Bill: What happened to the list of books with errata? Aren't there a number of them?
axd: For arguments, see phpwiki:?diff=ErrataInBooks%2FDiscussion&new=20&old=19
axd: each book should have its Errata subpage. I suggest to use a heading for each erratum, ordered by page (example: see TesujiTheBook/Errata.
Bill: I agree that each book should have its own Errata subpage (if it has its own page to begin with). But that does not mean that this should not be a reference page with links to those pages. Search for Errata does not cut it. Have some regard for the reader. Don't make him or her do the work. Without the links, what good is the page?
mAsterdam: Heh. The content left after moving the sidetrack stuff away isn't much. Should we ask for deletion? Or: What would the reader expect to find on this page?
Bill: What is wrong with the original concept of the page? There you found links to errata in go books. Is that a problem? Isn't it a useful thing?
mAsterdam: When I moved the ghostwriter discussion the list of links was already gone. It could be easily re-created from an older version and the current search results. It certainly looks prettier than the search.
axd: I think that Errata make only sense for people having the book in question. To find links to errata, search for the word "errata" in the title - so why try to keep a page of links to errata pages? And who is interested in "errata" in general?
Moved discussion on ghostwriters to it's own page.