text:
Wikibooks:Deletion policy/Unstable

Not all content is suitable for Wikibooks, and occasionally some content (including books and individual book pages) need to be deleted. Wikibookians are expected to follow this policy when performing deletion-related activities (including undeletion requests).

Deletion
Wikibooks is for the creation of free open-context textbooks. If a book or page does not aid the development of textbooks, violate policy or no longer have a functioning of the project (including, user pages, help pages, policy pages, discussion pages, uploaded files, and any other meta-content pages), can be tagged for deletion, speedily or by way of a Request for Deletion (community discussion). During the evaluation discussion toward a local deletion, the content can also be proposed for tranwiki to a more appropriate wiki or a merge merge with another local page.

New books and pages should be treated with tolerance and understanding. Since they cannot be expected to immediately adhere to every minute detail of Wikibooks policy and inclusion criteria. Meaningful content should not be nominated for transwiki, delete or speedy deletion until at least a month after it has been created and some effort made to improve the content or helping new contributors to understand what needs to be done.

Deletion is not the same as removing all content from a page, which adds an entry to the page's history and anyone can undo. Deletion removes both the content of the page and the entire page history from public view and only Administrators can undo it. Keeping track of deletions can be hard if done too casually. Deletion decisions are not to be taken lightly.

Page blanking might be vandalism, an attempt to deal with vandalism, or an attempt to delete a page for whatever reasons. The first two can be fixed by restoring a revision free of vandalism. The last may qualify for speedy deletion depending on the situation; if you want a second opinion, you may make a request for deletion.

What to keep or delete
What is considered meaningful content is open to some interpretation and differs depending on the namespace. Use your best judgment when deciding to nominate books or pages for transwiki or deletion. Content is generally not considered meaningful if it does not contribute to the project or add value to readers. This includes, but is not limited to, the following:

• 2

Use common sense and assume good faith. Always check the page's history to make sure bad material didn't replace good material. If this is the case, revert the bad material instead of nominating for deletion.

Transwiki
To nominate a page or book for transwiki to another wiki, add to the top of the page or the main page of the book. The page or book will then appear in Category:Pages for transwiki. Any user can transwiki a page or book out of Wikibooks, so long as they follow the rules and policies of the destination wiki. After being transwikied, if the contents is outside Wikibooks' scope, the page or book can be speedily deleted, and the page or main page of the book replaced with a temporary link to the new location. Otherwise simply remove the transwiki notice once the transwiki is finished.

Keep in mind that work from Wikibooks cannot legally be transwikied to a place that uses a license different from CC-BY-SA.

Speedy deletions
To nominate a book or page for speedy deletion, add to the top of the page or the main page of the book. The book or page will then appear in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion for administrators to address when time is available. Any book or page may not be renominated for speedy deletion if its nomination is removed in good faith. Books or pages may instead be nominated for deletion using requests for deletion as described below.

Some redirect pages can become candidates for speedy deletion as well. Redirects can be considered for deletion if they:

 * 1) Are the result of page moves to a better naming convention
 * 2) Where created in error or as the result of vandalism
 * 3) Are so obscure or poorly named that they are likely never to be found in a search

Requests for deletion
Books and pages that fit the criteria for deletion listed above, and are not necessarily speedy deletion candidates, can be listed for discussion at Requests for deletion, using the book or page's name as a title, so that other Wikibookians can have a chance to argue for or against its removal. RfDs are not intended to determine exceptions to policy but to establish a project failure to comply with them, including cases where the policy text may not be clear by intention or omission. Please include a justification for deletion, and sign/date your justification with four tildes,  ~ , or similar. In addition, add to the top of the page or the main page of the book. The book or page will then appear in Category:Requests for deletion. At this time, the discussion process begins using the high impact decision making rules. During a RfD, the community should evaluate the work on it's conformance to our inclusion criteria, and our other content-related policies. Other metrics may be used as well, but it is important that works not be kept if they are in violation of one or more policies.

Once community consensus has been reached on the matter, the work will either be kept or delete, depending on the outcome of the discussion. The outcome of a RfD decision may be used to update the inclusion criteria. Works that are kept may have added to the top of their discussion page. Works that are to be deleted may have added to the top of their page, to alert contributors of the community's decision and to give contributors time to find a more suitable home for the works contents.

Administrators are able to delete pages from Wikibooks that manifestly do not belong here, regardless of the outcome of a discussion on RfD. In practice, such actions should be extremely rare, and should never be performed without strong justifications and significant forethought.

Books and pages which have survived a deletion using this process should not be nominated again unless new information comes to light that was not brought up in the previous discussion, or the situation for keeping the work has changed.

Nominations as Vandalism
One thing to keep in mind with a deletion and undeletion nominations is that it may be added as an act of vandalism, or as a part of an edit war between two contributors who may not like each other. In situations like this it would be considered appropriate to remove, and/or  from the book or page in question, as well as any discussion on the matter from Requests for deletion or Wikibooks:Requests for undeletion, with perhaps a note that the discussion was terminated because it was started as a means of vandalism, even if legitimate arguments for or against keeping were subsequently posted. If afterwards a serious objection is still being raised, the discussion can resume.

Guidelines for administrators
In addition to What to keep or delete, administrators are expected to follow some guidelines when making the decision to delete or not:

 * 1) If another solution has been found rather than deletion, leave them listed on Requests for deletion for a short while, so the original poster can see why it wasn't deleted, and what did happen to it. This will prevent reposting of the same item. Alternately, leave a message on their user page explaining the verdict of the deletion process.
 * 2) As a general rule, don't delete pages you nominate for deletion, let someone else do it.
 * 3) When in doubt, don't delete. Don't hesitate to seek a second opinion or to turn a speedy delete into a RfD discussion. It is better to get community input than indiscriminate deleting on the part of administrators.
 * 4) Give contributors time to move meaningful contents outside Wikibooks' scope before deleting or email them a copy of the work.  Once it becomes known that consensus has been reached to delete or that the page meets the criteria for speedy deletion, place  on the page to warn them.
 * 5) Simply deleting a page does not automatically delete its talk page, any subpages or redirects. Please delete these pages too.
 * 6) Books may also have templates and categories that may also need to be deleted. Please delete these too.
 * 7) Use common sense, and respect the judgment and feelings of other Wikibookians.

Administrators necessarily must use their best judgment to determine when rough consensus has been reached. Consensus is not defined as being a simple voting majority, nor does it require 100% agreement of all parties. Comments from all parties must be weighed and considered in light of Wikibooks' scope and policies. If no consensus is reached, the page will be kept by default, unless deletion is imposed by policy. Wikibookians are obligated to act primarily in accordance with previously community approved policies (for example, on copyright).

When an administrator deletes a test page or other page with no useful content, it is a good idea to put a note on the author's talk page explaining things, pointing them to the sandbox in cases of tests. Be friendly! Everyone was new once. In the case of anon IP users this is not as important as they have likely moved on or their IPs changed since that edit.

title: Wikibooks:Deletion policy/Unstable


text:
Talk:Intermediate Algebra/Solving Absolute Value Equations

I think there should be a problem added that has a absolute value sign on both sides.

Need AN Answer?

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Wikibooks talk:Deletion policy/Archive 3

Policy Vote Relanuch
To simplify things and to make it easier to find the voting area, I've restarted the whole policy vote and will advertise it much better this time. The policy has been changed slightly as well, so it does need a whole new vote if just for that alone.

For the vote, please go to:

Policy/Vote/Deletion Policy

and cast your opinion on the whole thing. I find it unlikely that it would not be approved by Wikibookians, but I've been surprised in the past by things like this. --Rob Horning 03:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

 * The deletion policy was made official on 11:35, 30 May 2006. --Swift 16:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

doctor m-pov
problematic. This probably includes Sociology, Psychology, Political Science, Religion, Philosophy, Ethics, Morality, and Metaphysics. I would love to write a book on each of the above, but that is back burner stuff compared to THINKSTARSHIP. I could offer to generate a start-up of stubs, but honestly, the problem here is that there are too few Wikibookians and too many cranks in the world. This place has been swallowed in the mire of the form of groupthink which is just the back up of how long it takes for you guys to find and read and sort what you have. On the other hand, Wikipedia is chok full of people. The solution here is for Jimbo to make a general plea on Wikipedia for people to come over here and help us with the back up. Otherwise, starting 10 books as a way to chill the system is going to backfire, and we will just end up with a lot more crackpottery on top of the stuff we have. Allow me to interpret a bitin my own mind what i think Jimbos smart interests are. This place as just a library of any old material is going to quickly become the kind of crackpottery asylum that the rest of the internet rots inside of. The only rational way to insure the success of this endeavor is to limit the primary scope specifically to factual materials. I am sure that once we have bookshelves full of hardcore and serious information on most subjects, Jimbo will be a lot more likely to okay something a little more adventurous. Coming up with a fact based approach to Religion (As a for instance) is not as easy to do as what you might think considering that it can be expressed in a single sentence. Some moments, I'd like to become a super troll and hit 10000 articles on wikipedia with the simple statement "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NEUTRAL POV!" (There isn't. Epistomology tells us that we can approach finer and finer levels of subjectivity towards objectivity, but kind of like time dilation in black holes, you can never reach the goal of being truly objective. Tools for getting us closer to objectivity are great, but we have to admit that even they are subjective applications of subjective principles.) Because I started this with the prfix "doc" I feel I have to leave you with the solution. POV Problematic topics like the ones I listed above should be studied here by specific axiom. That means catching up on the logic textbook. It means an article which is about a single statement, its linkages to assorted paradigms, its truth vale, its linkages in relationship to other axioms, its linkages in terms of syllogisms to other axioms, its history, its politics, and anything else that is relevant. Otherwise, we end up as a noise mirror of Beliefnet.com (Which is a helluva lot of noise and very little content.) If you go look at the aforementioned internet site, one thing that will not be readilly apparent is that there are really only 50 paradigms each juggling only a few hundred primary, and a few thousand auxillary axioms. Me an a good bot programmer could convert all of that noise by re-sorting Beliefnet according to where specific axioms pop up. What the Bot would find is that a specific axiom has been used probably close to a million times on bnet. What this tells us is that noise is easilly covered up quickly by more noise. just vanishes. Rather than madly deleting things, consider putting them in a POV bin, labeling them, disclaimng them, and asking the public to participate in appropriate vivisection, sorting, organization, and research, so that a better thing can be created. Prometheuspan 01:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC) http://www.beliefnet.com/
 * multiple pov ;
 * There is a very fine line and a very difficult one here involving the subjects which a lot of people would like to consider themselves experts on but in which in fact they are just hobbyist babblers. I myself sometimes cross that line probably in subjects which i don't have the serious info on. For instance, what i actually know about Rocket science might fit into a shoebox scribbled on cardboard scraps.   What I know about Psychonautics or Psychology is another thing, and the fact that I have serious knowledge on a few topics gives me the perspective to know the difference. Many people don't know the difference, and the anti-intellectualism rampant in our society doesn't serve to let them know.
 * The solution to your problem is to have well developed on site documents generated by the community on the topics which are POV
 * As far as all of the deleting goes, I think it is great to delete something that you know you have a better treatment of, and a clear sign of a big hole that the next ignorant hobbyist will fill if it

Stub Deletion Policy
I'm trying to think of where the best place to argue this point, but I'm going to request that the policy discussion take place on Wikibooks talk:Stub instead. This is just a notice that the discussion is taking place there. --Rob Horning 12:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Video and game walkthroughs
I propose that all new books that are "video and game walkthroughs" are suitable for speedy deletion (see Staff Lounge for details, but essentially Jimbo is saying that Wikibooks shouldn't be hosting them). Whilst time should be given to remove existing books to a suitable alternative location, it makes sense to nuke new ones at birth. I would suggest that anyone deleting a book under this criterion should leave a message on the author's page explaining why it is being deleted, and offering to keep the page available for a week to allow that author to copy text for his own records, Jguk 06:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If deletion of all game walkthroughs is consensus, then I think speedying new ones makes perfect sense. Kellen T 18:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Further amendments
I've made a number of further amendments (see this diff that I think are needed for this proposal to be ready to be enforced. I'd now be happy to make this switch (though no doubt others may wish to comment before allowing the policy to go final (although it could, of course, still be amended after going final)), Jguk 18:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I looked at your changes, and I have to admit that I don't like some of them. First off, many VfD discussions are ended by majority vote, and it makes no sense to change that fact, without first defining what "concensus" means in this case. Must we reach 100% agreement before acting at VfD, or should an admin just go with the jist of things? Before stating how VfD should not be resolved, we should start listing the specific ways that it can be resolved. Also, I don't like your wording of the "personal essay" clause, it adds too much ambiguity, and ignores the original purpose of that point: to try and preserve information that was posted in error on wikibooks, and otherwise would be a candidate for speedy deletion. Other then those two points, I agree with all your other changes and wordings. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

 * If VFDs are being decided by a majority vote, then the admins administering the decision are doing it wrong. Kellen T 09:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, VfDs should not be closed with a simple majority. Consensus on most Wikimedia projects is defined more as a supermajority (roughly 75%). -- LV (Dark Mark) 18:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Then somewhere we should specifically define what a supermajority is, precisely what a concensus is, and exactly what the rules are for ending a vote, so that there is no ambiguity. Don't say that one way of doing things is wrong without proposing an alternative. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no proposal... it is how things are done. -- LV (Dark Mark) 01:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Consensus is not tied to a precise number, though on WP "rough consensus" is usually set at around 80%. The consensus process is illustrated in Image:Consensus2.png. Coming to consensus about an issue (deletion, policy, textual changes) involves following this process. The gist of it is: act in good faith, treat dissenters with respect and try to resolve their concerns; if the community is unable to resolve their concerns, it can ignore them, but this should be avoided when possible. This also requires a large majority; the higher the better; the lowest percentage probably being around 75%, depending upon the circumstances. Kellen T 01:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Add old redirect pages to speedy deletion
According to naming policy the Book:Chapter naming convention is no longer allowed. Could we add pages that have been moved to a corresponding Book/Chapter page, to the list of parameters needed for speedy deletions. --Swift 09:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Assuming all bad links and redirects are fixed, I think it is safe to say that old redirects, that are unused, may be speedily deleted. If we can get more people to agree on this measure, we can add it to policy. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * One huge problem I've seen with automatically deleting almost all redirects (something User:Jguk has been doing for quite some time) is that some redirects do have some value.... at least at the book level. I don't mind that most redirects to individual chapters/sub-modules get deleted routinely as it seems unlikely that most pages would not be referenced after there is a page move.  Still, it is a very good idea to scan the "what links here" to see if any content points to that page first.  For some very popular Wikibooks, it might be useful to see if any external links reference the redirect by doing a google search, but that is something to worry about on a case by case basis.  --Rob Horning 14:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes. Sorry. I should have mentioned the criteria that all links must have been updated. How is:
 * A redirect page that does not conform with naming policy if all links to it have been updated.
 * Suggesting that external links be checked is a good idea. Perhaps there could be a section at naming policy on speedy deletion of the books that confirm with the old convention, that would mention this. --Swift 17:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I like the sound of that, and it makes good practical sense. I can forsee some dissenting opinions, from people who think that "less is more", and that admins should have the freedom to delete a useless page without being instructed to do so. Either way, I'll put a note up at Staff lounge, to let people know that we are considering an addition to the policy. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Really? I understand "less is more" but their freedom is hardly reduced since the Deletion polciy doesn't order the deletion. That aside, I personally just wanted it so that petty "ordinary" editors such as I could quickly delete the pages by alerting someone with the proper priveleges. --Swift 04:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Sounds reasonable to me. Kellen T 08:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

With seemingly a consensus and no comments in the last ten days, I've updated the policy. --Swift 02:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As with the complaints I had when I deleted the Wikimania 2005 proceedings, there is also the issue of external links pointing to Wikibooks from external websites other than Wikibooks. This should be part of the deletion process, and doesn't necessarily require a full VfD, but does require some care on the part of the admin performing such actions.  At the very least, using the "What links here" should be used, as well as perhaps a google search using the "link:" tool to find what links to the page being deleted (see this example).  There are other tools, including the Wikimedia tool server that can help out here.  --Rob Horning 19:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Hate to bring up an old topic, but I would prefer a redirect to a deletion. Deletes don't save any space on the server, while redirects take care of links outside of wikibooks, and bookmarks on forums or other people's computers. --Dragontamer 21:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Feel free. Issues shouldn't be left faulty just because they are old.
 * I understand your argument for redirects, most of the old convention pages probably aren't linked to by anything. Wikibooks isn't all that well known yet and while backwards compatibility is worthwhile, cleaning up unused pages to make tools such as Special:Prefixindex (and autoTOC) more useful is a reasonable justification.
 * Actually, on the deletion argument, I'm afraid I'll have to reveal my ignorance: I was under the impression that the software purged deleted pages — permanently removing them from the db — after a while or only kept a certain number of the most recent ones. Is this incorrect? --Swift 17:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

 * In my suggestion for the policy change, "if all links to it have been updated." was meant to also refer to external links. Perhaps this should be made more explicit? --Swift 17:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that this is mentioned on the policy page. Do you have any suggestions about rewording that, or is it a modification that came after your comment above? --Swift 17:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

state where it is more on-topic
Rather than arbitrary[1] deletion of things people write that don't quite fit into wikibooks, it would Be nice to point out (to those people) some other location(s) where people enjoy that sort of thing.

 * [1] decided by a judge or arbiter, rather than by a law or statute. Why isn't this in arbitrary?

I would like to recommend that when people post a notice on WB:VFD, they not only put a notice on the corresponding page telling of its proposed deletions, but also include a link to one (or more) other wiki where that sort of thing is more on-topic.

Should that link go on the soon-to-be-deleted page, or in WB:VFD ?

By more on-topic, I don't expect a deletionist person to be familiar enough with all 3494 other wiki to know exactly which wiki is dedicated to that particular topic.

I merely expect the deletionist person to be familiar enough with at least 2 other wiki, so you can say "this sort of thing would be more on-topic at that wiki".

It doesn't exactly have to be on-topic at that wiki either. The people at that wiki can forward it to some other wiki where it is "more on-topic than here".

Hopefully that document (and the people who wrote it) will eventually find some wiki where it actually *is* on-topic. Hopefully they will find it before going through all 3494 other wiki :-).

There's probably a way to say this in much better, shorter version.

So what's the process for getting this (or a better, shorter version) into the "Deletion policy"? --DavidCary 18:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Admins should speedy delete when people feel that the specific book will benifit
Hello, I was wondering if anyone else agreed with this, and possibly add it in some form to the policy. I think it is a good measure of when to speedy delete. This expands on allowing speedy deletes from the author (because the author obviously feels his book will benefit with the deletion) and may serve as a good benchmark in general. --Dragontamer 20:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree. Maybe generalize it a bit more? "Admins should speedy delete pages in which there is a general concensus by book contributors or the Wikibook community as a whole." Seems to be common practise anyways. I also think though there needs to be some excepts made to the wording on deleting redirects either that or as a whole. I don't think redirects should be any more special then any other pages when deciding whether or not to delete them. I think most redirects typically should be temperary to direct users to the current page rather then remaining permenate. At the very least how dated a link is on a website should be taken into account when deleting redirects. My reasons have nothing to do with "saving space" since I know it doesn't, rather how much less cluttered special pages, search results and the like become from removing unused redirected. --darklama 22:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

 * To both of you: Why is there a need to speedy delete. If there is a consensus, why not just demonstrate that on the VfD page. Create the discussion, have people comment and then, a week after the last comment, delete. The whole thing could take ase little as ten days. There is hardly a need to delete in less, is there? To shorten the process, you can add a comment after a few "votes", asking people only to add their comments if it might affect the debate so that the debate can be closed ASAP. --Swift 02:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Say, someone makes a new page for the C++ book called "Maeking Classes". He then writes up everything, but on the next day, realizes his spelling mistake. He moves the page, and puts up the original page for speedy deletion. Additionally, there are obvious and blatant vandalisms that occur on this site regularly, and it is necessary to get rid of them as soon as possible.

 * Should a non-admin notice a vandalism, or is in the case of the author, he should put it up for speedy deletion. If an admin (or anyone else) has any doubt about that page, we are pretty much instructed to turn it into VfD instead. --Dragontamer 04:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

 * In your "Maeking Classes" example, the page would already qualify under "A page that is nominated for deletion by the original author with no other contributors." I agree that we could modify the existing criteria to include something like "moved to a better named page, and the page is believed not to have any links from outside Wikibooks". --Swift 15:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

 * We can only speedy delete something if it is blatantly disregarding policy. The tag is there for say, authors and other RC patrolers to put on, so that admins can delete later. --Dragontamer 16:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Not quite. As I mentioned above, if you are the only contributor, you can have the page speedy deleted.
 * If the speedy delete criteria doesn't apply, just VfD it, ask that it get fast-tracked if there are no dissenters and the issue will be solved within two weeks. As I see it, SD is largely a tool to coutner the non-meaningful-content testing or vandalism — things that should disappear off the project as soon as possible. The VfD exists in order to avoid any possible conflict between editors and I think we should be careful with SD if it risks contended stuff being deleted without discussion. --Swift 17:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I believe speedy deletion is ment as a tool to alert admins of contents that may violate Wikibooks policy (such as vandalism and copyright violations), new pages created in error that are no longer needed and pages that already have concensus by the book editors for deletion. Things basically, as I understand it, that need no discussion and there is no question as to whether the contents should be deleted or not. VFD is mostly for contents that needs discussion and is questionable as to whether it should be deleted or not, as I understand it. Thats why if something in SD is questionable, it should be changed to a VFD request and discussioned in WB:VFD. The policy already discusses using ones best judgement when making the decision of whether or not to delete a page. I think the point is to try to clarify a little more what to take into account when making this decision. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 20:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thinking about this, I'm actually starting to soften up to Dragontamer's idea. Perhaps it isn't so important to have a VfD debate on things that have been discussed within the project, but still I feel that those agreed upon deletions should have a buffer period where dissenters can object.

I suppose my view is tainted by my belief that the SD process is trying to do accomplish two tasks and we are missing a process for something between the VfD debate and the obvious breaches of policy. Perhaps we need a "requested delete" which would bypass the VfD but had a buffer period for objections. Perhaps that isn't necessary? Is this an interesting idea? --Swift 00:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sensible for sure. However can this not be accomplished by the "reason" bit?  I marked one the other day because in the edit summary the editor had requested it (I think being a WP person they placed a non existent template on it). I do think it is important to take some care with the reason (as an RC pat placing them) -- Herby  talk thyme 07:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

 * In a way it can. I agree with Darklama's understanding of the SD tool. Perhaps we could make this more clear in the SD description. The two first types of pages he mentions (violations and mistaken creations) can already be deleted without delay. If the third (pages with concensus by the book editors) would point to the discussion where this reaches consensus, this too could be deleted quickly as long as there is no risk that someone might have missed it.
 * I see a possible scenario where an editor doesn't watch a specific book where the deletion discussion takes place and misses it. A vfd tag would sit around for a couple of weeks giving him a heads up to the discussion, but if it runs its course and the page is deleted shortly after the delete tag is posted, the user might get offended.
 * I don't think this is a likely scenario but given the importance of a good community spirit it is my oppinion we should strive to be thorough on this. In general I don't like being strict on rules, but I do think we should be strict on ourselves and not risk ticking anyone off for the sake of our own comfort. Clashes can brew very hostile environments and we should do as much as we can to avoid them.
 * Whether pointing book users to use the VfD, having a buffer period for such SDs, creating a new process for non-speedy deletes or something else, I'd be happy if we implemented a cautionary process here. Am I perhaps just being overly anal on this? --Swift 14:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Without real thought (). I'm probably something of a deletionist but I'm learning a more tolerant attitude here.  I started off with speedies (some of which were taken to VfD by others) but now I tend to put stuff on a seperate watch list if it might grow into something.  I also make far more use of qr-em tho I think this could be made a little less threantening? -- Herby  talk thyme 14:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Speedy Deletion is probably a misleading name. There is no guarantees made on how quickly or slowly pages marked for speedy deletion will be taken care of. There is no timeframe requirements for SD and VFD that I know of, so there may be times in which VFD is faster then a SD. If I understand correctly a VFD is generally considered to be closed when the last posting to it is a week or longer. So the only guarantee with VFD is that it may give a week in which people have time to notice. SD I think rearly gets used for books or pages that have concensus for deletion by the book editors, but perhaps it would be a good idea to suggest or require admins should be careful with such SD requests? Perhaps it should also be a requirement that a pointer to where the discussion took place be given in the reason description for such a SD request and admins should then check to make sure all active editors are aware of the discussion, by seeing if they pertisipated in the discussion or not and posting to the talk pages of those editors who did not to see if they are aware of the situation? Then again admins are free to change a SD request into an VFD request too if they have doubts about a SD canidate. I don't think there would be any problem with adding an explict cautionary process here. I believe admins are suppose to be cautious anyway about using any admin tool. I think making things clearer can't hurt and would like to see more information given showing that admins are just users too, with a few more tools ment to help the commmunity, to make the process a little less mysterious, intimidating and threatening. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 15:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I keep getting told this - so feet first - change the **** name! Equally there are some things - vandalism, porn, racism (& I would have thought legally speaking copyvios) that should be dealt with speedily (I'll keep the rest of the conversation in my mind in my mind!) -- Herby  talk thyme 15:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

 * SDs are not supposed to have buffers. That is the very specific purpose that SDs are doing, and they do it quite well actually. There are the qr-em tags which are used for buffers however. Anyway, now that I think of it, I don't think this should be added to the policy, but used more like a rule of thumb. This is what admins should be thinking as they speedy delete material (that is, forgo the VfD process). If it is obvious that the book or the Wikibooks community will benifit from the deletion, then do it. --Dragontamer 05:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Lets keep on top of it now!
OK - I've been busy with the dustpan and brush both on the VfD page and this talk page. So
 * 1) I have marked as closed for deletion on five that seem conclusive to me (The Sims, Nintendo Power Volume 037, Remote_Viewing/Pr02, Cookbook:Banta Diet Cooking & Movie Making Manual-Film_Academy Training) and placed "impending doon" on them. If any passing admin would care to deal with the deletes soon that would be good.
 * 2) How about trying to stay on top of it now so that we can see what are actually current discussions needing our attention.

Thanks -- Herby talk thyme 13:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


text:
Wikibooks talk:Deletion policy/Unstable

= Info from prev. discussions =

See Wikibooks talk:Stub as pointed out by User:Robert Horning in 22 March 2006.
 * Is there a further need to cover Videogames walkthroughs ? as proposed by User:Jguk in 22 April 2006.
 * Should the policy cover old redirect pages to speedy deletion ? as proposed by User:Swift in 31 July 2006.
 * Should we add information where the content could be moved, on the tag or on the policy itself? as proposed by User:DavidCary 21 October 2006.

There are still other discussions on Wikibooks_talk:Deletion_policy.

Other pages that may have related information Wikibooks talk:Votes for deletion and Wikibooks_talk:What_is_Wikibooks/Unstable.

Lets also try to simplify and reduce (in size) the policy a bit. --Panic 05:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

On CopyVio
This was inside the policy commented out...

 * 1) A module that is a blatant copyright infringement and meets these specifications:
 * Material is unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider (e.g. encyclopedia, news service) and;
 * The article and its entire history contains only copyright violation material, excluding tags, templates, and minor edits and;
 * Uploader makes no assertion of permission or fair use, and none seems likely and;
 * The material is identified within 48 hours of upload and is almost or totally un-wikified (to diminish mirror problem).

... I have simplified that section. --Panic 07:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Unstable Branch, Initial Thoughts
Considering the problems that some of the other policies have been having in writing and enforcing new versions, I think that we should try to improve this policy in babysteps. Here are some of the things that I would like to do with this policy branch first (assuming other people are okay with this), and we can do things in stages, rather then trying to do everything at once: Once we get everything updated and pretty, I think we should move to enforce the unstable branch before we make any other changes (and therefore slow down the process). --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Rewrite existing prose to be easier to read, without necessarily changing the meaning of the policy
 * 2) Update the policy to account for current deletion practices (Speedy deletions and VfD votes) that are de-facto rules already, but which are not reflected in this policy yet.
 * Here's one de facto rule that I've seen used but isn't official as far as I can tell from reading this policy: speedy deletion of unused fair use images (I'm not sure if this falls under "copyvios" or not but I don't think something is "fair use" to keep on the site if it's not being used for anything). As far as redirects are concerned, if there is a redirect that isn't linked to and is unlikely to be searched for (for example, a redirect made after a page move, and after all the links to those redirects are removed), I say get rid of it... we can't just get rid of all unlinked redirects of course, because people could search for stuff that is redirected somewhere else (such as what happens when you search for matlab, I'm not sure if anything links to that redirect.) Mattb112885 23:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree with you Matt, that's a good point that we generally like to delete fair use images if we dont absolutely need them. I think that might need to be either added here, or somewhere in the image policy. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I would firmly disagree. While I think it is unnecessary and overwhelming to indefinitely maintain redirects, I have come across many link even just from Wikipedia that are dead from page moves immediately followed by deletions. The whole Fighting Game Moves Wikibook, for example, still has links from at least 40 Wikipedia pages (by Google's count) and had more before I changed a few.
 * I would strongly encourage a general trend towards soft redirects to be deleted after a period of time. It should probably be modularised, though, and put into its own "guideline" document, with a mention of when soft redirects should be created and a link to that document. That way, the accepted (though not punishably enforced) guideline would be to create a soft redirect if a user decides to take on the task of moving a Wikibooks's pages to meet the naming convention. --Iamunknown 19:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I question how much it is our job to account for external websites. I am inclined to say that the links on wikipedia (or any other external site) that point to wikibooks are the responsibility of wikipedians, not wikibookians. Consider the converse, where a link in a wikibook points to a wikipedia article: when the wikipedia article is moved/deleted, do people come here to fix the links on our project? Or, more to the point, when a page is deleted on wikipedia, do they check whether any links on our project become broken?
 * That point aside, books that are deleted are simply deleted, and we shouldnt be replacing the pages with redirects or notices unless specifically requested. Books that are moved, especially to a new naming convention will produce a large number of redirects. While it isn't imperative that these links be deleted immediately, if an admin is so inclined, and if the "what links here" list is empty, I can't see why those redirects should not be removed. We can only worry about our own project, unfortunately. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I fail to see how a disregard for users who are directed to our project is anything but irresponsibility on our part. The point of soft redirects is so that hopefully a user who comes from Wikipedia or another site will notice it and then change the link to go to the hard page (i.e. hard page vs. soft redirect). If we move books around, then it is our job to direct users to those books. --Iamunknown 00:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

 * It's not a disregard for new users (at least not intentionally so), but instead a desire not to be mired indefinately by the potential that other projects might be pointing to a page that has moved or no longer exists. It sounds to me like a packrat mentality to say that "we must keep anything that might be potentially useful to somebody". What about pages that are deleted? should we not delete books or pages on the basis that wikipedia might host a link to that page? I'm not going to say that we must delete all unused redirects, but at the same time I'm not going to say that an admin who is inclined to delete a redirect shouldnt be allowed to. Useless and obscure redirects clutter searches, they obscure the results at Special:Prefixindex, and they create an insurmountable backlog at Special:Lonelypages. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I neither advocate becoming indefinitely swamped by redirects and/or soft redirects nor adopting the packrat mentality.
 * should we not delete books or pages on the basis that wikipedia might host a link to that page? Obviously we should delete the pages; to jump from redirect/soft-redirects to that is a fallacious strawman argument. Further, I think pragmaticallly that when deleting an entire book, redirects should not be created, as that could encourage reposting or remaking content.
 * I refute that redirects are as cluttering as you say they are. Javascript can clear out the Special:Prefixindex results. Redirects can be categorized (thereby un-obscuring Special:Uncategorizedpages) by date and then deleted a while later. I am, however, unfamiliar with Special:Lonelypages. How would redirects create an insurmountable backlog there? --Iamunknown 02:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

 * While the deletion argument is a bit contrived, it nonetheless demonstrates my point that we can't be making decisions here based on the potential that people might be following links to en.wikibooks from other projects, and that those links might be broken. The deletion of content pages and the deletion of redirects, while they may seem distinct, are very closely related subjects.
 * Special:Lonelypages is an automated list of pages to which no other pages link. Admins in the past have gone on crusade against this list, declaring (with some merit) that these pages are worthless, they are taking up space (although space is certainly not a pressing concern), and that they should be deleted. I personally have never concerned myself with any of these automated lists (lonely pages, uncategorized pages, etc), but my noninvolvement in the issue is not a benchmark concerning it's importance.
 * I'm not really prepared to argue this point any further, i see it as a non-issue. Whether we keep or delete redirects should be a matter left up to the judgement of the performing admin. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I just have one question: does special:Lonelypages include links from other projects (eg wikipedia) or only those which aren't linked to within Wikibooks? Because if it's the former then it really is a non-issue, since we dont need to worry about bad links from wikipedia and so on. If it is the latter, the problem with making other projects fix their own links is that, as far as I know, if you link to a bad page in another project (e.g. ghgihg, a page that doesn't really exist), the link will still be blue, so the people won't be able to tell anything's wrong unless they actually follow the link (and then may not know where it's been moved to)... as far as Whiteknight's point that it should be left to admin judgment, I think it would still be helpful to put have some sort of guideline so that for example if two admins disagree, we know what the policy says, and since every other type of suggested deletion is (or should be) defined in policy. Maybe there should be some guidelines for interwiki linking? Or are there? (I haven't seen any) Mattb112885 04:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

 * As far as i know, Special:Lonelypages only accounts for local links, not links from other projects such as wikipedia. Also, guidelines are okay, but I think we should avoid scripting what admins "must do" in different situations. As an admin, I like to think of myself as a "voluneer", and a "helper", not as a "slave laborer". --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, we are all volunteers of course, and people will use their own judgment even when policy is in place (since we all have different interpretations of the same policy a lot of the time). I apologize if I implied that implementing a guideline would be an act of forcing the admins to do one thing or another, for that was not my intention (probably was because of my wording), my main intent in suggesting a guideline be put in place was to avoid potential conflicts over whether something could reasonably be deleted (without a vfd) or not, but maybe that question would be better to handle on a case-by-case basis anyways. Mattb112885 19:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Sorry if my last comment seemed hostile, it wasn't supposed to be. I think what i'm not understanding is User:Iamunknown's use of the term "soft redirect". is this something different from a regular redirect page? is there are "hard" type of redirect? --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

(reset) I think what he meant was redirects created when a page is moved, rather than by the user directly. I'm not sure if there's any way to distinguish them other than looking in the move log though. Mattb112885 21:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Administrator override
I added the following note to the text of this policy:
 * According to Jimbo, administrators are able to delete pages from wikibooks that manifestly do not belong here, regardless of the outcome of a discussion on VfD. In practice, such actions should be extremely rare, and should never be performed without strong justifications and significant forethought.

I added that text in response to a comment made by Jimbo last year on the VFD talk page:
 * I want to encourage admins to feel more bold to go against a vote when the result is clearly wrong. If something is not a textbook, then delete it anyway. A reasonable respect for the voting process makes sense, but doing the right thing is what we should do.

Jimbo also had this to say on another occasion:
 * Admins remember: we do not vote, we follow policy. If a vote is manifestly wrong, ignore it, and delete the junk anyway. Wikibooks deserves the respect that all projects have for themselves

I think that this is an important thing that we should have in this policy for these and a number of other reasons. What do other wikibookians think about this? --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm just curious as to what the source of those quotes is (I believe you, I just would like to know context and so forth). I think this supports my view (since Jimbo mentioned following policy) that if something is to be deleted, there should be some policy or guideline that the admins can turn to as justification for that action, and if the community does not agree with the decision the debate would then be turned against the policy rather than against the administrator performing it. After all the policy itself (well, most of them) was determined by community consensus in the first place and therefore by extension the admins are following consensus by invoking them in their deletions.
 * Having said that, I'm not really sure I agree with Jimbo on this, but he knows what he's doing more than I do, and if this were not followed there WOULD be a lot of stuff left on here that shouldn't be. The admins in question just would have to be careful not to let either inclusionist or deletionist tendencies get in the way of making what would be considered "the right choice" in the matter (I would think that this is why we have the votes in the first place, so that all viewpoints are heard and can be weighed accordingly) Mattb112885 21:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I go a step further and say that without a clear policy (approved and enforcible), giving such decision rights to administrators is plainly wrong at least within the actual way the administrator status is granted. --Panic 22:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree with Panic: Administrators should be able to do things like this, but it should definately be part of policy first. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Those two quotes were made in response to a VfD discussion some months ago. The community voted to keep a particular book, and the discussion was closed and marked "Kept". Jimbo deleted the book shortly thereafter. Here are some links:
 * http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikibooks_talk:Deletion_policy&diff=prev&oldid=451828
 * http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikibooks:Votes_for_deletion&diff=prev&oldid=451824
 * Jimbo hasn't really been active here since right after he made those comments. If you check out the contribution history of User:Jimbo Wales, the edits that i've referenced here should be up near the top. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Maybe we need to have something about how discussion on whether to keep or delete a book needs to be based in part on whether or not the book meets Wikibook criteria rather then just whether the contents is good or not? Perhaps reaffirming that the transwiki process is meant to be used as a means of transferring good contents to a better place when the contents doesn't belong here. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 08:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

 * (reset) I think that it is implicit that things on VfD should be discussed concerning whether or not the book needs to be deleted based on whether or not it meets policy. However, implicit is never a good thing for important stuff to be. Let's include a specific mention of that. I'll do it now. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Listing of new books on VfD
Hum..... I'm left with a feeling that this part of the policy may well date back a way. I certainly agree with it fully when a book is being "worked on". On RC you see editors working very hard on books but this usually involves quite a number of saves. However for copy and paste dumps (almost always a single edit or at best edits lasting a day with nothing else done) I am much less happy. A VfD just closed even had a "date" on it of 2002 (IIRC). I do not consider pasting this into a page here means we have to wait a week to list it. -- Herby talk thyme 15:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

 * A copyright violation is a completely different issue, in my opinion, then a newbie book that isn't quite right. There is a difference between protecting this project from copyright violations, and biting newbies who likely don't know any better when they create their first books.
 * VfD rules apply to pages that have meaningful content, and things like copy+paste dumps I would deem to be "unmeaningful".
 * Also, in case their is confusion, the 7-day waiting period is counted from the day the book or page is first created. A book created on 1 January, for instance, can be nominated for deletion on 7 January (assuming it isnt a copyvio, or some other rubbish), even if the book is still under active construction, or subpages to that book have been created on 6 January. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm not on about copyvios (I agree that these should be deleted as soon as tehy are apparent). Equally I accept that books under construction can be VfD's after 7 days (I would not be wildly happy about that tho I confess).  However your comment in the recent VfD was that it should not have been brought to VfD as it had not been here 7 days but it was a one off copy & paste (& the comment was made in an earlier one - Futurology maybe, again a large copy & paste)?
 * I think the policy should be quite explicit that apparently finish books (or very nearly complete ones) that are copy & pastes can be VfD's before 7 days? -- Herby talk thyme 16:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree, that much can be made apparent. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

 * How would this be
 * While it would not be normal practice for any book or page to be placed in VfD within seven days of it being created if it appears likely that it is a "copy & paste" from elsewhere and not being actively worked on it can be tagged for VfD before the seven day period
 * Thanks -- Herby talk thyme 13:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

...Inclusion Criteria
I disagree with this edit made by Panic2k4. I dont think that we should be talkign here about how to alter the inclusion criteria if we haven't included mention of such changes in WB:WIW the current WIW policy, or in the new proposed draft of it. I think that this change should be reverted until we've discussed the matter first. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

 * You may reword it as you like but there is a clear need to state that VfD decisions may be used to extend the inclusion criteria, as they are very specific and would avoid discussing any future policy in full by creating precedents (may not even be WIW as it has now being discussed to make it a guideline and create a what is not policy), I take no offense and thank you for the consideration on not reverting/rewording it on the spot.
 * Anyway besides the dependency what do you consider as problematic ? --Panic 02:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

New criteria idea
" Delete books/contents that are too narrow in topical choice to ever be much good, i.e., a book on the geological studies of 1883/4 on Krakatau by the Dutch. "

I just added the one on being too narrow to be of use, thinking of this, which would fit that criteria. Thoughts? Laleena (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't like the idea of limiting (by force of deletion) contributions due to scope or organizational reasons, since the number of users working on complete works is so small. We should give a higher priority in generating useful content not particularly in a useful structure. We can always reshape content at a later date but for that we must have content first. On the other hand I'm in favor on writing and having some guidelines on how content should be structured (and we have already some, and those can probably be improved) but I don't see that deleting content only based on its presentation/limited scope will be a good thing for Wikibooks. --Panic (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

ATTENTION
Call any editors of the unstable branch of the deletion policy to the proposal and discussion occurring on the parent's module talkpage Deletion_policy that will affect the future of this module. Please post any comments, objections there... --Panic (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

title: Wikibooks talk:Deletion policy/Unstable


text:
Freistil/"Freiwillige Ausreise" Unwort des Jahres 2006

Der sprachliche „ “ ist das  des Jahres 2006. „Freiwillige Ausreise“, dass ein Deutschland ,  einer formalen. von „Freiwilligkeit“ hier,   Jury „in einem   zur “.

Das Unwort des Jahres wird 1991  von einer -Jury der  Frankfurt am Main gewählt. Die  den Wörtern des Jahres, die jährlich von der Gesellschaft für deutsche Sprache (GfdS) in Wiesbaden  werden. Unwort des Jahres 2005 war „“, der  durch  von. sind „“ (2004) und „“ (1999).


text:
World Stamp Catalogue/Latvia

Summary of pages for the stamps of Latvia

 * /1918 - LVA-1918
 * /1940 - LVA-1940
 * 1941-1990: Used stamps of the Soviet Union
 * /1991 - LVA-1991
 * /1995 - LVA-1995

 |Latvia

title: World Stamp Catalogue/Latvia


text:
Talk:Yet Another Haskell Tutorial/Monads

Defining "Either String" as a Monad only works for me if I use -fglasgow-exts. Is it because it is a multi-parameter type class? 213.184.192.82 14:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC) (Harald Korneliussen, vintermann at gmail)

 * I'm not sure, although that does not sound like the reason (the Monad typeclass only wants one parameter). Maybe you could look into the GHC manual on extensions to find out, or ask on the Haskell café mailing list.  I'm not competent enough to answer :-/ -- Kowey 10:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have read the module and tried examples, but searchAll5 and searchAll7 (I checked this one with solution) don't work unless StateT is added as instance of MonadPlus. Have I done something wrong, or is there a problem in examples? 20:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi! You have a line:

"And this is completely valid Haskell at this point: if you defined a function f :: Show a => String -> a, you could compile and run this program)"

Could you please include how to do that in ghci?

45.56.148.99 (discuss) 20:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC) Thanks!


text:
Template talk:Print version notice

Parameters
Hey! and --> {{BASEPAGENAME}}?

83.17.28.218 15:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Please make this template use  and   to automatically fill in the correct details, rather than requiring humans to manually fill in those details, an error-prone process. Thank you. --DavidCary (discuss • contribs) 22:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Category
Today the category Category:Books with print version contains some drafts tranclusions like User:Ervinn/TMP/JavaTMP. Would it be possible to add a namespace restriction, [//en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3APDF_version&type=revision&diff=3043669&oldid=3043667 like info "PDF version"]? JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 14:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Actually is was into Print version. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 21:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Print version notice


text:
Talk:False Friends of the Slavist/Map shtuka

Untitled
In polish word "sztuka" can also mean "trick". Yet "sztuczka" is more common.


text:
ERP Internals/Data Tables/Accounts Payable Invoice

This data consists of the following two tables:
 * Header
 * Line


text:
ERP Internals/Data Tables/Accounts Payable Invoice/Header

This table contains one record for each invoice.

Used by: Accounts Payable

Key: Supplier Number, Invoice Number

Fields:
 * Supplier Number
 * Invoice Number (from supplier's invoice)
 * Invoice Type (Regular, Adjustment, Prepayment)
 * Invoice Date
 * Terms
 * Due Date (calculated from the Invoice Date and Terms)
 * Discount Date (calculated from the Invoice Date and Terms)
 * Invoice Amount
 * Tax Amount
 * Freight Amount
 * Currency
 * Purchase Order Number
 * Batch Number
 * Hold Date
 * Hold Authorization (User and Date/Time, encrypted)
 * Hold Type
 * Holdback Percentage
 * Holdback Amount
 * Authorization To Be Paid (User and Date/Time, encrypted)
 * General Ledger Account Number (Discount)
 * General Ledger Account Number (Tax)
 * General Ledger Account Number (Freight)
 * Posted to General Ledger Date/Time
 * Notes
 * UDF


text:
ERP Internals/Data Tables/Accounts Payable Invoice/Line

This table contains one record for every line on every invoice.

Used by: Accounts Payable

Key: Supplier Number, Invoice Number, Line Number

Fields:
 * Supplier Number
 * Invoice Number
 * Line Number (a unique number assigned by the ERP package)
 * Item Number
 * Description
 * Quantity
 * Price
 * Tax Code
 * Tax Amount
 * Extended Amount (Price x Quantity - Tax)
 * Job Number
 * General Ledger Account Number
 * Notes
 * UDF