Jump to content

Wikibooks:Collaboration of the Month/May 2006 voting

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world

Voting Rules

The following are the rules and conditions for voting for the Collaboration of the Month:

  1. Only registered users with 20 or more edits to their name may vote.
  2. You may vote under as many nominations as you wish, however, you may only vote for each book itself once.
  3. Sign your vote with a number sign and four tildes, #~~~~, after the most previous vote under the book's nomination. Unsigned votes will be removed.
  4. Any nomination which receives 3 or more votes in one month will automatically be renominated the next month if it is not chosen.
  5. If you wish to include a short comment for your vote, then you may do so. Make sure that if you leave such a comment, that you are also voting for that page.
  6. Do not post objection votes as these will have no effect on the final tally.
  7. Voting will end at 00:00 UTC on the first day of each month. In essence, when a new month begins voting ends. Any votes added after this time will be discarded.
  8. The nomination with most votes will be chosen as the Collaboration of the Month. In case of a tie, the older Wikibook will be chosen.

Nominations

(renominated with 4 votes for April)

Votes:

  1. Klingoncowboy4 01:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mastermind 007 11:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

(renominated with 3 votes for April)

Votes:

  1. Klingoncowboy4 01:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

(renominated with 3 votes for April)

Votes:

  1. Klingoncowboy4 01:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Daniel Bunčić 17:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • This book has rather small group of readers. --Derbeth talk 08:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't agree. This book had lots of readers even before it became a wikibook. So far not very many of them are acquainted with the wiki techniques, that's true. But isn't this just a reason to support the book? Attracting non-wikipedians to Wikibooks? And, by putting it onto the start page as a Collaboration of the Month, attracting wikibookians to improve this book so that even more non-wikipedians will want to use it? --Daniel Bunčić 06:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(renominated with 3 votes for April)

Votes:

  1. Klingoncowboy4 01:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Matt 05:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Rob Horning 21:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dolive35 18:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. haginძazt\c 23:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Votes:

  1. Mastermind 007 11:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Klingoncowboy4 22:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • I think the book is really great, neatly organized, excellent use of grammar and actually provides what is necessary for making movies. I'll also vote this book for Book Of The Month also because it deserves it. — Mastermind 007 11:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes:

  1. Fitchguy20 18:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

OK, the bookshelves are not a book as such - but they definitely need cleaning and it is a Sisyphean challenge. So I take the bold step and suggest a non-book for collarboration.

The following tasks need to be performed:

  1. Endless list of Red links - deleted books, suggested books, vanity entries - who knows. They all need to be checked and handled.
  2. Duplicated Shelves i.E. Art Bookshelve vs. Arts Bookshelve. Which is right, which is wrong?
  3. Page layout differs form shelve to shelve.
  4. Entries sorted by Alphabet, Category or Both.
  5. [[Image:25%]] have to be replaced with proper {{stage|25|Apr 12, 2005}}. (I got a vim script for that)

Shure enough work - and important as well

--Krischik T 10:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes:

  1. --Krischik T 10:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. German Men92 22:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Klingoncowboy4 22:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dolive35 18:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. DSYoungEsq 13:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Well this "book" has been sitting here for quite some time and no mod has removed it... It would be funny if this won Klingoncowboy4 22:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definatelly needs sorting out, I did some a few months ago, they really need sorting outDolive35 18:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]