text:
Talk:Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/Archive 1

Standards Discussion
This is more of a suggestion: If you are creating original supplimental templates and other "tools" for this Wikibook, you should try (when reasonable) to keep it within the namespace of this project. The above templates are probabaly going to be just fine, but the point is that you want to avoid namespace collisions with other Wikibooks, who may also have similar named items. It is perfectly fine to have five or six "modules" in Wikibooks to have the same name, and even cover the same material. Since they would be in seperate Wikibooks, the namespace allows the content to be seperated.

How you've named the articles and subsections is perfectly reasonable... I'm just trying to point out that you do need to step a little more carefully on Wikibooks if you don't stick to the common namespace of the Wikibook. --Rob Horning 08:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Gotcha. I didn't really realize that could be done. So templates should be created as Template:Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/TemplateName ? Since it's early in the book I might just convert things. -Matt 23:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Why do you describe this as a childrens book? If you travel on the London underground right now HBP is likely the most common book you will see being read by adults. very much more common than any other single book. The 'adult covers' were supposedly introduced for adults too embarassed to be seen rereading the childrens cover version. I am sure more adults will have read these books than most 'adult' books in existence. Also note that for whatever reason, content has become steadily more 'adult' as the series has progressed.Sandpiper 08:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The Harry Potter books are children's books. Rowling has said it herself. It's important to accompany several reader ages. Wikijunior is a secondary goal for now; we need to develop the general content first. I reworded the standards to not be so heavy on 'children' nonetheless. -Matt 13:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I begin to wonder if JKR had a plan to write a set of books intended to be read one book each year as you grow up. This would still make them childrens books, but certainly breaking into adults at the top end. Aside from that, surely the definition is not what the author intended, but what really happened. These books were originally rejected by many publishers, because they did not fit the pattern for childrens books. How many of these books are being read by adults for themselves, how many by children for themselves. An awful lot of quite expensive books just got sold. Who forked out for that, and why? Which group is most likely to become fanatical enough to want to find out more here, so what will the readership here be? But yes, I would agree it would be correct to bear in mind that some readers might be quite young.User:Sandpiper8/8/2005

 * what is appropriate usage for spoiler warnings in character descriptions? Presently it is one article per character, so where should spoilers go? A summary article about a character might contain very basic information (like their death in book 6, say) which would be a very big spoiler for book 1. So should 'character articles have a blanket spoiler warning?Sandpiper 09:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Do not reveal any significant information in the biography. That section is for simple character attributes. Beginners should only see the biography. All but one of the following sections are for intermediate readers. The last section, "Greater Picture," is for advanced readers only. Please see Severus Snape for the template you should use. It would be great if you could enforce this policy on all the other character pages. This book must stay away from being a Macropedia and really focus on the analysis. Your commentary so far looks great. -Matt 13:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

 * hmm, still tricky. I think it may be hard to describe a section as 'biography' if you can not include what would normally be main biographical details, because they would be spoilers. Maybe the heading needs amending somehow? Yes, I can see how it would work with a description of the characters appearance, manner, general affiliations, etc, but this is not precisely biography.
 * The piece I wrote into Snape includes some analysis, drawing in the bit from the prevous book. (memory of exact events there is rather less clear in my head, or i might have added the section in the relevant book, I will eventually). From what you say, you might conside this more appropriately included in general analysis (advanced). Or do you envisage that general will include things which are very hard to precisely pin down from the text, where maybe only a set of possible interpretations can be identified? The issue I described is still the subject of great debate, though the majority I have seen is tending the way I wrote it here (2:1?). This may prove to be a significant spoiler for book 7, though I would hope that JKR knows this and has already planned how she will maintain reader interest despite her own clues. Sandpiper 16:13 bst 8aug 2005 (appologies this keyboard has no tilde).

 * I renamed the first section to "Attributes." Here is what I planned for the sections:
 * Attributes: general descriptive statistics. A small amount of text about how the character looks, acts, etc. No analysis (i.e. looks, demeanor, main activities and occupation).
 * Role in the Books: details of the character's actions in the book. Still, no analysis. This is still the descriptive phase of the page (i.e. killed X in Book 5).
 * Strengths and Weaknesses: some analysis on where the character has faults, etc. Beginning of inserting facts to back up character statements (i.e. has trouble with confidence, crafty).
 * Relationships with Other Characters: interactions with other characters and the character's stance on others. Personal referencing (i.e. affectionate towards Y).
 * Analysis: general analysis on the character. Whereas the Role section covered how the character acted, this covers why the character acted. Some content here can tie in with relationship analysis the section above (i.e. X feels at home when at Y and feels a great sense of protectiveness over it).
 * Questions: reflection questions for the reader. Made to help the reader gain insight on the character (i.e. does this character really care about X?).
 * Greater Picture: present on many other pages, this is the true "tie-in" section. It points out what the character is likely to do / how likely to act. Point out future controversy and where the role of the character is headed, especially in reference to other characters (i.e. X is likely to go after Y in Book 7 due to his infatuation with Z. After Z's death this damaged X greatly).
 * -Matt 17:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Attributes sounds a bit clinical, or more to do with dungeons and dragons than people. 'Background', 'History', 'Overview'? something indicating that this is general information, and indeed might vary quite a bit from character to character.Sandpiper 22:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's just go with "Overview" then. That'll work. -Matt 22:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I would think that the general spoiler template should only be used on plot pages. That keeps its use to only the Books section. Any other sections will be sufficiently flagged using the Beginner and Intermediate spoiler templates. -Matt 14:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

VfD Discussion
While I think this version of the guide has been modified sufficiently to perhaps justify why it should be a Wikibook, I dislike how this was added to avoid the link to the Wikibook Harry Potter plots that is going through a VfD discussion. The two are linked together, and frankly the discussion on the VfD page, as it is mostly positive, is going to serve as a justification to keep this Wikibook here rather than something to drag it down. The Harry Potter plots page can be removed with a speedy delete comment once you get everything to where you want it to be at. Please don't try to really muddy up the discussion by starting a new Wikibook instead, and you could have done a page move to the eariler content without really mucking things up.

Still, I like the direction this is going. My comment about deleting duplicate content from Wikipedia is still valid, and it should go. Links to Wikipedia are fine and even encouraged. I'm not trying to bite too hard, and the reason for the VfD is simply to close out the discussion for once and all. --Rob Horning 18:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I think I answered what you say above on the VFD page. I don't believe this book was created to avoid anything. I believe it was created to show how a proper book should be formed. The book was discussed right in the VFD discussion. I have no problem with Harry Potter plots being deleted now that the Muggles' guide provides for it. I hope this Guide really works well; I think I'll be spending a lot of time at Wikibooks now. -Matt 19:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Structuring
This is a request to anyone who wants to leave comments on how this book should be structured. This book is VFDed at the moment, mainly I think because it is seen as becoming a Macropedia. I see this guide as a reference textbook to the series. I think the sections that exist now should stay and be developed with specific attention towards analysis of whatever the article is talking about. Wikipedia has some descriptions but I think this book should have both descriptions and analysis. While NPOV is important on Wikipedia, I believe some analysis and angling should occur here at the book, especially with characters. So, my questions, specifically to maybe admins or other big editors here:

 * How should a reference textbook be approached when it has some connection to being a Webopedia? It is important to have lots of distinct detailing (i.e. why wasn't the Solar System book's page on the moon structured as "read the Wikipedia article for details on the Moon, here are some questions?"). I'd like to have lots of sections on specific things. Analysis is also included, but the structuring is like a Webopedia. Are critical commentary and questions about the section a good thing to include? How does a guidebook get down to details and not be encyclopaedic?
 * How should Wikipedia content be moved here? A lot of Wikipedia pages go into a lot of depth. A book seems more appropriate for such depth. Also, some details should be shared between the two projects, especially character biographies. Can that be a copy?
 * What should a book's TOC be structured as when it is mostly a reference and analysis text? I realize the importance of an index. How should the above mentioned and already created categories be organized if they stay in the book?

Thanks. -Matt 14:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

One thing I'd like to point out with Wikijunior (as opposed to the other Wikibooks) is that it is sort of a Wikipedia for younger kids. At some point in the future it has been suggested that Wikijunior is going to get its own server and be entirely on its own. The whole project was kinda forced upon Wikibooks by the foundation (there was some sort of grant in it for about $20,000 that went to the foundation as well... paying for the server you are currently using with some additional funding coming from a few other sources). So what I'm trying to suggest is that Wikijunior books really don't compare to the rest of Wikibooks in terms of policies. Especially since Wikijunior has its own complete set of policy guides (like a really bizzare one of no expansion or new book ideas unless agreed upon by the "community"...or even new article ideas for that matter... I've pushed it quite a bit on the Solar System.) IMHO it should have been done on meta first, but instead it has been done through Wikibooks.

I think if this Wikibook is done properly, it can become the standard to compare other literary study guides. I'm sure you could get creative if you had to make this on a more literary format, but I don't think that is strictly necessary. How far you would like to go on the deconstruction of the plots and characters of the Harry Potter series is also debatable. I'm also curious how much comparison/contrast between the books and the cinema versions has been done? I'm sure you can find it at fan sites, but Wikibooks would allow you to organize it in a much better manner. --Rob Horning 07:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Unite with the Harry Potter WikiProject
I think it would be a good idea to run this Wikibook from the Harry Potter WikiProject. It's not a closed project; anyone here has a voice there. Instead of Harry Potter fans being split into dozens of small enclaves, we'd help to create a single place for Harry Potter fans from all Mediawiki sites to meet. We could then set joint Wikipedia and Muggles' Guide consensus on what subjects deserve a Wikipedia article and how in-depth it should be, as well as provide visible links to the longer, more in-depth articles here. This would do a lot to direct fans' energies here and build this up, and it would also help soothe the Wikipedians against "fancruft". — 131.230.133.185 05:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Info on this book has been posted there for some time. I hope some people will actually come over to help. Book summaries are already linked but more more content needs to be. A big issue (and I'm sure the Harry Potter Wikipedia contributors will get annoyed by this) is Transwiking the inappropriate Wikipedia content here. Over time that should happen. Harry Potter Wikipedia pages are really pushing what an encyclopedia should address and the Guide seems a more appropriate place for in depth coverage and analysis of the storyline. -Matt 05:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If wikipedia is not going to accept detailed descriptions and analysis, then it is hard to see how they can be transferred from here to there. It sounds more like this will become the main source of in-depth information, with 'pedia only as an entry point.Sandpiper 09:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I note there is a flag on 'pedia Potter requesting people to port information over to here. Is there policy on what to do with it when it arrives? I guess I mean, take it as a gift to start the articles, then amend it as appropriate? This is beginning to sound a little schizophrenic. People will have a choice of two articles on each topic in different wikis. Sandpiper 20:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Some things on Wikipedia are pushing what an encyclopedia should contain and should be Transwikied. Appropriate material could be moved over if the HP Wikipedia community has a concensus that it is a good idea. I wouldn't want trash coming over here. I expect (and will definitely enforce) quality in this book. There definitely won't be two copies of things; Wikipedia would do its job with explaining the proper amount of information and Wikibooks would handle critical commentary. Copying from Wikipedia is a definite no. Only Transwikied material can come here. Even if they try to Transwiki, Wikibooks has to accept it. The community seems large enough that people will agree to the right things. Anyone doing the Transwiking will need to know both Wikipedia and Wikibooks policies. Since I've gotten into some decent discussions with Wikibooks people over in VFD, I'll probably attempt doing it when the time comes, if ever. The content might just get wiped off Wikipedia if it's garbage and we don't want it here at all. -Matt 20:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that has left me even more confused. I saw the tag on 'pedia asking people to copy articles (eg an article about a particular character) over here. As far as I can see, just copy and paste onto an edit box here and it is done. Then it would be a question of reorganising the information for here. That is not about officially transferring a page, rather about putting something on the large number of blank pages here. It is very much easier to take a piece of existing text and reorganise it. Some HP pedia articles have struck me as rather good, though others have definite factual errors (though I would not claim to be able to precisely correct them without a deal of checking).
 * What about pictures? Obviously the pictures show film actors and are just one interpretation of characters, but they do liven up a page.Sandpiper 20:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Anyone who starts moving things needs to follow the rules. If people start moving articles we'll get into the politics then. As for images, if those movie characters seem fitting, I think it would be fine to put them in the page. You'll have to edit the template but that's not difficult. This book isn't about the movies, but there should be some visual representation and the drawings people make are almost always horrible. Movie photos are probably the best choice. -Matt 20:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Book and Chapter Analysis
I think the creation of sub-pages for each chapter is fine, but I also think an overview is needed to orient the reader as to the main plot. This would not necessarily mention every chapter, but really should give a decent synopsis. Pedia is going the way of being very terse in its descriptions and will not fill the needs of someone who wants to spend half an hour and become a dinner party expert.

I noticed that chapter pages do not have a last/next link. One is needed! Sandpiper 23:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

 * There's an "Overview" section on the book pages now. Regarding last/next, that will come once organizational changes come to a stop and pages stabilize. Chapters will surely stay the same, but a lot of last/next page business can be added to make the book more booklike once things calm down. For now things are changing too much. -Matt 23:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Harry Potter plots
Have you finished with this page? If so, please mark it for speedy deletion. Thankyou. - Aya T C 03:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Be aware that there are many many inward links to it from Wikipedia. Those will need to be tracked down and changed. Until such time it should not be deleted. GarrettTalk 08:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This book, the original before the Guide, was only created a few days earlier. Only a few links were made on Wikipedia and the pages have been redirected to the Guide. This page is acceptable for deletion and I have listed it as such. -Matt 13:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Be aware that if you mark a page for speedy deletion, you should not add it to WB:VFD. See WB:DP for further clarification. - Aya T C 15:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This is now done. If the problems suggested by Garrett are in fact accurate, you might want to recreate Harry Potter plots as a redirect to this book. Also note that the MediaWiki devs are working on an interwiki version of "what links here", but this may take some time to implement. - Aya T C 16:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There are no inward links from the Wikipedia main article space, as far as I am aware, and haven't been for some time. When the Muggles' Guide was initially set up, I went through all of the Wikipedia articles and modified the  tags pointing to Harry Potter plots into  tags pointing at the various sub-pages of the Guide. (As an incidental benefit, this finally gave Wikipedia a means for referencing individual chapters of Wikibooks. ☺) Uncle G 16:02:04, 2005-08-10 (UTC)

Etymology notes
Transwiki:Notes on etymology in the world of Harry Potter is now available for incorporation here. Uncle G 00:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Are there any plans to integrate this page into the book? --hagindaz 08:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I forgot about it pretty much. No. It's now on speedy delete. -Matt 19:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary pages?
Some of the pages on the "magic" section seem unnecessary. I think it would be better to split the magic page into 5 pages, one for each section. And after that, you put all the information on a single page.

The best layout is the kind that *reduced* the amount of clicking the user has to make IMO. --Dragontamer 20:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Chapter details and seperation
I found this portal looking for another one to participate with, and I am more than willing to help. I have already begun, however I (unfortunatly) dont have a book right here in my face. Im in class. lol. I will though, like to help out, and will help make the Muggles Guide to Harry Potter more accurate and resource-ful. Thanks alot. PS: the books that I use are in American English, so if something is inaccurate in the books because of language translations, please let me know. 67.115.220.195 15:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent that you want to help out. Please create a user account and add your name to the list of authors on the main page. Definitely make sure you understand how the pages are written (see above). Look at well-developed pages such as Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/Characters/Harry Potter to see how to write things. Most importantly though is to get book chapter summaries written. I saw you edited some summaries. We need to get extended versions onto each chapter page (and remember the templates!). Also, I think American English is fine. -Matt 03:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Chapter names
It has occurred to me that it might be useful to have chapter names, rather than just numbers, on the book overview page. Right now, for instance, we have nothing but the chapter numbers on this overview page, but it would be easier to find the specific chapter needed if the chapter title was there as well. Granted, there might be some spoiler effect, but that would be only slight... and it's a lot easier to find a specific event from the chapter name, in my opinion. As a test, I've done this for Philosopher's Stone. Thoughts? Chazz 00:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Although new and different, I don't mind the new listing you have on Philosopher's Stone. As an addition, it might not be a bad idea to rename the pages as well. Making the list on the summary page will be easier with such a change. If no one objects, I can go through and move each page. Also, spoilers shouldn't need to be considered since they have been warned twice previously that going to book pages will give away information. That's why you don't see the warning on each chapter page as well. There should be a flow to all the pages (like a book) including the explanations of the reader levels, but perhaps only I really see it since I wrote them and we'll have to wait for the first version of the book as a PDF to show it (which maybe we can have the end of the year as a goal for that). When you structure a page think of how it would look in a book since that will be the final result. Some organizational changes may need to happen before we PDF the project. I'm thinking it will be several hundred pages. -within focus 04:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am a little concerned about changing the name of the chapter pages in the book, if only because it would take longer to type the link target when you're linking to a particular chapter. Of course, that's a trivial complaint... but it is true that the list on the summary page will be only in the one place, and there may be a much larger number of links to any given chapter. Additionally, wasn't there something somewhere about allowing transWiki linkage to specific chapters? That said... my purpose is, given that someone is looking for the story of "Norbert the Norwegian Ridgeback", it is a lot easier to find it in the list that is in PS now, than a simple bald "Chapter 14". Chazz 07:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

 * As I have finished Chamber of Secrets summaries now, I have tweaked CoS's outline page the same way. I hope I'm not being too rash... Chazz 19:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I will make the changes later if no one else has anything to say. Given your arguments, it will probably be better for Interwiki linking if the chapter page is named after the chapter I think. -within focus 00:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Prefects
There is a comment on the Index talkback that Prefects should be mentioned in the book. I agree, as it isn't immediately obvious what a Prefect is to the ordinary reader; but it also isn't magic by any means -- any school that runs on the English model will have prefects, mine did for instance. I would suggest possibly a sub-head below Major Events for School Offices, which would contain Pefects, Head Boy / Head Girl, and Quidditch team captain; this fits better than anything else, because Ron's becoming a prefect (e.g.) is a fairly serious event in the overall story. Chazz 22:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * After thinking about this for a while, I actually have created that subhead and started populating the article on Prefects at least. The other articles will follow as I have time. Chazz 19:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Month candidate
I've decided to nominate this Wikibook as a Collaboration of the Month candidate... in preparation to becoming a full Book of the Month candidate. Seriously. This content has gone a long way from when it was listed as a VfD back elsewhen, and has become one of the crown jewels for Wikibooks, and I want to thank everybody who has participated so far. My intention here is that this is a book that could have some general interest contributions by ordinary Wikimedia users, and give this some additional exposure on the front page that it certainly deserves.

This content is also so close to being one of the best of Wikibooks that I also feel that a big push to help improve the content is really all that it needs, and is in fact one of the goals for the Collaboration of the month campaign. More than just raw advertising, I think this is a book that truly deserves this sort of attention.

If you feel as I do that this book could use that sort of attention, please cast your vote on the current voting page for Collaboration of the Month and let everybody know about this book that may be new to Wikibooks. --Rob Horning 14:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration?
This book still needs serious work. Before anyone even thinks of nominating it for BotM, there should definitely be another CotM. I fixed up a few articles just because I ran across them. Seriously, even the Voldemort article was grievously lacking! Jfingers88 03:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This book will continue to need serious work for many months since its coverage is massive. It will not be long until this is the largest book on Wikibooks in my opinion. When there are 500+ pages and about two continuous editors, it takes time to filter out the garbage people add and build up quality content. -Matt 22:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Inactive and Active Authors
I'm one of the active authors of this wikibook but erased from the listing because I haven't been contributing for a long time. I've contributing s far the Triwizard Tournament, Hogsmeade, St. Mungo's Hospital for Magical Maladies and Injuries, Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry's academics, books of the wizarding world and the Ministry of Magic. What I want to say is, even the author hasnt been contributing for a long time, as long as he/she has contributed single article/ideas/whatever, he/she should never been erased from the lists of the author. Or if you want to emphasize who are actively and not actively contributing, just put it at the end of the uername. Hope you got my point. 11:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You certainly aren't an active author here. The three names preceding you have formed a very nicely-organized and intelligent team that contributes great work and continues to do so in the present (although one of those three may soon be removed due to inactivity). Once this book is published, those three names will be the ones I list as authors of the book since those are the ones that have formed substantial contributions to the project. The line must be drawn somewhere. I have now titled the authors section "Active Authors" so that inactive and insignificant users can be removed in future situations if and when the time comes. That section is only meant to be a helpful guide for individuals who might want to contact current contributors and could possibly not even be listed in the official book at all. -within focus 02:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I've made a mistake on my sentence there. Yeah, I know Im not active anymore now but in the future I will contribute, I just need time for thinking more information (especially in the Characters and Place). And thanks for changing it to Active Authors. 15:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Found a very very bad stub. Decided to add the "template" to it
Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/Magic/Portus was quite the bad stub indeed. So I just added what I knew about the subject (aka, nothing) and put it into what appears to be your template. I would suggest that someone check it over. --Dragontamer 23:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Gone. It will be created appropriately at a later date. -within focus 01:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm... apart from the fact that I'm now curious, would it not have been better to leave it as Dragontamer had left it? I mean, Dragontamer had provided a band-aid; granted that is not ideal, but simply wiping it off the face of creation is rather disrespectful to him; and it could stand until someone expanded on it, no? Chazz 22:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Having it as it was didn't give much of any information whatsoever. I delete useless stubs all the time because they're almost always three-word descriptions from an anonymous user about a topic and would achieve more progress if created at a later date. There's a lot of poorly-written pages in the Guide and I see it as better to re-create them later. Nonetheless, since you wanted it back, I restored it. -within focus 01:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * With that level of invitation, how can I resist filling it out a bit? Actually, I was more wondering what set "a very bad stub" apart from the other three-word stubs I have found... and must confess to remaining somewhat unenlightened. Was it just the usual "Makes a portkey." sort of thing? Chazz 23:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Warning about HP "fan art", etc. on commons.
The toolserver's down right now so I'm not sure if any of these are used in this book, but "fan art" (see Harry Potter) is considered a derivative work,and all images are being deleted on sight. They might be "fair use" on Wikibooks though... just don't upload these on commons because we have to delete them (sorry!). -- SB_Johnny | talk 04:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fanart shouldn't be used as it is a form of "original research" and is interpretation that hasn't been used in any of the published materials. John Reaves 04:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The only thing I can see on the Commons that we use is not in the Fanart section – the Platform 9-3/4 sign is used in the article for that Place. I'm not sure I agree with John that there is no place for fan art in the book; the cover, for instance, is fan art, though AFAICS there is no way that it could be considered particularly derivative, as it has nothing in it that is directly related to any copyrighted images. Chazz 08:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the book needs a cover, but individual interpretations of people and things would be stretching the limits. John Reaves 08:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to get a new cover in some time since the current one is pretty gross. -within focus 23:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd argue against "gross" as a description; it is actually pretty good. BUT it uses the image of Hogwarts from the film – contrary to what I thought earlier, once I had had a good look at it I see that it is the WB version of Hogwarts – and as such it may well be pushing the limits of copyvio. Chazz 08:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I find the green way too powerful. There's got to be something better for us to put up there. -within focus 22:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor characters (from the characters talk page)
I propose either deleting each or merging minor characters in one article which is redirected to by the individual pages. John Reaves 06:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You'd need to have some pretty fierce definition of what comprised a "minor character". Pretty much any definition would have to have exceptions: Marcus Flint? He's in three books. Adrian Pucey? Two. Minor? Good question. If forced to decide, I'd say Marcus, no, Adrian, yes. Armando Dippet? No... needs an individual write-up. Bertha Jorkins? Strictly speaking, not in any books – when we first hear of her, she's dead – but she's a relatively major part of the set-up of book 4. Personally, I would be slightly opposed because of the problem of definition. Plus, JKR does have a habit of taking a minor character and suddenly making him or her rather important: e.g. Arabella Figg. And we can't know which until it happens: e.g. Mark Evans. Chazz 08:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say base the def. on the length of the article and personal judgement. If Rowling develops a character, then the article can then be developed, it's not hard to do.  The problem is that there are articles that have only one or two sentences.  John Reaves 08:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sometimes that's a flaw in the article, rather than it being an actual minor character. But I see your point: if it can't be expanded beyond a single sentence, maybe it does belong on a dedicated minor characters page. Chazz 18:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of the time it's a flaw due to the person who created an essentially useless stub. There's nothing negative about having separate pages for characters and it's much easier to organize that way. At the least each individual should have an infobox which separate pages supply easily. This book will be made into one large page anyway (for printing) and having separate pages makes the design of the full book much easier as well since it becomes very modular. I'm pretty opposed to this. Over time, pages will slowly gain more and more. -within focus 23:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This actually leaves me in rather a quandary. I just created a set of pages for the characters who are listed as being Sorted in GoF. In the process I found a three-word stub for one character, and a ten-word stub for Dennis Creevey, and nothing for any of the others. I've put in the full framework for all of them, but there's not much I can say about (e.g.) Stewart Ackerly: he's Sorted into Ravenclaw, but I don't know if we ever see him again. Did I do the right thing by creating him at all? Chazz 06:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Educational use?
How is it that this book could be used in an academic and educational setting? --Remi 02:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What are you referring to exactly? These books are heavily studied at numerous universities, not to mention secondary schools where the students are much more actively reading them. This book is Cliff's Notes for the Harry Potter series and offers critical insight into what is happening in the books. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 15:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, if you take a look at the second VfD (link at the top of this page), you will see that someone has actually enumerated a bunch of universities that as of two years ago were offering courses in HP. I personally don't know whether this series will have the lasting power of (e.g.) Dickens, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did; and Dickens, in his day, was seen as a good writer, but not a classic. Chazz (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Names
What a great job you've done here. Shoudn't names be sorted in lists like this:

 * Malfoy, Draco
 * Potter, Harry

instead of:

 * Draco Malfoy
 * Harry Potter

? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 03:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

 * We list the names in more readable forms yet still sort by last name. If you see a non-sorted name, please correct it. Thanks. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 16:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Spell template
How about adding to the spell template? So fx Avada Kedavra would be: Type Spell (curse) instead of: Type Spell --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 03:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

 * All the spells use the Magic template. If you'd like to add additional information into a field, please do so. The current number of fields, however, seems to be set up the most efficiently for handling our other magic types as well and so I wouldn't want to add any new ones. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 16:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about adding a new field into it, only more information into the current fields. Check this out, I've added "(curse)": Avada Kedavra. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 20:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, as long as it's consistent with all spells. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 14:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Can't really be consistent, because for a lot of spells the nature of the spell depends on who is casting it. If Moody casts Stupefy, it's a charm (called a spell for assonance); if Barty Crouch Jr. casts it, it's a jinx. At least, that's my understanding. To quote another author, "Black magic is a matter of symbolism and intent"; a spell that doesn't necessarily have deleterious effect may be either black or white depending on circumstance. Chazz (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Good comment. I agree. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 22:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Although Avada Kedavra can never be anything but a curse. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 22:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. But Aurors are authorized to use deadly force against Death Eaters. And Molly Weasley does dispatch Bellatrix Lestrange... maybe not with Avada Kedavra, but given that she is defending her children (and later herself), is it then a curse that she uses? Chazz (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

lmskiver's Writeup in DH chapter 36
I am... impressed with this writeup. But I suspect that it is in the wrong place.

Rather than have it be in the Chapter 36 Greater Picture section, I think that a better place for it might well be in a separate section of its own, one that is linked in after the Epilogue. That should probably be done for each of the seven books in fact; I think that each book could benefit from a whole-book overview and a place in the series overview.

Any thoughts? Chazz (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Now that the series is complete we will need to turn a lot of our attention to the Greater Picture sections once we get all the chapter summaries in. I like the idea of adding a "overall analysis" page of some sort a little bit below the chapter listing for each book page. Is there anything else we could add besides a book analysis page? Anything we should discuss for each book? Notable events perhaps? -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 19:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I like Chazz's idea! It's actually what brought me to the Muggle Studies site in the first place. I had finsihed 7, and was trying to look at the Greater Picture (GP) of how each of the books played into each other, the overall themes and threads that linked one to next, and how succintly Rowling wove them!... I thought I find the shortcuts I needed in the GP section and was dismayed it was incomplete... I was searching for answers to why this? and not that? and what's the overall meaning? even, how does this relate to other literary giants like Tolkein & Lewis? I wanted input from other sources to be convinced that I was really getting it!

I found few insights online, so I was left to my own brain and long conversations with friends. Ironically, they are still catching up, but because of their questions about HP's development in Yr.5, and my trying to both explain and defend him, I had the brainstorm that erupted on your pages. Move it where you deem fit... I wasn't sure it belong here, but felt that it was important to share, for the same reasons I sought it out.

I might add that my cadre' were all Christians... I could write a whole section on how JKR, accused of Wicca and occult promotion, has woven a tale that can be viewed positively from a Christian point of view... and I was confessedly nonplussed, since I was reading for sheer pleasure and wasn't looking for it, or expecting to find it! -<font color="#000000">lmskiver <font color="#7A7A7A">lmskiver 23:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm somewhat busy lately and might not be able to fully contribute my ideas to this currently, but I would like to add a warning that any external references to other authors, religion, etc. should be kept distinctly separate from chapter summaries and the like. This is a very different world of analysis and I want to make sure it doesn't get mixed in with the content-specific analysis too much. This is a topic for advanced readers only. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 14:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Right, I can likely handle this. Question: We obviously will want a Detailed Book Analysis section; should that be right on the book page with the chapter headings, with the Intermediate spoiler warning on it, or should it be a separate section entirely, with a link pointer? Maybe a link under the chapter list? Either way would be reasonable, I think... Chazz (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I like the idea of the analysis living in the book's (sub-)namespace since it pertains to just that book. I would want to add a whole new section, probably under Book Highlights, where we could create a couple new sub-pages. The links to these new sub-pages would be under an intermediate spoiler warning. If we go with this idea, we should decide if we'd like to split the book analysis up at all and if so what those sub-pages would be called. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 03:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Gotcha re:references to other things... if it were ever done it would have to be separate stuff, and probably done via links to external wiki-pages (for all I know someone's already done it; although I bet no one has tackled the "science" thing)... I am and was just thinking out loud about possibilities. RE: the analyses... I'm the newbie here, so I respectfully defer to whatever you all agree upon; I also have no clue how to set up subpages (although I could figure it out in time, I prefer the shortcuts, which are the both of you). Just let me know in what ways you might like me to contribute to the effort. PS. withinfocus, still having a prob with my talk page link... grrr, but I have figured out the rest of my signature... hee, hee... this is fun. Thanks -<font color="67008C">lmskiver <font color="#e02b00"> † alk 00:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I've added a new section to Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/Books/Deathly Hallows for everyone to check out. The sub-pages I linked are my ideas for good pieces of this overall new analysis topic. Add, edit, and remove as you like. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 14:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Looks good. I'll have to go through lmskiver's write-up to see if it needs to be sub-divided, but I don't think it needs it; it may just all fit into the Overall Analysis section. Have to create a template for it, of course, though it'll be very wide-open. Chazz (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

 * reset

Now done. Looked like the write-up that lmskiver did could be broken into two pieces, character development and storyline analysis, so I put it into two sections. Also tweaked it a little... you know, editors, not happy until they've played with it. I may be wrong in how I've broken it up, but it feels all right to me at the moment... if anyone disagrees, please feel free to correct me. On the bit about why Harry did not die when Voldy did: I'm still piecing that together, it is very complex. Chazz (talk) 08:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I renamed the page to Characters to be consistent and deleted the old redirect and such. I'll try to read the content sometime soon. Why Harry lived when Voldemort died didn't see too complex to me (I figured it's just the prophecy that "neither can live while the other survives" and once Harry's Horcrux is gone there's no real connection between the two anymore and Voldemort plain dies) but how exactly Harry survived the Avada Kedavra that destroyed his Horcrux is much more complex. Thoughts? Saying "the Killing Curse just hit the Horcrux and not Harry himself" seems incomplete. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 12:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

 * The reason it's complex is because of the interrelation. The Elder Wand cannot harm Harry because it accepts Harry as its master -- contrary to the apparent path through history, it is not murder that defeats the bearer of the wand, but forcible removal of the wand, so the wand became Malfoy's, and Malfoy was defeated by Harry. (It was Malfoy's wand Harry was holding when he defeated Voldy. Presumably the Elder Wand recognizes the wand that stood against it, rather than the bearer.) At the same time, Harry can not be killed by Voldy because of the blood linkage -- as he is using Harry's blood, he provides that protection. Which seems far-fetched, Voldy certainly had Riddle blood in him, but he quite handily bumped off Tom Sr. back in '44 or so. Then again, Tom Sr. didn't care about Tom Jr., likely didn't even know he existed. So: Voldy's curse knocks Harry into the waystation, but it is then his option whether to go on or return; and if he goes on, taking Voldy with him, there will still be one Horcrux in Nagini to allow Voldy to return. I don't know whether the creature is meant to be Voldy's soul -- recall he too is knocked out when that curse hits Harry -- or the fragment that was in Harry, but I suspect the former; the fragment, being just a fragment, would have frayed and vanished. In the other direction, then, once the soul fragment is gone, the only thing allowing Voldy to continue to live is Nagini and his own soul; and Nagini snuffs it. There is still the blood link, but that is unidirectional: Lily did not die to save Voldy, did she? And the Elder Wand still believes Harry to be its owner because nobody has forcibly disarmed Harry since he nabbed Malfoy's wand. And therein lies the entire tale, as far as I have figured it out so far... any thoughts? Chazz (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I totally missed this comment; I must not have been reading RC later that day. Anyway, I think I agree with everything you've just said. There definitely is a lot there and we should definitely explain this. Some of it might be presumption but that's what Analysis and Greater Picture are for really as long as they're sound arguments and alternatives are proposed.

 * On a separate note, I formatted the new book analysis pages to what I think is a good idea for expansion. You never really start a page here with a title; there's always a small intro and so I stuck some (useless) text there to build upon. There's an intermediate warning on the book page for the section as well as one on the first section of each new page, just like how we do it on our other templated pages. Tell me if anyone dislikes this. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 20:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I cleaned up that interrelationship write-up, though I'm still not entirely happy with it; I may hammer it again in a while, once I have re-read that section of the book. Meanwhile, I have to ask: what sort of thing do you envision for the real-world connections section? Chazz (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I thought it might contain connections to real events in the world like Grindelwald's possible connection to WWII or whatever it was. This would discuss how the author hinted at reality through the story of the magical world. This might be weak for most books so I guess it could be removed. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 20:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Links
Relative links have been replaced with full links. See here. I've managed to track the cause of this to these pages: User_talk:Chazz (specifically, the "New Page Freeze" and "Re:Bot" sections), User_talk:Whiteknight (Here, "Muggles' Guide Print Version" and "Test runs (Muggles' Guide)"), and User_talk:Withinfocus ("PDF Version" and "re:Bot"). Apparently, there was an issue of some sort when creating a "for print" mega-page. Could be a good idea to provide an outline here, to explain what was happening and why. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Actually, Shrieking Shack has relative links. What's up with that? -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

 * The reason for the replacement of relative links with absolute ones is part of the preparation for the print version of the book. The print version is created by first converting to PDF, and the PDF conversion script is not capable of handling relative links. As for the Shrieking Shack page, that was evidently overlooked by the automatic script, which means it may not be properly on the Contents page. I will correct that this afternoon. Chazz (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Speaking as a coder, i'd rather have changed one script to add the very-welcomed feature of handling relative links, rather than update hundreds of pages, and possibly on multiple book projects too. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Okay... the Shrieking Shack page is going to be a small problem, because we have two of them. I'll check with an administrator whether we need to merge the edit history of Shrieking Shack and The Shrieking Shack. Chazz (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Update: Shrieking Shack was more complete by a fraction, so I have merged content and set The Shrieking Shack to be deleted. Chazz (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, having links end in a slash, to work around having to type them as "[...]/PageName|PageName", appears to have caused subsequent issues, and was removed as well. Pity... -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes; the simple reason for that is that they just don't work. If an absolute link of more than one level ends with a slash, the Wikibooks display code seems to think that means we've left out the final level and redlinks, looking for a page named "[...]/PageName/" (with an empty name). If an absolute link ends without a slash, the entire absolute link displays, rather than the final link. Apparently, whoever designed that code was not prepared for the deep tree structure that the Muggles' Guide uses. Chazz (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

 * So this is actually a side-effect of having absolute links. :-( Fwiw, the nicety of the ending slash was for relative links only, and then it worked best only on single-level links... -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Review Standards
We need to decide loosely what we'll look for when marking a page as reviewed. First thoughts? -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 23:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay -- there are three categories in which we are asked to rate things, and I think we may want to have separate conversations about each. I'll suggest that we should sign our comments in each subhead so we know who's talking.

Composition

 * First is Composition. This is pretty much self-explanatory; level 1 is "correct spelling and grammar", level 2 is "good structure", and level 3 is "consistent style". All pages are at level 1 now, and most of the ones I've worked on, and pretty much all of Raven's, are at level 2. I don't know if I can claim "consistent style" because I don't know what the style should be. This is where I would like to get help from Raven, in particular. Chazz (talk)
 * All of our pages are highly structured and organized, so I don't think this one will cause much trouble. Almost all pages will receive a 3 in my opinion, and the small number of 2s will most likely due to the page being empty or unformatted. We tend to have very little spelling mistakes or grammar issues, so I think we don't need to worry about this since the existing frameworks have taken care of it already. Just make sure the page has our correct framework, the proper intro paragraph and detail infobox, and has content in the correct sections. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 03:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I can certainly work with Chazz on the "style consistency". This certainly seems a bit more abstract because, as Chazz pointed out, we don't know what the style should be, and everyone has an individual approach. Grammar and spelling are certainly good, and I'll defer to Chazz regarding grammar, as he's better at that, although there are US/UK differences, but I try to stick with the British style (which I have to guess at sometimes), as that reflects not only the books, the website. I've mainly been working on chapter analysis for all the books. I framed in the main points (as has Chazz), but I am now working on tying in the broader themes of the entire series.PNW Raven (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy

 * Second is Accuracy. Level 1 is Acceptable, level 2 is Good / Average, and level 3 is Verifiable. The areas I have been writing, summaries and such, generally are at level 2, some to level 3. I don't know if we can say any of the analysis is actually verifiable, without talking to JKR herself, so it's a definition of the term I'd be looking for here. Oh -- and lack of vandalism fits in this category as well; vandalism is, by its nature, inaccurate. Chazz (talk)
 * We might want to just shift the numbers around for our uses since we're working on fiction. Unless a brand new editor has added something I think we can assume 2 in most cases and 3 once another user has come across the detail. For instance, if a new user adds a supposed fact then that's really unreviewed or at a 0. We can pass by 1 and once a solid user like one of us comes in and adds a detail it will be treated as a 2. When another one of us passes through and verifies the reference then let's go with 3. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 03:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

 * "Accuracy" on the analysis sections does seem a bit trickier, as by its very nature, it is someone's interpretation of the author's work. Certainly there are facts associated with it that need to be accurate, and for the most part, we've achieved a good level of correct information combined with opinion. I agree with Withinfocus' suggestions.PNW Raven (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Coverage

 * Third is Coverage, level 1 is Acceptable, level 2 is Good/Average, and level 3 is Great. Again, the analysis is an area where there doesn't seem to be a clear idea of what the standard is. Can coverage be even Good if the analysis is lacking? I can write everything that Arthur Weasley did, but without analysis as to why, or information about how the author was building Arthur's character, can it be a good article? Chazz (talk)
 * This is where I think we will have the most work. Not too many of our pages will have a 3 from the beginning. We can go through the same iterative process as the above section maybe. Undeveloped articles start of course at unreviewed or 0, we make a first pass which sets us at 1 (most of our pages can default to this), and then to go to 2 or 3 I think Chazz, Raven, or another seasoned editor needs to make some swoops on it. The Trio most likely represent 3s. Maybe a 2 shows significant detail, not much analysis but some, and overall a complete but not full-bodied page. A 3 can be all the final touches including Raven's copyediting and a full analysis / greater picture. -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 03:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I will suggest that the Trio are not at a 3 level yet. Hermione may be a 3 for coverage, though I think she needs more analysis and greater picture yet. Ron is definitely only a 2, and I suspect Harry is only a 1 -- I forget whether I've had the chance to give him the full treatment yet. Chazz (talk)
 * On re-examination I find that Harry is about 1 on coverage, as is Ron, in my opinion. Hermione could be a 3, but I think she's closer to 2 as analysis is still a little scant. Mike.lifeguard reminds us that 4 is meant for Featured Books and may not be appropriate for us yet... Chazz (talk)

Is it time to start reviewing on the basis of what we have here? Raven? Chazz (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on what we have here, I think it is probably time to start reviewing, at least as we edit. We have over seven hundred pages... it would be good to start getting them reviewed. Chazz (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Guys, this is a great description of how these things should be used. Can one of you put that in a project page (maybe move Help:Article validation too Article validation and add it to that page?) double-checking that stuff specific to this wikibook is generalized to we can apply it more widely? Thanks in advance. — <b style="color:#309;">Mike.lifeguard</b> | talk 01:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

 * We could... but bear in mind that it is also wrong. Looking at Help:Article validation I see that what I had thought was level 1 is actually level 0; as an editor, rather than a reviewer, I can't even see level 4 in the drop-down boxes. Which means that a lot of my reluctance to select level 4 is invalid. In any event... I'll look at this tonight, correct that here, and then see if I can generalize it. Chazz (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Now revised to have the correct levels, to match what is on the help page. Next, to see if I can take out the MG-specific stuff... but it all looks MG-specific... Chazz (talk) 07:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


text:
Pediatric Medicine/Resuscitation

In the 1980s The American Academy of Pediatrics and The American Heart Association collaborated to create a Neonatal Resuscitation Program. The Neonatal Resuscitation program sets standards for how health care providers resuscitate newborns. Research is still being done to determine the best way to resuscitate newborns, especially premature babies.

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

title: Pediatric Medicine/Resuscitation


text:
Pediatric Medicine/Resuscitation/Preparation

The goal of resuscitation is to ensure that air goes into the body, to the lungs, and then through the blood to the body to give the baby the oxygen needed for life. A successful newborn resuscitation requires preparation. Trained personnel and equipment to warm the baby, establish an airway, and give medicines should be available at the time of birth.

Step 1: Warming

 * Heat loss occurs through:
 * radiant loss (heat loss directly into the air),
 * conduction (direct loss from contact between two solids), and
 * convection (the loss of heat as water evaporates).
 * A radiant heat source and warm blankets or towels are needed to warm and dry the baby.
 * Premature babies with immature skin need to be gently wrapped in a watertight layer such as sterile plastic wrap to prevent convective heat loss. If a newborn is vigourous, the mother's body and warmed blankets can be used to keep the baby warm.

Step 2: Clear the Airway

 * Babies need to breathe air when they are born.
 * While most babies will cough, cry, or breathe on their own, many need to have liquid cleared from their airway first.
 * A rubber bulb suction or vacuum suction can be used to suck liquid from the moth and nostrils. A tube connecting to external wall suction should be set to less than 100 mm Hg to prevent damage to the baby's mouth tissue.
 * The baby should be positioned with the head midline, slightly extended, to open the airway.

Step 3: Breathing
Most babies can safely breathe on their own or be ventilated with a face mask.

Once the airway is cleared, most babies breathe spontaneously. If a baby does not breathe, the baby will need assisted ventilation to inflate the lungs. Most babies can be easily ventilated with positive pressure bag-mask ventilation. This requires a face mask that goes over the baby's mouth and nose. The mask should be connected to an air source with supplemental oxygen. It is currently not known how much oxygen is best to give to babies after delivery. It is a topic of current neonatal research.

There are two situations, however, when it is safer to place a breathing tube into the baby's trachea.
 * 1) Meconium
 * 2) * A baby who is born through meconium needs to be assessed immediately.
 * 3) * According to NRP guidelines, if the baby is not vigorous-- crying, with good tone, and with heart rate over 100-- the baby should be intubated and the trachea should be suctioned to clear meconium. Once meconium is cleared, the tube can be removed. Then the baby can be stimulated to breath on it's own.
 * 4) Congenital_diaphragmatic_hernia
 * 5) * In babies born with diaphragmatic hernias, an endotracheal tube should be placed so that the stomach does not fill with air. This would put pressure on the lungs and make ventilation difficult.

The baby's efforts to breath should be assessed at least every 15-30 seconds. If the baby shows no effort, positive pressure breaths should be given to ensure that air is getting to the lungs. The breaths should be about once per second. The pressure should be high enough to inflate the lungs and see the chest wall rise and fall. Usually full term babies require a maximum pressure of 30 cm H2O.

Babies who do not breathe on their own need to be carefully evaluated. They may have a problem with their respiratory drive, or be effected by maternal medications, such as anesthesia or other drugs. They may be septic, asphyxiated, or have neuromuscular problems.

Step 4: Heart Rate
The baby's heart rate should be monitored continuously. If the heart rate drops below 80 beats per minute, it is important to ensure that the baby is being ventilated. If the baby has a heart rate under 80 and has had adequate ventilation for 30 seconds, chest compressions should be started to help circulate the blood. If after 30 seconds of chest compressions and assisted ventilation the heart rate is still under 80, the baby would require epinephrine to increase the heart rate.

Ventilation and circulation are essential for life. Without ventilation and circulation of blood, a baby can have brain damage and may ultimately die. The goal of resuscitation is to prevent brain damage and death. Adequate preparation and training are essential for anyone who will be involved in the care of newborn babies.


text:
Talk:Introduction to Sociology/Groups

Outdated Reference?

 * "If we can assign people to a category then that tells us things about those people, and as we saw with the busdriver example we couldn't function in a normal manner without using these categories; i.e. in the context of the bus."

Was the bus driver example replaced by the police/highway patrol example? If so, then the above also needs to be updated. If not, a more specific reference to the bus driver example would be helpful as it is not on the same page. Paul Pomeroy 22:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

random quotes
p. 461 "In many respects, this has been the fate of "the group" in social psychology. With its focus on the individual, social psychology has had a difficult time accepting the group as a true member of the flock. Although the group has been a part of social psychology since the field's beginning (Triplett, 1898), it has occupied a rather tenuous position. Social psychologists have scoffed at the notion of a "group mind" (Le Bon, 1895/1960). Allport (1924) observed that nobody ever tripped over a group, an insult questioning the very existence of the group. The rejection of the group became so complete that Steiner (1974) entitled an article, "What ever happened to the group in social psychology?" For a time, the group was banished to the foreign lands of organizational psychology and sociology. "But the group could not stay a stranger for long. It wormed its way back into the fold, but its rebirth had a unique twist. Early definitions of the group described it as a unit consisting of several individuals who interacted with each other and occupied "real" space (Shaw, 1981). However, the born-again group was accepted into the domain of social psychology only as a cognitive representation, a figment of the mind. Instead of the individual being in the group, the group was now within the individual; Hogg and Abrams (1988) stated that "the group is thus within the individual ..." (p. 19)."

p. 462 "SIT became the springboard for new approaches to understanding stereotyping (Haslam, Turner, Oakes, McGarry, & Hays, 1992; Ng, 1989; Spears, Oakes, Ellemers, & Haslam, 1997), prejudice (Bagby & Rector, 1992), ethnic violence (Worchel, 1999) and other forms of intergroup relations. The perspective was applied to a host of traditional social psychological issues such as interpersonal perception (Park & Rothbart, 1982), minority influence (Clark & Maass, 1988), and group productivity and social loafing (Worchel, Rothgerber, Day, Hart, & Buttemeyer, 1998)." Every article I have read in these books has mentioned SIT and Tajfel; was that a requirement? Has SP nothing else?

p. 463 "Social identity theory presents individual identity as a point along a continuum ranging from personal identity on one end to social identity on the other end. One's identity at a specific time is represented by a single point on the continuum. A multitude of variables affect whether personal identity or social identity will be most salient, and which of the many group memberships will be most prominent on the social identity side of the equation. The conceptualization of social identity as being composed of group membership leads to the hypothesis that people discriminate in order to enhance the position of their ingroups relative to that of outgroups. The motivation behind this action is to create a positive social identity (Tajfel, 1978), reduce threats to self-esteem (Hogg & Abrams, 1990; Long & Spears, 1997), or reduce uncertainty (Hogg, 2000; Hogg & Abrams, 1993)."

p. 464 "Our approach gives the group a clear role outside the cognitive structure of the individual. Although we do not deny that individuals hold mental representations of groups and that these representations can and do exert influence, we also argue that groups are entities that exist outside the person and exert real pressure. We suggest that group dynamics has interpersonal and intergroup components that cannot be ignored in the study of the relationship between individual and group. Although group activities have an impact on the identity of the individual member, the group must be examined within a true social paradigm."

p. 467 "The disintegration of the group continues into the stage of decay. At this point, members may defect from the group. Scapegoating takes place and leaders are often blamed for group ills. The individual focus is accelerated, and the need for the group is questioned. "In some cases, the decay destroys the group and it ceases to exist. However, in many other cases, the group, albeit with a different set of members, begins the process of rebuilding. A distinct incident or threat may ignite the rebirth, or the rebuilding may be initiated by the collective actions of a subset of the members. Whatever the reason, the group enters again into the group identification stage, and the cycle of group development begins anew." Why do they put everything into either stages or cycles? Why can't things not progress and just be?
 * the above needs to be incorporated into the rest of the text--Rcragun 23:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

To do
(1) Add section on leadership; (2) add section on Simmel's group dynamics, diffusion of responsibility, bystander apathy, etc. (3) retitle chapter "Groups and social structure"; (4) add section on status, master status, ascribed vs. achieved status, status sets, role strain and role conflict; (5) add more on Goffman; (6) add some basic stuff on bureaucracy from Weber. (7) add Milgram obedience experiment to conformity section; (8) add Stanford Prison Experiment; (9) a case could be made for introducing Weberian power and authority here, re leadership, and for instructors who don't have time for an entire unit on politics.Thomasfbrown (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Introduction to Sociology/Groups


text:
Game Maker Programming/Contributors lounge

I was thinking about doing a small scripting tutorial of my past work, and was thinking about looking into creating an actual OOP edition of the script. Anyone have any comments/ideas?

Please do. I firmly believe in putting code out there for folks to learn by copy and paste (I sure learn a lot that way).

On a related note, there are lots of tutorials and documents out there on various GM subjects, but they often lack one or more of the following modules:

 What the operation/function/script is for.   More than one example of how it might be used.   Variations of use: (e.g. using an array with ds_queue, using an array with sprites, using an array with mouse events, etc.)   A downloadable GM file to experiment with or study.

I like the definition on wikipedia for "tutorial"... It says that a tutorial should have:   A presentation of content, usually with an example or examples, often broken up into discrete modules or sections.   Some method of review that reinforces or tests understanding of the content in the related module or section.   ''A transition to additional modules or sections that builds on the instructions already provided. Tutorials can be linear or branching.''

While many writers refer to a mere list of instructions or tips as a "tutorial", this usage can be misleading... SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutorial

I agree with it. The nice thing is, if you can't do all the work yourself, someone else will eventually come in and help out.

I'm considering writing a few tutorials in GML; where should I put them? In particular, I'm working on a variation of 3D mouselook for flight games that makes the view controls behave consistently even when looking straight up. This seems like it doesn't quite fit in the Tough Topics chapter; that chapter seems to be for troubleshooting rathar than tutorials. Maybe there should be a section for tutorials, or a separate WikiBook for GM tutorials?
 * i recommend you start it more of a programming aspect, and leave other gm articles(like mine) to provide an outline ;) also, i recommend more of a starters tut, not going straight in to the complicated things Antome  Talk  04:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


text:
User:А

Please see my Wikipedia User page as I spend most of my time there:

title: User:А


text:
Scouting/Eagle Service Project

Introduction
The capstone to the entire process that a Scout undertakes from the very first day he becomes a Scout is one of the most daunting tasks that he will ever complete. That task is the Eagle Scout Service Project. As the Requirements for Eagle Scout rank state;

''While a Life Scout, plan, develop, and give leadership to others in a service project helpful to your religious institution, school, or your community. (The project should benefit an organization other than the BSA.) The project idea must be approved by the organization benefiting from the effort, your unit leader (Scoutmaster, Varsity Scout Coach, Venturing crew Advisor), unit committee, and by the council or district advancement committee before you start. You must use this Eagle Scout Leadership Service Project Workbook, No. 18-927D, in meeting this requirement.''

Over the ten years since I attained Eagle rank in 1994, I have advised fellow Scouts, helped on their projects, spoken with their Scoutmasters, and even been a part of the Eagle Board of Review. In that time, I have seen projects that were flawlessly executed, and I have seen projects where the young man most certainly did not do his best, nor was he prepared for the outcome.

The Eagle Scout Project Workbook has been designed with the least details possible, opening up interpretation on the local Council or District level, and as any Scouter who has ever worked a District or Council Board of Review will tell you, this leads to a great deal of confusion and frustration on the part of the District or Council Boards of Review, Scoutmasters, and Scouts completing Eagle requirements. In cases where our recommendations are contrary to those of your local Scouting district or council, we encourage you to follow what your local district or council advancement committee has established.

This guide is designed for the Scout and the Scoutmaster, the parent and the benefiting organization head, and all those involved with the selection, planning, and execution of the Eagle Scout Service Project so that we all may benefit a little more from Scouting in the community.

Before You Begin
Most of these steps will be included in a future work describing the process to becoming an Eagle Scout. I am including them here for your benefit, however. In the future, they will be moved to another text entirely.
 * Be sure that you have enough time prior to your 18th birthday to continue. Many a time, the Board of Review will see the case where a candidate turns 18 in three months and is rushing to execute a project.  Most Boards of Review will not take this circumstance as an extenuating circumstance, so make sure that you budget at least six months to execute a well-planned and well-thought project.  My recommendation is to give yourself at least six months to complete the project and prepare for the Board of Review.
 * Before executing your project, make sure that a good majority of your merit badges are completed. Environmental Science, Personal Management, Personal Fitness, and Family Life all have timeframes within their requirements.  It is far better to start them now while planning your project than wait until the last minute. Once again, leave yourself about six months of time between now and the Board of Review.
 * Discuss your plans with your Scoutmaster. Keeping the Scoutmaster informed throughout the process to Eagle will make things a lot easier on you and your Scoutmaster when it comes time to submit the project to the District or Council Board of Review for preliminary approval, final submission, and the final Board of Review.
 * If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask your Scoutmaster, other Eagle Scouts in your Troop, or anyone you think might be able to help on your Trail to Eagle.

Expectations
The requirement, in its most simple form, is to test your leadership skills. Nothing more, and nothing less. So, the details of the project are completely up to you. You will pick the project, approach the group that it will benefit, fund the project, do the work, and then prepare a written report on what you did. So, the project is entirely up to you. Keep in mind, however, the following limits;
 * You must lead the project entirely by yourself. This is not your father's project, nor your mother's project, nor your Scoutmaster's project.  It is your project, and you are responsible for it.
 * The project CANNOT benefit the Boy Scouts of America. It can, however, benefit your chartered partner (the church or school that your Troop meets at), a school, a church, or the community in general.
 * The project CANNOT be routine in nature. You cannot cut the grass outside of the school and call it a service project.  You could, though, do some landscaping outside of the school.
 * The project CANNOT be a fundraiser in itself, however, you can raise funds for materials.
 * The project must be planned entirely by you. You cannot use an old Eagle Project plan verbatim, but you can use someone else's idea for it.
 * Anyone you choose may help you with your project.

The Internet is a wealth of knowledge on Eagle service projects. I recommend running a basic Google search to find some examples of what some other Scouts have done in the past. If you follow the guidelines above, plus one other major one I'll discuss in a moment, you shouldn't have a problem making yours work.

But most of all, the project must fit you. It must fit your age, your level of maturity, and your level of commitment. Most Boards of Review will expect the project to challenge the candidate's capabilities - if the project isn't challenging to you as an Eagle candidate, then you need to pick another project.

Put it on Paper
After you have identified a project idea, and you have discussed it with your Scoutmaster and the other adults at the Troop, it's time to start the paperwork so you can start your project. Remember, you cannot execute your project until it has been approved by four distinct people:
 * Your Scoutmaster.
 * The head of the organization that your project will benefit.
 * The Chairman of the District or Council Board of Review (or the person that generally approves Eagle service projects).
 * Council or district advancement committee member.

Also remember, you must use the Eagle Scout Service Project Workbook when you are planning your project. There are electronic copies available at the link above, and I do recommend using an electronic copy to start off with. If you do not have a computer, the old cut and paste method also works. But, regardless, make sure whatever method you use is neat. Use the best grammar possible.

When writing your project up for initial approval, most Scouters recommend including every possible detail so that anyone else could lead your project for you. The intent here is to give as much detail as you can so that the Board can see what it is that you're trying to do. The more detail, the better - most projects are often sent back from the Board for lack of detail or the need to more clearly define a concept or action. Plus, the more detail you provide here shows more effort on your part, which will go a long way with the Board.

title: Scouting/Eagle Service Project


text:
Game Maker Programming/LibraryBuilder/Installing

Where to find it
At the authors wishes a direct link cannot be given, but a link to the download can be found in this forum.

Installation
To be finished later.


text:
Pediatric Medicine/Resuscitation/Definition of Neonatal Resuscitation

Neonatal Resuscitation is intervention after a baby is born to help it breathe and to help its heart beat.

 * Before a baby is born, the placenta provides oxygen and nutrition to the blood and removes carbon dioxide.
 * After a baby is born, the lungs provide oxygen to the blood and remove carbon dioxide.
 * The transition from using the placenta to using the lungs for gas exchange begins when the umbilical cord is clamped or tied off, and the baby has its first breath.
 * Many babies go through this transition without needing intervention.
 * Some babies need help with establishing their air flow, breathing, or circulation.
 * Resuscitation is helping with Airway, Breathing, and Circulation, also known as the ABCs.

The first few moments of a newborn's life can be the most critical. If needed, effective emergency care during this transition can prevent lifelong consequences. Proper resuscitation requires essential equipment and knowledge of necessary protocols before delivery. Prior knowledge of the gestational age of the newborn is helpful in anticipating the need for resuscitation. Low birth weight and premature delivery predispose infants to the need for resuscitative efforts.

Indications Neonate with the following: •  	Inadequate or ineffective respirations •  	Inadequate heart rate •  	Central cyanosis •  	Other evidence of cardiorespiratory distress


text:
User:Whitenoise~enwikibooks

I'm an intellectual, mental, and educational liberation enthusiast. I have a B.A. in Integrative Mental Health from U.C. Berkeley. I helped organize the Barrington Collective and the East Bay Free School. My thesis 'Schizome' can be read at the Icarus Project website here http://theicarusproject.net/madness/related/schizomap.

title: User:Whitenoise~enwikibooks


text:
Pediatric Medicine/Resuscitation/Environment

 * Warm Environment
 * Babies who are kept warm (37°C) breathe better and have better circulation than babies who are cold.
 * Heat can be lost in 3 different ways
 * 1. Radiant heat transfer: heat loss from the baby directly into the air if the air is colder than the baby
 * A radiant heat warmer is needed to minimize radiant heat loss.
 * 2. Conduction: direct loss from contact between two solids
 * Warm blankets are needed to minimize conductive loss. Placing the baby on the mother's warm skin will also minimize conductive heat loss.
 * 3. Convection: loss of heat as water evaporates from the baby's skin
 * Newborns are wet and have a lot of surface area, making convective heat loss a significant risk.
 * Drying the baby's head and putting a hat on minimizes convective heat loss from the head.
 * Premature babies with immature skin can be gently wrapped in a watertight layer such as sterile plastic wrap from the neck to the feet to prevent damaging the skin and convective heat loss.

references


text:
User:Elfalem

Hello, I mainly edit wikipedia articles. But I come here from time to time.

title: User:Elfalem


text:
User talk:Elfalem

Please don't forget to sign you name.

title: User talk:Elfalem


text:
User talk:24.244.139.70

Please don't vandalize again.

title: User talk:24.244.139.70


text:
User talk:207.69.137.200

Andjam 10:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:207.69.137.200


text:
User talk:68.238.210.205

Andjam 11:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:68.238.210.205


text:
Cookbook talk:Chocolate Chip Cookies

Metric
Could the mesurements be swaped to metric, not everyone is an American. 220.233.48.200 11:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add them yourself. Kellen T 10:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Page history from Toll House cookie

* (cur) (last). . 19:25, 17 Dec 2003. . DavidLevinson (wikify, toll house) * (cur) (last). . 18:46, 17 Dec 2003. . 18.24.0.120 (Spelling.) * (cur) (last). . 11:28, 14 Dec 2003. . The Grimm Ripper (moved recipies to Wikibooks cookbook and added link to the new recipe page on Wikibooks ) * (cur) (last). . M 13:32, 11 Dec 2003. . Branddobbe (AKA) * (cur) (last). . 20:39, 3 Dec 2003. . 18.24.0.120 ("Baking chocolate" was unnecessarily confusing. Say "bar chocolate" instead. Better phrasing invited.) * (cur) (last). . 19:33, 3 Dec 2003. . 18.24.0.120 (Add my version, which as a bonusis written and tested in "household metric". Improve phrasing somewhat.) * (cur) (last). . 13:44, 17 Nov 2003. . Rmhermen * (cur) (last). . 13:35, 17 Nov 2003. . 66.186.181.182 (Additional suggestion.) * (cur) (last). . M 10:09, 15 Nov 2003. . The Grimm Ripper (spelling) * (cur) (last). . 10:08, 15 Nov 2003. . The Grimm Ripper (adding alternative ingrediant suggestions) * (cur) (last). . 01:08, 7 Oct 2003. . Dgrant (changed nuts to walnuts. I know personally that walnuts work well...) * (cur) (last). . 01:07, 7 Oct 2003. . Dgrant (added term "chocalate chips" common in Canada, and where else?) * (cur) (last). . M 22:41, 21 Oct 2002. . The Cunctator * (cur) (last). . 11:43, 27 Aug 2002. . Vicki Rosenzweig (s/set/preheat; still working on the nut phrasing) * (cur) (last). . 11:36, 27 Aug 2002. . Maveric149 (restore -- please use the move feature instead) * (cur) (last). . 11:34, 27 Aug 2002. . Ortolan88 (redirect to Toll House cookie) * (cur) (last). . 11:23, 27 Aug 2002. . Vicki Rosenzweig (removed author's signature, and plugs for vanilla extract sources; elaborated on the note about nuts) * (cur) (last). . 10:42, 27 Aug 2002. . Bernfarr * (cur) (last). . 10:38, 27 Aug 2002. . Ortolan88 (tell story of invention in more detail) * (cur) (last). . 10:30, 27 Aug 2002. . Bernfarr * (cur) (last). . 10:22, 27 Aug 2002. . 208.41.163.124

Discussion copied from en:Talk:Toll House cookie

It might be a good idea to remove the trademarks from this article.

 * I didn't write the article, just added the first paragraph, but those are all quality ingredients for a more intense recipe and might be justified on that ground.  I don't think the person who wrote the recipe should sign it though. It certainly isn't original.    Ortolan88

Well, the change to using a mixture of fats is not normal. Doubling the vanilla extract is mentioned in other recipes I've found. In any event, the changes are insignificant but are delicious. BernFarr

Actually, didn't Nestle license the name Toll House cookies from the restaurant? I know Nestle invented the chocolate chip just for the recipe. That would justify keeping their name in there. ~

The phrase 'Toll House Cookie' is trademarked to Nestle, I checked after someone pointed it out. BernFarr

Copyrighted material from http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/f4092.htm

Peanut And Tree Nut Allergy Affects Three Million Americans MILWAUKEE, WI -- April 12, 1999 -- Researchers from New York, Virginia and Arkansas report in this month?s issue of the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology that peanut and/or tree nut (such as walnut, almond and cashew) allergy affects about three million Americans or 1.1 percent of the population. The prevalence of this allergy in the general population was unknown until now ... End of copied discussion. Gentgeen 11:02, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Cooking Time
Hello, I just made a batch of cookies following this recipe, and they were far underdone. Did anyone else find that the suggested 10-12 minutes wasn't long enough? I might suggest 15-17 instead.

At 375 deg F, I find that my cookies bake in 8-11 minutes depending on altitude and the evenness of the oven. You might be using too much dough per cookie? Or your oven is underheated? Try getting an oven thermometer to see. Stevemidgley (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I got pretty good results at 350 deg F after 12 minutes, however my oven runs hot and I was aiming for chewy cookies. When I was baking at at another house, I had to put them in for 13-14 minutes. I think that maybe the time range should be split into two recommedations based on temperature, but I don't know enough to know if that would be an improvement. --AceDragonfly (discuss • contribs) 23:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Yield
After making this recipe myself a few times, I've noticed that my yield is around 35 cookies, rather than the noted 56. Has anyone else had this experience? I think it may be due to an inexact interpretation of 'rounded tablespoon' on my part, but it may be worth changing the estimated yield if everyone has gotten less than 56 cookies out of this. AceDragonfly (discuss • contribs) 23:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I recently came back and realized that my last note (above) was on the page for chocolate chip cookies in general, when my note is specifically about Cookbook:Chocolate Chip Cookies I. It looks like the notes for the recipes are all being put on this page, so I'm not going to remove my note, but I wanted to clarify which one I was talking about AceDragonfly (discuss • contribs) 16:42, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

title: Cookbook talk:Chocolate Chip Cookies


text:
House Construction

 * /Planning/
 * /Setting the Stage/
 * /Structural building/
 * /Commodities infrastructure/
 * /Exterior details/
 * /Interior details/
 * /Landscaping/

= See also =
 * Do-It-Yourself

= Externalities = External links
 * How Stuff Works: How House Construction Works
 * Hvactrainingtools.com

Books
 * Independent Builder: Designing & Building a House Your Own Way by Sam Clark, Real Goods Independent Living Books
 * Do-It-Yourself Housebuilding: The Complete Handbook by George Nash
 * IEE Wiring Regulations
 * UK Building Regulations, NBS for Department for Communities and Local Government, Crown Copyright 2008

title: House Construction


text:
User talk:Betsythedevine

Hello and welcome to Wikibooks!

Here are some tips to help you get started:
 * You can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~.
 * Remember to conduct any editing experiments in the sandbox.
 * Check out our help page if you need additional help.
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Templates can save your time
 * Remember to maintain a Neutral point of view.
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and have fun!

You will find more resources in Community Portal. If you want to ask a question, visit the Study help desk, the Staff lounge, or ask me personally on my talk page.

Good luck! -- LV (Dark Mark) 15:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Betsythedevine


text:
User:Izehar~enwikibooks

"I am an administrator on the English Wikipedia. You can find out more about me at my userpage there."

title: User:Izehar~enwikibooks


text:
User talk:Izehar~enwikibooks

"I don't check this page for messages often, so if you need to contact me, please leave a message on my talk page on the English Wikipedia. Thanks."

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Izehar. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Izehar~enwikibooks that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 05:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Izehar~enwikibooks


text:
Talk:Digital Music Composition

I would like to see this topic grow. I am not very gr8 at this but music is what interest me. (Yndesai (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC))

--- I'd like to see this book developed, just because I want to learn more about this! Is anyone still working on this project?

I'd be glad to contribute what I can, since I know a bit about the subject. GutturalJeffo (talk) 08:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Digital Music Composition


text:
Georgia Water/Regional Plans/Contributors' Recommendations

Contributors' Recommendations

Activities to be included in the Regional Plans

 * Hiking Trails (see:  American Hiking Society's | Southern Appalachian Initiative)
 * Greenspace Plan (Example:  Etowah Regional Greenspace Plan)
 * Southeastern US Ecological Framework, to identify ecologically significant areas.
 * Aquatic Species Habitat Conservation Plan
 * Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Implementation Plan
 * Alternative Watershed Build-Out Analysis for the Upper Etowah Watershed
 * Stormwater Management Plan
 * SCORP - State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan
 * Clean Water Act - Section 303e Basin Plan for Water Quality Management


text:
Talk:Linux Guide/Using the shell

Is this backwards
Copy img to floppy:

dd bs=2x80x18b if=/dev/fd0 of=/tmp/floppy.img

The way I'm reading it is that its reading the floppy and creating an image of the floppy. The description should read copying floppy to an img?

Randolph (discuss • contribs) 03:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Indeed it is. That command is copying the contents of the floppy drive to an .iso, where the description says the opposite. If people get the idea that this is how the command works, they will almost certainly end up inadvertently wiping their hard drive. dd is a very dangerous command to get wrong. 174.28.41.236 (discuss) 20:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I was looking at the vi commands. How much should really be put here and at what point of detail should we redirect the reader to http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Learning_vi:vi_Reference

Maybe we should include more detailed explanation to VI which should include. (This is not a exhaustive list but a pointer to what could be included.) What is is VI? Other editor avaible to edit a file in Linux. Why use VI? Navigating thru VI. Most common file opeartion like cut, copy, paste, undo. It's mode and commands; to save, quit without saving, quit.., Commands to search, modify a file in VI.

The article; Linux Guide/Using the shell doesn't specify if it is a basic or a comprehensive guide to Linux shell, it worth adding a link to VI artice on that page.

Job Control
I think job control is a very important part of the terminal. It comes in handy if you know how to use it. It's also a very fundamental part of the terminal. Therefore I think it should be included. I do not know how a procedure like this would go and if it is legitimate, but if it is agreed that job control should be included on this page, is it allowed to copy-paste bits of an already excellent article on Job Control? --Evolutionist79 (discuss • contribs) 13:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Discuss Merging Linux Guide/Using the shell with Linux/Command Line Interface
It has been suggested that these two pages merge. I support the suggestion. Both pages go through a list of commands and discuss command syntax.

Using the Shell / Command Line Interface could become a truly HUGE discussion. I suggest the effort be put into partitioning it into linked but manageable chunks. A short (few screens) section introducing command syntax and listing common commands could be one section.

From there, one branches into

 * Advantages of the command line
 * Command line syntax
 * Example command usage
 * Command line tools: (vi is one, and somehow is already on this discussion page).
 * Shell Scripting: (Itself a huge topic, related to the command line, but separate from it).
 * Remote shells:
 * Installation from the command line:

pcardout 01:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ... This list goes on

Yes, I agree. It is easier to keep one page updated than two; plus it is duplicated information

phillwuk 16th June 2012

This merge is warranted. I support it. 174.28.41.236 (discuss) 20:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It's 13 months since the last discussion on this point and there seems to be unanimous consensus. Has any work on the merge been done? 174.91.167.167 (discuss) 21:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Linux Guide/Using the shell


text:
User:Yorktown1776~enwikibooks

Hello! Guten Tag! Bonjour! Buenos Dias!

I have been working at Wikipedia for several months now and have decided to sign up at Wikibooks. Iam currently working on the UN Wikibook and will be quite busy. If you want to leave me a message post it at my talk page. Thanks!

User:Yorktown1776/top

User:Yorktown1776/bottom

Mario: Hi

Luigi: Ciao

Bob; Cheese!

 * }

Template:ItalianConversation

title: User:Yorktown1776~enwikibooks


text:
Openbravo POS/Developer guide

Contents

 * Database - Miscellaneous Details
 * /Database Diagram/
 * /Database Diagram XML Source/
 * SQL Queries -Contribute your SQL query here...

How to compile the stable version

 * 1) Download the most recent stable and source packages
 * 2) Download javacomm
 * 3) Uncompress the sources on a folder. From the binary distribution you only need the jars in /lib
 * 4) On Netbeans 5.5 create a new Java Application, uncheck the "create main class" option and give it a name
 * 5) Go to the project's properties.
 * 6) On sources add the 4 source folders (srcbeans, srcpos, srcerp, srcdata)
 * 7) On libraries add all the jars contained on the binary distribution plus javacomm with Add JAR/Folder
 * 8) On run set the main class to net.adrianromero.tpv.forms.JFrmTPV
 * 9) Build and compile

title: Openbravo POS/Developer guide


text:
User talk:82.160.128.92

Thanks for experimenting with Wikibooks. Your test worked, and has now been removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing material in modules will normally be removed quickly. Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our project. Thanks. -- LV (Dark Mark) 20:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:82.160.128.92


text:
Talk:C Sharp Programming/Foreword

The following paragraph was on the Forward page: "C# was originally designed to be the Microsoft's variant of Java and was originally named 'COOL', that however, was changed to C# later down the development process." The original name of the language is definitely interesting. I hadn't heard that it was originally called "COOL", so I thought it would be great to see a citing for that tidbit. "Cool" is such a common word in C# articles, though, that I couldn't locate a reference for that fact. I'm sure, too, that MS created C# to rival Java, but some people (MS marketing, for example), may disagree.

In any event, the Wikipedia C Sharp article seems the best place for that information, especially since it already has a section on the language name. If somebody can confirm the accuracy of that language name evolution, it would be great if he or she could move that paragraph to the Wikipedia C Sharp article and cite a source. Until then, I think it's best to remove the unconfirmed paragraph from this article. Rodasmith 20:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Authors
I'm new here so I don't know the protocol regarding an "Authors" section. Is such a section appropriate for a WikiBook? Rodasmith 21:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

--Reply |"Cool" Article Here is mentioned that it was originally codenamed to be "Cool", and sure we can cut out the "rival Java part". --Eray 13:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

--Reply I've removed the Authors part and added the History part containing links to references citing that the codename indeed was "Cool", and the ECMA submission date.--Eray 13:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

 * That "Cool" info in your History section is great, Eray. It would also be good copied into the "Language name" section of Wikipedia's C# article. Rodasmith 22:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:C Sharp Programming/Foreword