Wikibooks:Book of the month/July 2006 voting

Vote for the book of the month of July 2006.

The voting for the Book of the month for July 2006 was open from June 1st, 2006, and closed on July 1st, 2006, 00:00 UTC. The book of the month was featured on the main page of Wikibooks in July.

Closed. Any votes added will be reverted.

Voting rules Edit


  • 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.


  • 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.


  • 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 Edit



  1. I've only just seen this book. It appears to be an unrecognised gem (at least on Wikibooks), Jguk 19:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Looks like a bit of work could make this a winner Pluke 18:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


UK Constitution and Government Edit

(Automatically renominated with 4 votes for June)


  1. Klingoncowboy4 06:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Ultimadesigns 20:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Novialiste 12:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Dolive35 10:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Organic Chemistry Edit

(Automatically renominated with 6 votes for June)


  1. Sblive 22:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Mastermind 007 16:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Klingoncowboy4 06:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply] 21:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC) invalid voteReply[reply]
  4. Ultimadesigns 20:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. hagindaz 01:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Toby Phillips 14:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply] 04:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC) invalid voteReply[reply]
  7. Everlong 00:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Ervinn 22:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Rob Horning 11:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments: Wonderful Wikibook, that should become the first natural science-related book of the month. Sblive 22:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Movie Making Manual Edit

(Automatically renominated with 5 votes for June)


  1. Mastermind 007 16:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Klingoncowboy4 06:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Trooper209 9 June 2006 (PST) vote by unregistered user
  3. Dilaudid 19:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Wajee 3:35 PM, 13 June 2006 (PST) vote by unregistered user
  4. Rob Horning 17:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Nathan8225 02:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Je suis 16:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some content has been copied and pasted from non-GFDL sources.

This is a serious accusation, and if you (or anybody) can demonstrate incompatability with the GFDL, please make known on the project talk page or here. You can also mark up any problems with the {{copyvio|<state reason>}} Wiki markup tag. These get reviewed very closely and will be deleted if the copyright violation is proven true yet no attempt for copyright permission has occured. --Rob Horning 16:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This book is all over the place. It uses a dozen different naming conventions, and has links from within chapters to pages not linked to anywhere else. I don't think we should be featuring a book so poorly organized, because others will imitate it. --hagindaz 01:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spanish Edit

(Automatically renominated with 3 votes for June)


  1. Klingoncowboy4 19:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jack-o-Jason Not enough edits.

Comments: This book was really good. It helped me tp really learn and grasp Spanish even though I didn't have the greatest teacher. In addition, this wikibook is also great for advanced Spanish speakers to finetune their knowledge of one of the most spoken languages in the world.Jack-o-Jason 13:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I strongly oppose to this nomination. It looks like a construction area, with lots of red links, and many unfinished pages. Also, it is worser than previous language-related books, such as French, or even German. Sblive 21:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also oppose this nomination. I have contributed to this book and want to see it succeed, but I do not think that it is at its best and that has a long way to go. It just isn't the type of material that we want to showcase as our best work. --Think Fast 03:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I oppose this nomination. Not up to the standard of the French book. Definately has potential though. --Zapateria 18:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I oppose this nomination. It's not good enough, there are many places for improvment.

Dutch Edit


Datch invalid vote - too few contributions