Thanks

Doing a great work on the C++ Programming book. --Panic (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I've been enjoying working on the book, it's a good way to refresh my memory of all the C++ stuff I've forgotten. Fishpi (talk) 09:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Since attribution is already given to Wikipedia on the book, if you see that some part of the content available there can be of use (remembering to focus it on C++) feel free to add it. If you detect a complete article that could be imported then one can request a traswiki. You can also link to wikipedia if the information is relevant and not already available on the book or on wikibooks. --Panic (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal of demotion

On the changes made on the C++ Programming/Type Casting see if you can also integrate promotion into the Numeric conversion heading (having removed demotion, we are left with a header only on promotion). A simple note explaining promotion versus demotion would suffice. --Panic (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll bear that in mind. I was already planning to do more work tidying that section up: I feel that what we have now is better in that it uses the terminology correctly, but it's not the right structure. I also noticed that conversions are mentioned separately elsewhere in the book. Maybe implicit conversions shouldn't be on the C++ Programming/Type Casting page at all. --Fishpi (talk) 07:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I've done a check and what you refer to seems to be C++ Programming/Variables#Type conversion, keeping the relevant information regarding basic types is important in the C++ Programming/Variables section. Since the type casting has so many different interconnects with other concepts.

The type casting page will probably need to be sub-sectioned like for instance C++ Programming/Programming Languages/C++/Code/Keywords/static (look into the page in edit mode), each concept is covered in a distinct section of the book, for instance, static data member is used on the page referring to classes and Internal Linkage on the page that explains the linker, for instance compare the full page about struct with what is displayed in C++ Programming/Variables#static.

If you take on the task try to keep concepts as separated as possible and in the right order, you can move the relevant content from C++ Programming/Variables#Type conversion as you do it (leave there a reference to that page for the reader benefit). --Panic (talk) 08:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The Memory Management page will probably end in a similar fashion a complete explanation of the subject (that will be referenced as needed) but each subsection will be used in a specific part of the book. --Panic (talk) 08:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

speedy deletion

A discussion is only required for objections. The acting admin will consider the content/edit history and requester, see if there are any objections to the deletion, if not it is deleted it there are he considers the arguments and can go ahead with the deletion or turn it into a RfD, request for deletion (in this case a Request for Keep), since the position of the admin will be in support of keeping the page/project. --Panic (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see that this was very recently marked for deletion, for some reason I thought that it had been open for months without being deleted. I don't know if I was thinking of another page that had been open for deletion for a long time, or whether I just got confused and there is no such problem at all. --Fishpi (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

web links

Be attentive to the removal of URLs. WEB links aren't shown on the print version of the book (at least consistently). --Panic (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point. But this seemed to be inconsistent: there are links to other Wikibooks pages (and Wikipedia pages) all over the place, and they mostly aren't literal URLs. Is there any reason why this one should be a special case? --Fishpi (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That was was of minor importance (hence I am not requesting you to revert it) but since I used part of that book content to create the C++ Programming, I felt morally obligated to go an extra step to also promote it. Most of the URls do serve a bigger function that the simple wikilinks. For instance in the WEB link sections they are important. --Panic (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

In any case without the link that section of text loses most relevance (it depends if the user did read the license I guess) outside of a WEB context. Even if you copy it electronically the will not work. --Panic (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we make it work better by using a footnote that's tagged up to only appear in the print version? Help:Print versions indicates that <includeonly> can be used for this, something like:, but that doesn't work (it's only for when it's being embedded in a template). Is there something that does what we want here? --Fishpi (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so since there aren't any pages. Footnotes would appear in the print version only after the end of the chapter or in a full print copy after all the content. --Panic (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. Lots of books put the footnotes at the end of a chapter or at the end of the book. --Fishpi (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes but URLs aren't footnotes. I personally don't like the footnotes in any other location that at the bottom of the page, making footnote meaningful. (That is the definition of a w:Footnote, can you be thinking of something else ?) --Panic (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Common practice for referring to URLs (and complex references like ISBNs and journal references) in printed books is to put them outside the main body of the text, referenced by a number. I admit I'm using the word 'footnote' loosely here ('endnote' is a more accurate term), but the fact is that putting the referenced material at the end of the chapter or at the end of the book is common practice. Sometimes the notes are put at the foot of the page; the decision seems to depend on house style rules, or on the volume of notes to be included. --Fishpi (talk) 01:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok we already have a web reference list, but since this is a wiki and there is no guarantee that the book is printed in a specific way, some URLs will have to be included on the relevant sections (if pages did exist, a footnote would be appropriate) in a wiki environment and as I said without any control on the way the content is extracted, removing the references in the particular locations they are relevant doesn't seem viable.

For instance in my other book here the practice is even more generalized (The World of Peer-to-Peer (P2P)). --Panic (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for explaining where you're coming from on this. I think this is a fairly minor issue, and we can both add more value to the book by working on something other than this argument. :-) Since you've been working on this longer than me, and have contributed far more to the book, I'm happy to let you do the references however you like, and revert my change if you want to. --Fishpi (talk) 01:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

In future maybe another approach can be viable (and I will try to keep them to a minimum), but to enable easy and broad use of the content I truly don't see an alternative. If you find one that is portable to all uses (WEB, electronic and print) I will have no objections to change it.

I don't recall the number o URLs in the book, but I know they are few. The section that can have more is chapter 5 (since it goes beyond the standard). It needs to reference other locations at times, but that chapter does still have much work to be done.

Thanks for understanding my position. One thing that you didn't explain was the reason why you think it should be different. I'm aware that the URLs sometimes break the auto-justification (I have rewritten sections of text to alleviate that effect) and if they are lengthy they look ugly. There can be solutions to that, special boxes, subscript, font changes, I'm open to alternatives but as you say there are more important things to do on the work. --Panic (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

commons pic

shows that your pic was deleted because it doesn't have a licence. I think you should go upload it again, with CC-BY-SA or maybe PD. Kayau ( talk | email | contribs ) 09:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. FWIW, I used the Wikimedia Commons utility that copies files from Wikipedia (the file is public domain on Wikipedia), and I assumed it would have copied the license details along with the picture. I'll give it another go when I get round to it. --Fishpi (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I took care of it and linked the image from the page it was used on. – Adrignola talk 13:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Fishpi (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Please participate

Hope you wouldn't mind participating on the "vote" to restore the CheckUser (CU) function (mostly used to fight vandalism) to the Wikibooks project, a minimum of 25 expressions of support is required to grant the flag to administrator Thenub314 (this will also enable admin Adrignola to get the function active again, since there is a minimum requirement of 2 active Wikibookians with the flag). In case you do agree to participate, your vote needs to be added to administrator Thenub314 request for permission. Thanks. --Panic (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Spotting vandalism

I was surprised that you marked the recent changes to World_History/The_Industrial_Revolution as "checked" without seeing that the replacement of sensible content by silly remarks should be treated as vandalism. Recent Runes (discuss • contribs) 21:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe what happened was that the page wasn't reviewed at all, and I marked it as reviewed based on the entire page, not on that user's contribution, though the way Wikibooks records this is as me approving the single change that was most recently made to the page. It was careless that I did it to a page that had bad content on it, I'm sorry that happened.

The way I usually look at it though, is that it's better to have a page reviewed so that each subsequent edit is an improvement, than to have it unreviewed and let anything at all happen to it. It's far easier to verify individual changes than it is to check the entire page out. So sometimes I approve previously unreviewed pages a little hastily and might miss things, but I still think this is better than having it unreviewed. --Fishpi (discuss • contribs) 21:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Revert in OpenGL tutorial 07

Hi,

I saw that you removed "EXPLANATIONS BELOW" in the in-progress OpenGL tutorial - there was no comment about that change, and I wasn't logged when I added that text myself (which may have confused you), so I clicked on "revert".

Unfortunately "revert" does not offer to add a comment about the revert, which sounds harsh, so I'm explaining it here: I added that warning because it is common for computer programmers to be afraid of maths, and the formula under that warning is pretty scary for the untrained minds, so I made it clear that it would be explained after the wikipedia quotation.

Cheers!

Beuc (discuss • contribs) 08:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I should have put a comment - sorry about that. I find that text in all caps looks unprofessional, and "explanations below" is a sentence fragment. Also, I think it's pretty common in books to give some math and then explain further below; it doesn't seem necessary to mention it. If you want to turn it into a full sentence and remove the all-caps I'd be happy leaving it in. Ultimately, you can go ahead and edit the page any way you like - I'm not a frequent contributor and this isn't an area of expertise for me, but that's my opinion. --Fishpi (discuss • contribs) 09:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed input. I rewrote it as "<emphasized>see below for explanations</emphasized>", which looks indeed better. Beuc (discuss • contribs) 18:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Saylor.org's C++ Programming

I noticed that you have made some contributions to the C++ Programming book. I am currently working with the Saylor Foundation to create a C++ textbook that we can host and use for our C++ course on our website (which we offer for free to anyone online). We would love you for you to check out Saylor.org's C++ Programming and give us some feedback or make some contributions! --Azin (discuss • contribs) 17:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Global account

Hi Fishpi! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, DerHexer (discuss • contribs) 18:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)