User talk:Withinfocus
From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection
Contents |
[edit] TOC
Looks good, except... missing Books/Deathly Hallows/Extended Analysis sections.
I'll have to go over it in more detail to confirm that we've got all the characters listed, and all the magic. You were using All Pages as your guide? Because I have been trying to keep that up to date... that's largely what I would use as cross-reference, at least initially. Chazz (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- One other item... in Places you have Azkaban and Azkaban Prison. Azkaban Prison has had a Suggested Merge mark on it for a year. I'm going to suggest you take Azkaban Prison out of the TOC, and I'll merge and speedy it. Chazz (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Just finished going through the chapter summaries. There are now no redlinks in the chapter summaries, as well as the TOC being clean. I noticed that you removed a couple of links; I re-instated them, and write articles to fit them, then linked the articles to the TOC, and did the same for a couple of other redlinks I found. Every other redlink so far has been a link typo. Fun... but The End Is In View. Chazz (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Yet more characters
ChazzJr pointed out this morning that there are a number of red-lit characters on the Places/Ministry for Magic page. I've looked at them, and these are all trivial characters, mentioned once or twice but never formally introduced. Proudfoot, for instance, is one of the Aurors guarding the school in HBP, but we never see him, and he may also be mentioned in OotP once, but again we never see him. We're told that Marietta Edgecombe's mother works in the Floo Regulation department, but we never see her. And so forth. How should we handle them? Leave them redlinks? Delink? Or throw together pages for them? Chazz (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- While I didn't count them, it does look like about fifteen redlinks on the contents page. I don't think any of them are minor enough to eliminate. Most of them are spells used once or twice, or magical creatures mentioned a couple of times (Chimera, for instance, is mentioned twice, once when discussing Buckbeak's defence, and once just after Hagrid's return from the mountains of Eastern Europe). If the PDF generator is complaining about them, I'll try to get content into them over the weekend – I was working on people, was going to do Magic later, but I can take a little time now to make sure we have at least something for each of those. Chazz (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Going through the redlinks on the contents page, I note that there are items in Magic that aren't on the contents page. Two cases in point: Transfiguration Today which appears a few times, and Foe-Glass, which is mentioned at least twice. Minor items, granted, but they should be there. I'm going to do a more serious cross-check between Magic and Contents later, will let you know when I've done that. I'll also re-check Major Events, though there aren't so many of those that I would expect any to go astray. Should I also keep All Pages up to date? Chazz (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Okay; the Magic items are updated, and there are now a few more redlinks there. I'll clean those up in the next couple of days, and I'll also check against Places and Major Events to make sure we haven't missed any of them. Still haven't dealt with syncing "All Pages" though. Chazz (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- That makes things a little easier. I can use the Related Changes link on the Contents page as I used to use the Related Changes link on All Pages to see everything that has changed; I think that's why All Pages was created in the first place. I have now checked Places (all present) and Major Events (some big ones unaccountably missing) and that's all up to date. Now all I have to do is go through and clean up the remaining few redlinks on the Contents page, and we'll be fine. Chazz (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] re:Bot
I've been working on this bot script for a while, and I think I have a pretty robust solution set up. I also found the list of pages at Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/Contents, is this a complete (or mostly complete) list?
I'm going to look through the book now to make sure that I am accounting for all the usage patterns that are in use there. I'll test it out on a few pages first, and then we can move forward to a full-scale runthrough. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 00:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- First Test:
- Second Test:
- Do me a favor and double-check these tests. I want to make sure there are no bugs before I screw up 500 pages in less then 5 minutes. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. I asked Chazz to double-check me, and now it's over. I hope this fixes at least one problem. Let me know if there are any problems. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 02:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, rather a lot of things broke. Details on Whiteknight's discussion board... we'll get them fixed, but it's a little messy at the moment. Chazz (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- That's the way it always is, right? I tested it on two pages when I should have tested it on at least three. Of course, if I had tested on three, I would have missed problems on the fourth, and so on.
- Luckily, I think that all the newly created problems are easily fixable. That is, of course, assuming that I understand the extent of the problems. I'm hard at work on it now, and should have something to show for my efforts soon. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 21:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, i think that just about everything is fixed now. Chazz pointed out yet another problem with some corner cases, so i'll see what I can do about those. Beyond the small issues, I think that all the links are basically expanded and fully-qualified. Now we can start thinking about how to make that print version and PDF version. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 22:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
According to my software and the list on the Contents page, your book has at least 786 pages in it. That's pretty impressive. I thought you would find that tidbit interesting. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 00:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] How much use is the Muggles' Guide getting?
PNW Raven raised a question this morning, and I can't answer it. It is simply: is there any way to know how much a WikiBook is being used? I mean, it is certainly easy enough to find out how many edits are happening, but can we get page views? Is there any indication of how much actual interest there is in the book, apart from edits? I seem to recall some talk of using Google Analytics on our pages, is that being done with the Muggles' Guide? And if so, is it possible to see the results? Chazz (talk) 17:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- And so we know not whether we are preaching unto the multitude, or unto the void. Alas. Oh, well... maybe one day someone will tell us that they were taught using this as a textbook. Chazz (talk) 21:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Going off the data from the hit counter (and this data is about a month old, and has some known bugs in it), I would say that your book is getting anywhere from 500-1500 total hits per day. According to the page counter, it's about the 7th or 8th most popular book on Wikibooks. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 21:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Borgin and Burkes...
I think the problem is in the name of the page, actually. The fact that it contains an ampersand may well be the core issue. Ampersand is a special character in a lot of windowing systems... it may be that we're not allowed to use it. That is the only place we have an ampersand in a page name AFAIK.
If you do rename it, could I suggest that it should be named "Borgin and Burkes"? That is how it appears both in CoS and HBP. Chazz (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- You mean, I was right? Good grief... I don't even know which LaTEX converter you're using. "Yer a wizard, Chazz..." Chazz (talk) 02:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Wild-arse guess time again? I'm going to suggest that the issue with "Books and Textbooks" may be under T: The Standard Book of Spells has a number of lines that start "*:*" for the individual years. If the Magic page works, then probably the prefix ":*" would work, because Magic uses that. Chazz (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Wait, what? Intimate with Wiki formatting? Me? With the help page up in the background? I don't think so... Actually, in my daily life I'm a developer, and so I tend to think the way programmers think, thus also the way computers... well, "think" isn't quite the word, but I can't find a better one. And so, armed with the intimate knowledge of what makes computers fall flat on their faces, I look for the inconsistencies in the pages. Twice now it is the inconsistency that has broken the converter. So... informed guesswork is all. Chazz (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Muggles' images tagged for deletion
G'day, please take a look through Category:Candidates for speedy deletion for some images used in Muggles' guide (e.g. logos for the various houses). They have been tagged for deletion by the bot that chased down fair use images with no rationale. Please supply a fair use rationale, or unlink from the book. cheers, Webaware talk 06:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Bunch of new pages...
ChazzJr suddenly discovered that there are magical creatures mentioned in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them that haven't yet made it on to the Magic page. Who am I to stand in the way of enthusiasm? So I've been helping out a bit by making sure the pages are properly frameworked and listed on the TOC... now, all we need to do is get them filled in a bit. Chazz (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Speaking of which -- I've been putting them on the Contents page, but I haven't been updating the All Pages page. Perhaps it's time to consider transclusion of the Contents page? Or should I simply update the All Pages page? Chazz (talk) 06:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- The special pages on All Pages that aren't in Contents are Harry Potter, Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter, Infobox/Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter, Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/Contents, Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/Print version, Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/Print, and the templates. Everything else should be listed in Contents. If we can dynamically include the Contents page into the All Pages page, once we've trimmed All Pages to just those specials listed above, that would be sufficient, I think. Chazz (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- What would happen if a link to Contents was explicitly included on the All Pages page, as well as the page being transcluded?
-
-
-
-
- I made that change and nothing seems to have exploded... a Related Changes from Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/All pages now shows the deltas to the Contents page as well. I hope that has it... Chazz (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Magic Creature features
Concerning these pages from Muggles' Guide:
Let's say we take this page; in the overview box, it defines the features of that creature. What exactly are the types of features that should go in those boxes? Cysiro (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Second Opinion
I'm looking for a second-opinion on this issue: [1]. The current User:Chico has no edits or log entries, but the account is only 7 months old. I know we don't have an official timeline or anything, but do you think 7 months is enough time to declare an old account "abandoned"? I'm inclined to say yes, but I would like the second opinion. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 21:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re:INDIAN DRAGON
I was asking for confirmation for two reasons:
- To prevent some sort of abuse, where a person creates an account here that is the same as an account elsewhere, to be used for defamation. This is the same kind of reason why we wouldn't allow an account named "Jimbo Wa1es" (notice the number "1" instead of the letter "l" in the name).
- To prevent future conflicts from SUL. If we allow somebody to usurp an account which is being reserved here for SUL purposes, that's just going to create a conflict that we're going to be asked later to resolve.
Further, I'm willing to be nice and rename people who have no intentions of actually contributing here if it resolves SUL-related conflicts. However, this courtesy is only really granted to people who actually are editing another project under that name, and are trying to resolve a conflict. If a person is not planning to edit here, and is not an active member of another project under that same name, I see no reason to rename here. That's just me, of course. None of these points are show-stoppers, just personal preference on my end. If you don't require confirmation for such cases, that's fine with me. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
