not really look like a book at this point I think it has the basics for a book and with a little formating and descriptions here and there can be brought up-to-date fairly quickly. I believe if it is formated properly it can be a better selection than the current winner for this month which lacked some of the content, especially in the beginning of the month, this book has. When do you think is a good time to move it as a Collaboration of the month? What happens to all the votes? Thanks. --Vanka5 23:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just created the nomination for Bulgarian on the Collaboration of the Month page. I would strongly recommend that you vote there and perhaps see that it gets renominated in January for the February Collaboration of the Month. With seven votes (much more than typical for the CoOM page), I don't see a realistic competitor for next month. I do wish you luck in trying to get this Wikibook going, and slavic languages in particular need to be worked on with Wikibook. I hope you can turn this into a book worthy of the Book of the Month title. --Rob Horning 05:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who voted for the Bulgarian wikibook here please also vote on Collaboration of the Month/January 2006 voting where it was moved. Thank you. --Vanka5 19:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chess

Votes

Rob Horning 17:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whiteknight (talk) (current) 04:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Klingoncowboy4 06:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good Gerard Foley 15:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dragontamer 22:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sauron 08:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ftdbb49 00:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it looks very good. Snargle 08:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Spongefeld 18:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5ko 18:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
MasterSheep 20:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--Drelac 01:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: A nearly complete Wikibook that goes over the mechanics and theory of this ancient strategy game. The use of templates for displaying chess pieces is particularly innovative (although copied from other Wikimedia pages).

It got my vote simply from its innovative use of Templates. --Dragontamer 22:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a good club standard chess player (~1900 FIDE) who's worked a lot on this Wikibook, I would not recommend it as a BOTM. Yes, the use of templates for diagrams is to be praised, although in practice they aren't consistent across all the pages, some of them seem to have technical problems, and there aren't enough of them - some of the concepts in Tactics and Strategy are nonsense without a diagram backing them up. Yes, much of the subject matter is covered in the book's current form, though I don't think it's as 'nearly complete' as it looks (glossary in 'Playing the Game', en passant and castling missing from 'Notating the Game', Zwischenzug not really explained at all in 'Tactics', big sections missing from 'Strategy' and 'Endings', and 'Variants' is currently a waste of space.)

From a chess player's point of view, I'm not convinced by some of the content. The approach to sacrifices is conservative to say the least. Gambits and thematic minor piece sarifices, and what consitutes compensation for them, are a major factor in chess, yet the only example given is of a well-known 'shamcrifice' (Philidor's Mate), i.e. not a sacrifice at all, but a forced combination, since checkmate on the next move is certain. A better example would be something like Botvinnik's famous exchange (rook for bishop) sacrifice against Alekhine. On the Strategy page, passive pieces are slated without qualification - there's nothing at all wrong with Black's passive e7 bishop in the diagram, it's preventing a nasty pin. A passive piece that is a handicap to its owner would be something like a rook in an endgame defending a pawn from the side. On the Basic Openings page, we get the following two statements: "[A]void moving your queen in the opening" and "Once your pieces are developed, king safely castled and your rooks are combined [connected?] the opening is over." So you can't move your queen in the opening, but the opening doesn't end until you have. As a chess player, I know what the writers of those pearls of wisdom are driving at, but it won't be so clear to the average punter. Incidentally, castling isn't always a good idea - many games have been lost by players castling into kingside attacks. As for "Avoid moving pieces more than once in the opening" - what's White supposed to do after 3...a6 in the Ruy Lopez, or 3...cxd4 in the Open Sicilian? To the extend that this opening advice is valid, I would class it as strategy (strategy is no less strategic when it happens to occur in the opening). The part of this section that does deal with Basic Openings - actually telling is what they are - is brief to the point of being counter-productive; the maxim 'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing' was never truer than in the opening of a game of chess. At least the fundamental plan for both sides (e.g. 'kingside attack', 'endgame advantage based on pawn structure' should be given for each opening.

I'm being very critical of this book, purely because of what's at stake - it's got a lot going for it, but Book of the Month? The cream of what Wikibooks can offer? Come back in six months' time. Chi Sigma 17:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this month’s choice!? Gerard Foley 10:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. That's the beauty of democracy, you're quite within your rights to vote for a book on the basis that it's just as bad as this month's. Chi Sigma 22:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as bad as this month's, it's a lot lot better! Gerard Foley 22:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]