You can standardize only when you have something to standardize: on it.wikiquote, I've created many models for various subjects, but if there are few articles (e.g. on comics) it's difficult... So, let projects grow, they'll develop their conventions. Nemo 00:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Some proposals will have massive impact on end-users, including non-editors. Some will have minimal impact. What will be the impact of this proposal on our end-users? -- Philippe 00:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- For non-editors the impact will be, that the quality of the texts will get lower since there will be more editors. The impact for editors will be, that they have to learn writing text in a more collaborating way. I mean this is a deterioration, but the number of texts will increase. --Goldzahn 08:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Having spent plenty of reading time on wikibooks, I can assure you one of the only things that keeps those editors going is that they get to write their book in a style they like. Even if another editor comes on, there may be some tension, but each book is allowed a style that fits it. My concern with this proposal is I do not see how it might be implemented. An AP bio book must be written entirely differently from a book comparing the styles of American and International dance - in either case, a quick glance at the table of contents reveals all that is there.
- However I am interested in the idea of making book-editing and likewise other side projects less "scary." I just think the "go ahead! step on some toes! it's cool!" attitude might be better fostered on introductory or help pages and not in a set of rules regarding content structure. -Lyc. cooperi 10:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- It is a great idea for editors at wikibooks to be more forthcoming in what they want to see with the book so different editors aren't stepping over each other's toes all the time. But than again, that's what the wikibooks "Be Bold!" policy is for. :)
- I'm reluctant to say that any number of editors' desires should be identified as the "plot." With each new editor comes a new vision about how the book should develop to communicate what it is trying to communicate, and these visions need to meet at the middle, rather than having the "old timers'" plan dominate.
- as a matter of practice, a plan(s) for how the book might pan out should probably be stated, but each plan need to be explicitly associated with the editor who wants to see it that way, rather than attributed to the book itself. While the Wikibooks Editing Guidelines say something to the effect of "put on the talk page your to do list for the book," I do think book design could be a little more, well, emphasized. --Lyc. cooperi 11:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is a good guideline. Maybe you are right and books can´t be standardized. --Goldzahn 22:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)