User talk:Mjchael

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Hello, and welcome to Wikibooks! Good luck! Mattb112885 (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hello! I am accustomed with the Germans wikibooks. I will not work directly on the English text (my English is to bad). I put the translation of my German work on a special page. On this I write my translation. The other users can take it and create their own side. --Mjchael 18:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 New Chords and Scales 2 Songbook 3 Todo-upgrade 3.1 Syntax error 4 Writhe 5 Test 6 Request of template NOTE 6.1 my solution

[edit] New Chords and Scales

Just thought I would let you know that I have added a Scale Manual page to Wikibook: Guitar and I have also added a Technical Exercise page. I have put chord images in the Chord Reference section. I don't know if any these images would be useful to you but you can see them in the Wikimedia Commons categories Scales on guitar and Chords in guitar. Keep up the good work. --Sluffs (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Now I have noticed the new chords and scales. I consider to internationalize my chords and scales (fingering in 1234 or pimaq instead of zmrk (= German fingering)). And B for the German Note H. But this would be many work. In this context I will take over your cords. Every chord and scale should be in the SVG-format. Incscape is an useful free-ware-programm for vector-graphics. But easier to handle is Corel-Draw. (A bit older Version is adequate and cheap enough. Only a SVG-export should be available.) I'm going to have a look at your pages with your new chords. I will report back. --Mjchael (talk) 12:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I looked at the German Wikibook for the guitar and was very impressed by the layout and use of images. I'll find out about the SVG format and will try to get some software.

--Sluffs (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Songbook

I fixed the link on that page, but wanted to point out Wikibooks:Naming policy. You'll want to use a slash (/) instead of a colon (:) for the book's pages. If you can ensure that every page (other than the title page) has {{BookCat}} on it, that would be great. That will put all the book's pages into the proper category. Welcome and happy editing. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 16:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I added the other categories you requested and you can find them shown in Category:Songbook. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 20:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts! New categories will be inserted automatically with the new songs. Now I know how it works. :o)) --Mjchael (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Todo-upgrade

I notice you've recently been adding a second unnamed parameter to some {{todo}} transclusions. The {{todo}} template doesn't use a parameter {{{2}}}, though. Is there some deeper reason for doing this, that I'm missing? --Pi zero (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Not yet! But it is in preparation. Currently, the additional parameter set does not harm anything. But it will allowsa specified todo-list for each book and each user. --Mjchael (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

A thought, or perhaps a thought and a half: Rather than requiring the name of each book to be hardwired into a todo list, it might make sense to build the tool so it deduces the book name using {{ROOTBOOKNAME}} (possibly combined with a test for NAMESPACE, if one wants different behavior for, say, userspace). At least, it probably would make sense to use {{ROOTBOOKNAME}} as the parameter when calling {{todo}}, so that renaming the book wouldn't mess up its {{todo}}s. --Pi zero (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense! It would make the handling of the todo-list extremely simple. The parameter would only be used for username and separate books of several volumes. Good idea, I will convert it. --Mjchael (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You should file your categories in Category:TODO and not Category:Todo as the former already existed. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 19:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I have already noticed that, and I was already in the process to correct it. :) --Mjchael (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Syntax error

Major and possible critical break. I only attempted to fix the first one and failed, it may be also defeating the propose of simplicity that such a template need to be usable by any editor. See todo boxes in The World of Peer-to-Peer (P2P)/What is Peer-to-Peer (P2P)/Legal Perspective, the ones with todonote are the one broken, I've attempted to fix one of them but it didn't seem to work probably due to the use of the hyperlink inside. --Panic (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

@Panic Curly brackets were missing. Syntax is fixed. Sorry for the trouble --Mjchael (talk) 08:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup all seems right... Thanks for the prompt fix. --Panic (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Writhe

Looking at your user page, I suspect writhe isn't the word you wanted. (I'm wondering if this might be due to a false friend.) --Pi zero (talk) 12:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It was a spelling mistake. Thanks for the tip --Mjchael (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC

[edit] Test

ROOTBOOKNAME

Mjchael

FULLBOOKNAME

User talk:Mjchael

ARTICLESPACE

User

BOOKNAME

Mjchael

[edit] Request of template NOTE

Can you extend {{Template:NOTE}} (without any other change, ie: rounding of the box) so that it can replace the existing one without changes to the pages that uses it. So it generates a per book category (ie:Notes) similar to the TODO's ? This would not change the functionality and would help editors. --Panic (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Does this makes sense? Notes don't have to be processed. Or should the notes in the long run disappear? Serves the notes only as a working aid, or can it also be notes for the reader? Before I start working on this template, I want to make sure that the functionality not unnecessarily be inflated. --Mjchael (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It enables a better coordination of the content on the book (avoid duplication and even point to a section that goes into a subject/book more in depth with that particular case), we have to take in consideration that sometimes people even leave comments on the main page, even if I have most of the pages of the books I'm working in my watchlist other editors (especially sporadic ones will not, or even readers, it is somehow expected that more experienced readers would like to browse all those asides/considerations on the book content). To be able to easily list all of them would be a boon. We can even argue that having other templates share these in book categories would increase awareness of the feature and the other inbook categories. --Panic (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    • The programming is done! Unfortunately, yet the linked sites are not displayed, but I don't see any mistakes. I will check it tomorrow. (Now it's time to go to bed!) --Mjchael (talk) 3:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Now that I saw the implementation I understood your first question...

Yup there is no useful reason to have the category show as a "root" category (like the Category:TODO).

The idea was just to have a hidden subcategory inside the book category like the TODO/C++ Programming, probably named "Notes and Observations". Where pages using the NOTE template in a book would be listed. I hadn't think further than that. --Panic (talk) 02:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I was also looking on all the new possibilities of the TODO and think that the new category [[Category:TODO]] shouldn't have pages listed but only subcategories, that would use only one page that would indeed show relevant information. (This would also remove the duplication of having TODO and TODO/BOOKTITLE as categories on a page (and having the more relevant to users and editors of a particular book set as a hidden category). Having only one show could also be improved, can't the TODO category on a particular book be made to open directly that TODO/BOOKTITLE page ? (less verbosity for example Animating Weapons for Counter-Strike Source/Draw Animation using NOTE)

Another issue that I now see is with the categories and the possibility of signing the templates uses. It does generate (ie: [[Category:TODO/Mjchael]]) categories. Because not all are signed and the signature isn't obligatory (couldn't since the use of the template is now so extensive, correcting that would be an huge task), it really doesn't serve any real purpose (the category), signatures would always be an helpful addition but since it can't be made obligatory the concept fails. A different concept would be generating a [[Category:TODO/Unsigned]] for unsigned TODOs/NOTEs is it possible ? --Panic (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• • In the German wikibooks I work with the category:todo and the category:todo-booktitle. The first one gives an overview about all projects, and the second one helps me by working on a single book. But we don't create automatically categories. Except the main-category Todo. However the opportunity is given to customize the todoes. But no one is forced to use it. I operate readily with these both options. Maybe we should delete the automatically creating of sub-categories. Should they be used, then they can still be created manually. Maybe I should think it over, if I can program the template in that way, that only those who want it, will get an automatic sub-category of the book. The subcategories TODO/username are used for teamwork. Shall the note-template be reduced? (Excuse please, if my English should be wrong.) --Mjchael (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] my solution

The automatically creating of categories by the Notes is deleted. Notes from the author to the reader don't need any categories. With one or more optional parameter of the bookname or an username a "note" can be customized (in case of comments about the book or the chapter). Then it will be an instruction to do something or to fix something. In that case a note is treated as a Todo. And only in this case a category will be created --Mjchael (talk) 3:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok I tweaked it a little one thing thought I would like that the note should be obligatory (there is no purpose on having a NOTE without text and today there aren't any notes without a body). The unsigned doesn't work well I have also attempted to use

{{#ifexist: page title | value if exists | value if doesn't exist }} so that the new listings and links on the heading would be optional (this is important since __HIDDENCAT__ is needed on the categories pages). --Panic (talk) 05:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: Notes are only related to the content not to pending actions by editors. --Panic (talk) 05:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Pending issues. C++ Programming/Libraries/Configuring Visual Studio uses one NOTE and I signed it it should be in Category:C++ Programming/Notes not in Category:C++ Programming/Notes/Unsigned and {{#if: {{{3|}}} |{{#ifeq: {{{example|no}}} | yes |[[Category:{{ROOTBOOKNAME}}/Notes|{{PAGENAME}}]] }}|[[Category:{{ROOTBOOKNAME}}/Notes/Unsigned]] }} should test if there is a signature and select one of the categories, for what I understand ifeq is needed only to prevent the example to use a category.

Using #ifexist: would resolve these redlinks (with the considerations talked above) Help:Starting a new page or book. Read the explanation on the template page (#ifexists could also verify that the user that signed does exits by checking his talk page, since those are generally created first) --Panic (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

a signatur can be affix by the normal text on the first parameter

{{note|text... --~~~~}}

on many notes a signator isn't needed. So a programming of a signatur-check would complicate these matters unnecessarily. --Mjchael (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The idea was to duplicate the functionality of the the TODO (the rational for defending the need for a signer is valid in both for the same reasons), if a need arises and the person who affixed the information needs to be contacted it can be a very complicated task in a busy page (lots of edits), indeed on notes this is less relevant as the person adding the note also must have done some other editing work to be adding a note about a specific exception or related issue that can't be directly included, even so there are instances of that occurring.

One should remember that signatures inside the book content should not be acceptable and will create confusion because of the practice of not altering signed posts/comments.

Did you attempt anywhere to put #ifexist to work this would also solve that extra load of work you add on the TODO template (you had to create a lot of Category pages), that may or may not be useful (due to the already existing uses of the templates for instance in one book I make extensive use of them but I'm working alone there for years now (The P2P book), that would permit the book communities to make use of the function as they see fit. --Panic (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: If you don't mind move all this discussion to the Template Talk page, there may be editors that are now out of the loop and see now red links on the top their books. I'm watching there also so to us there shouldn't be a issue and this will also alleviate your talk page. --Panic (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I work with the template TODO on the German guitar-book with different volumes of a guitar-school. There I use several parameter for the main book "guitar" the sub-volume "campfire-diploma" my todo-list "mjchael" and sometimes another "co-author". And sometimes it also affects "music-theory" or "songbook". Thus more than one parameter makes sense. Disclosure of an author in the main book is not habit of wiki. This is good manners at the talks. But authors will be identified by the history, ans this should be enough. The TODO-template creates only one category per book, or at the most one more for each sub-volume. And only one category will be created for an user. Thats all, and it's rather easy and comprehensible. The administration is extremely simple, and uncommonly practical. A greater degree of functionality complicates unnecessarily the matter. You must also think of the inexperienced user and author. I fear that every new features could make the template "note" unusable or impractical for each task for whatever they may be used. You should really consider what is actually needed. --Mjchael (talk) 08:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)