Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Jokebook

I moved this discussion here, because it was getting rather long. This is not an archive, and the topic can be discussed normally. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 15:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Jokebook

Jimbo Wales has listed this as one of the articles he plans to delete. The speedy deletion policy is being developed, and I don't feel this should be a candidate. I have no vote on whether it should be deleted through the VfD process, but it definitely shouldn't be speedied. Guanaco 22:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• I now vote keep. Guanaco 22:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Any reason for your vote? Wikibooks is collection of manuals and textbooks (we now discuss whether to narrow this classification, but IMO there's no doubt that Wikibooks should serve moreless educational purpose). Jokebook is completely odd, does not serve anything and is completely useless. If we decide to leave Jokebook here, we also invite here all jesters from the Internet to create their own nonsense "books". --Derbeth ^talk 22:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The Jokebook has potential as a guide to telling jokes. In its current form, it does not meet its potential, but that's why this is a wiki. Other humor-related books can be judged on their own merits. Guanaco 23:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
      • It has a potential... Well, if we take such approach, we shouldn't delete any module. Yes, it may become guide to telling jokes (very practical, isn't it?), but it would require complete rewrite (there's nothing about the way of telling jokes now). If this book needs to be written from scratch, why don't we delete it? It's moreless the same. --Derbeth ^talk 23:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm changing my vote to transwiki to meta, or failing that, move to Wikibooks namespace. This is original "research" but has significant value to the Wikibooks community. Guanaco 22:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but delete all jokes without annotations. WB:WIW: Wikibooks is not an encyclopedia/macropedia. This book lists jokes, but it never instructs me on how to use them. I would vote to keep an annotated joke book, though. Delete all of the jokes except the few that have annotations. --Kernigh 23:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep entire book. Let us annotate the entire thing and make it an annotated text. (I am too busy to start on it now, though.) Also, some of it (including Jokebook:Lightbulb) was moved from Wikipedia, probably because their articles had too many examples. WB:WIW: Wikibooks includes books based on Wikipedia articles. Another option might be to transwiki it to Meta as "jokes by the Wikibooks/Wikipedia community", though maybe they would not like that... --Kernigh 01:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
    • You cannot make Jokebook an annotated text - it's against sense of such texts! You probably haven't read the article you linked: The goal of an annotated text is to facilitate reading and comprehension of the source text, especially in a classroom environment, or even for private study, but especially in preparation for formal examinations. Jokebook is completely useless, does not serve any educational purpose (so it can't be annotated text) and can even be considered original work (I don't think we can say it's research) or even fiction - how do we now how many jokes were invented by visitors? IMO even if there is no strict policy against Jokebook, it should be deleted because it doesn't follow Wikibooks philosophy. Wikibooks like Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, we don't have to have a paragraph for any policy violation. Wikibooks does not include books from every Wikipedia article, it's complete nonsense. --Derbeth ^talk 09:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, Jokebook can be an annotated texts. Jokes are not "source texts" like Hamlet, but it remains possible to "interweave" annotations. The "educational purpose" is to learn about joking. However, some of the jokes are original work (Jokebook:You have two cows claims this) or copyright violations (when copied from a different joke collection without permission). Jokebook:Lightbulb is a good example of what to keep. It does not have per-book annotations but it has some annotations. (If we delete Jokebook anyway, then the entire book becomes eligible for inclusion in WB:BJ or WP:BJAODN.) --Kernigh 23:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Delete from main namespace. I still like the idea of an annotated, educational joke guide, but the current Jokebook has too much useless content. I recently noticed the existence of Jokebook/How To Eat - A parody of Wikibooks. "How to eat" is completely inappropriate for Wikibooks (though potentially useful if someone moves it out of the main namespace, like to Meta or WB:BJ.). I am not planning to create the joke guide that I wanted, but if I did, then I now think that I would not use any content from the existing Jokebook. --Kernigh 23:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Delete after move to Lollerpedia --Kernigh 00:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for no reason at all...It's so quiet here...are we deleting a "Guide to proper graveyard management" or a "Jokebook" here?...again misplaced sense of humor I actually would agree if it was Deleted --Gnomz007 04:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Is this a vote to keep, delete, or neither? --Kernigh 05:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • This is definitely some nonsense, I'm fond of speaking, just to break silence, it was a delete, not sure if I count, with my level of contribs anyway Gnomz007 02:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This isn't a texbook, and it never will be. Also, Jimbo specifically mentioned the Jokebook as a book that needs to go. I recommend the contributers find a new home for this book, because it will probably be deleted soon. --Whiteknight _TC^E 18:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I always wondered why this book is still on Wikibooks - it's just ridiculous. --Derbeth ^talk 19:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is a harmless diversion to have some fun by participants on Wikibooks, and until Jimbo's recent pronouncement was not against Wikibooks policy. --Rob Horning 19:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, it was. Old policy stated that Wikibooks is collection of textbooks (liberally interpreted). Jokebook will never be a textbook or even something similar to a textbook. I think that Jokebook should not exist at any Wikimedia Project. Authors can join Uncyclopedia or create Nonsensebooks. --Derbeth ^talk 20:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Hey, speaking of diversions, do you have any sort of w:en:WP:BJAODN here, yet ?--Gnomz007 02:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • And even if it wasn't strictly against policy, it is now. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Other than Jimbo blatantly saying that any Wikibook named Jokebook is against Wikibooks policy, what specific Wikibook policy is this book violating? I know this contradicts what I'm saying in the Naturalism Wikibook section, but Jimbo was out of line to come in and make this not only a VfD, but he made it a speedy delete candidate. Wikibook users correctly challenged that decision and forced it into a VfD vote, which if nominated by anybody other than Jimbo would have been laughed out completely. I don't have a time machine, but had this been entered as a VfD even a week earlier without Jimbo's comment I don't think there would have been a single vote to delete. --Rob Horning 14:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Possibly not, but one cannot have one's cake and eat it. Editors who outspokenly and repeatedly deplore the keeping by mass acclamation of books that they assert do not belong by a narrow definition of what should be included here, cannot at the same time welcome the keeping by mass acclamation of books that cannot be justified as belonging by even the broadest of definitions of what should be included here. My opinion is that your hypothesis as to what would have happened is improbable, and that it is far more probable that in that hypothetical VFD debate the same editors who vociferously complain about "Wikipedians dumping stuff here" would have railed against this in exactly the same way for being "a collection of jokes dumped upon us by Wikipedians", and that the only reason that they aren't doing that now is because it is Jimbo that wants the book deleted, and railing against Jimbo has a higher priority than railing against Wikipedians. ☺ Uncle G 21:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
      • WB:BJ --Kernigh 01:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • It has never met any definition, even the broadest ones, of what is included at Wikibooks. It fails to satisfy even the "non-fiction book" criterion. Uncle G 21:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Not because I like the book or think it should stay, but out of protest against Jimmy's sudden categorical exclusion of material from this site on completely arbitrary grounds ("not a textbook") without consultation with the community. — Timwi 16:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • It is not arbitrary. That is what Wikibooks was set up for, not jokebooks, etc. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This is ridiculous. This is not a place to discuss if we love Jimbo or not! There are serious objections about this "book" and we are discussing if it is proper for Wikibooks. BTW, I see you have 100 minor edits here at Wikibooks, have you at least read some policies like WB:WIW..? --Derbeth ^talk 22:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete as much as I love jokes. Mikkalai 18:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is my favorite book on Wikibooks.
• Keep. I've never really bothered with it, but removing it would take some of the fun from wikibooks. Fun generates interest. Simply as content, I think it should only be moved, or hidden, rather than deleted. Ricky Clarkson
• Keep Its broad enough to be a book, but not too broad to be crazy. Wikibooks doesn't need such strict guidelines as wikipedia or wikinews, and Jokebook ain't going to start any political firefights. Plus, we need to tell Jimbo no occasionally.  :) At minimum, we should make absolutely sure speedy deletion guidelines never include things like Jokebook. - Nyarlathotep 17:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• keep - I can see it as an annotated text or a a guide for telling jokes - It needs mome time to develop. --Krischik ^T 11:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC).
• Move to Wikifun - Well my english is not very well - ignore the mistakes :-)... I'm the founder of Wikifun. This project is concerned with the collection of jokes and funny pics. Before the Wikifun-Project i've collected the jokes in a german jokebook which was located in the german wikibooks. Then i've realised that the stuff don't fit to the other "learning" books and it would be more easier to handle the joke-articles in a separate project. So i've started a new project on Wikicities. Up to now Wikifun is a german issue, but there is the possibility to request for an english version: Start a new Wiki. - Achgro 07:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I have offered to transwikify this module's content to another wiki that will accept it, as long as that wiki has the HTML access methods that MediaWiki has, is publicly accessible, and is GFDL licensed. Uncle G 21:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV and not a textbook. Yann 20:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • "POV" is apparently some slang from Wikipedia. I have no idea what it means. --Kernigh 03:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • "Not adherent to the neutral point of view". Uncle G 15:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• As with Useless Information above, this is entertainment, not instruction or education. It's that simple. "It's a book." is not sufficient for Wikibooks. Wikibooks is for specific types of books.

  Attempting to justify this as an annotated work is stretching the idea of annotated texts beyond the point of ludicrousness. As Derbeth points out above, there is no underlying work to be annotated. Similarly, this is not a teaching resource. Yes, good work has been done on Jokebook:Lightbulb. But there is no attempt whatsoever in this book to teach people to be comedians, or to aid them in some hypothetical study of jokes, in that chapter or elsewhere. It is, in places, a well-presented collection of jokes, but it is still just a collection of jokes.

  This is not the sort of book that one would expect to find in the non-fiction section of a university bookshop. One would expect to find it in the Humour section. Indeed, this is not the sort of book that one would expect to find in the non-fiction section of any bookshop. This book does not even meet the broad "non-fiction book" inclusion criteria that some editors espouse. In truth, this book has never met any Wikibooks inclusion criteria. It has been tacitly accepted because it has been useful in practice. But when push comes to shove and the issue is actually raised, there's simply no way of defending the book's inclusion here.

  Where this content belongs is another matter. Out of all of the Wikimedia Foundation projects, only Wikipedia and Wikiquote seem even remotely suitable. But Wikipedia discourages large lists of unsourced (and possibly original) jokes, and Wikiquote would restrict the content to actual quotations. And Uncyclopedia concentrates upon satire specifically rather than upon jokes in general. There are, however, Wikicomedy, and (as mentioned above) Wikifun, which might be suitable. Uncle G 21:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete because it is clearly not a textbook and I doubt if there will be enough enthusiasm to turn it into an annotated guide, --kwhitefoot 21:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Uncyclopedia has a stated mission too, jokebook violates just as much as it violates any wikibooks policy; although uncyclopedia would end up being more tolerant. Quality should trump the text book rule. Nyarlathotep 12:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment We should delete it, someone has started moving it to another page - Lollerpedia. After whole content is moved, we can safely delete it. --Derbeth ^talk 12:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep As a library which contains lots of books, having a wiki-jokebook is bringing people that wouldn't want to come to wikibooks explore the site and maybe get interested in the project. Lincher 12:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, keep deleted, never undelete... once moved of course. This is the worst example of a textbook we may have. It took me awhile to vote on this, but I couldn't stay quiet any longer. We have the opportunity to have great advances made here at Wikibooks, but modules like Jokebook deter that from happening. Some of the jokes there are funny, don't get me wrong, but that is not the issue. The question we need to ask ourselves is, what is the purpose and intent of Wikibooks? It is not a place for random jokes (many of which violate multiple policies). I urge all others who want to make Wikibooks a serious, booming project to vote delete. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not a textbook Gerard Foley 17:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment If the lightbulb jokes don't belong here, where should they go? It was thought that they shouldn't be in Wikipedia, that's why they were moved here.Evrik 20:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikibooks is not a junkyard for things that don't fit in wikipedia. I hope that point is very very clear. Things that do not belong in wikipedia rarely, if ever, belong in wikibooks. Most likely, it belongs in wikicities. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 21:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • That's an oft-repeated falsehood, a belief that isn't supported by reality. Many things are moved to here from Wikipedia and do belong here. Uncle G 03:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't think anyone will doubt that lots of stuff is moved here from WP, I think the question is, Should the stuff from WP be moved here? But yes, some stuff that is transwikied does belong. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't understand how it would be a falsehood. The only time content that is inappropriate for wikipedia should be moved to wikibooks is if the artical in question is too much like a textbook, and not enough like an encyclopedia. Barring that criteria, I can't see why anything else should get moved here. If it doesn't work on the 'pedia, for almost any reason, i can't see why it would automatically be made to work here. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 14:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Several things that were at Wikipedia, for example Transwiki:Useful unix command, satisfy that rule. Soapboxes, original work, and undocumented jokes never satisfy that rule. --Kernigh 18:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Transwikification can be (badly) done by any editor, even an anonymous one. It requires no privileges. So there's no way to stop editors from transwikifying junk. That's how the Body parts slang dictionary got here. But the transwiki regulars work quite hard to ensure that junk never arrives here in the first place. Uncle G 15:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
      • And many things are moved from Wikipedia to here for that very reason. Uncle G 15:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • When I first examined Jokebook, I (accidentally) first looked at Jokebook:Lightbulb. This module actual explains the concept of lightbulb jokes. Most parts of Jokebook only include the jokes. If you want to store lightbulb jokes on Wikibooks, you should (1) not put them in Jokebook (2) explain the concept of lightbulb jokes (3) explain each individual joke (4) exclude any jokes which are original work by wiki contributors. See WB:WIW. Jokebook:Lightbulb only met (2) and possibly (4), but failed (3). --Kernigh 18:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Could someone please explain where the lightbulb jokes are being moved to?Evrik 19:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Probably that Lollerpedia or the comedy Wikicity. I am not exactly sure if only one will have it. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is one of my favourite wikibooks. I find the parts on different types of humour educational. Please let us keep this book!
• I vote keep, it's not like it's hurting anyone by just being here after all, and besides, joke do serve a purpose; lightening the mood.
  • Whenever you find yourself making the "It's doing no harm." argument, you are arguing that Wikibooks should be a free wiki hosting service for any content that editors care to write, as long as it "does no harm". Wikibooks is not a free wiki hosting service. It is a project with a broad, but specific, goal. The "It's doing no harm." argument is as unacceptable here as it is at any other project. Uncle G 15:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Vote count as of 01:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep	Transwiki	Delete
Robert Horning Timwi Ricky clarkson Krischik plus users with few contributions to Wikibooks Nyarlathotep Lincher plus 3 unsigned votes to keep	To Meta or Wikibooks namespace: Guanaco To Wikifun Achgro (few contributions to Wikibooks)	Kernigh (to Lollerpedia) Gnomz007 Whiteknight Derbeth Yann kwhitefoot Lord Voldemort Gmcfoley (last vote, 1 December) plus one user with few contributions to Wikibooks Mikkalai

I tried making this table to count the votes. Note that this is my first attempt to count VFD votes, and I am not an administrator. Note that Timwi, Ricki clarkson, and Gnomz007 also have relatively few edits, though not all edits are equal. --Kernigh 01:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Unlinking Jokebook from Wikipedia

Though there is significant opposition to deletion, most users seem to support deletion. Meanwhile, Lollerpedia has forked the Wikibooks Jokebook; I was copying some edit histories from here to there. Lollerpedia does not include some jokes added in December by users who never otherwise contributed to Wikibooks. I am guessing that these users followed links from Wikipedia.

Because it seems that we will delete Jokebook, I will unlink Jokebook from Wikipedia. I intend to replace each Jokebook link with a Lollerpedia link (but only where there is an existing Jokebook link). I will not change links from Wikipedia to Uncyclopedia. --Kernigh 01:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)