Talk:Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter

Project Standards
Project Standards have now moved to the new Project Standards page. Chazz (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Category
The annotated texts category was removed in February, so this book is now effectively in no category other than utility categories. Looking through RFDs in the past applied to it, it was referred to as an annotated text. The literature category is a higher level one but is for books referring to literature in general. So I am noting that the only major category this book belongs to now is "featured books" (other than the LOC/DDC/Alphabetical hidden ones). Maybe that's acceptable to the contributors but it may lead to lower visibility. -- Adrignola talk contribs 13:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand the concern, and don't quite know how to proceed. The intent of this book is actually more aimed at the Literature category, as we are longterm interested in the how and why, rather than merely the what, of Harry Potter; but I don't know how we can get there. Frankly, my concern from the beginning has been that as an annotated text we were likely to become no more than a Potter encyclopedia, which while possibly useful to the reader, is certainly not useful as a textbook. I have been trying, in my poor way, to add literary material to the book, but as an engineer, my grasp of such is very basic. And despite all my work on this, if we can't get it to the stage of being a work on literature, my personal inclination would be to let it go. Chazz (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We've only one subcategory of literature, annotated texts, and that subcategory is getting pretty full. It may be worthwhile to create some subcategories of literature based on genre instead.  After all, we have subcategories of history divided by type and subcategories of computer software divided by type.  That will diffuse the books currently in annotated texts and also provide a place for Muggles' Guide. -- Adrignola talk contribs 00:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We are by definition not an annotated text since that requires inclusion of the book texts which is a copyright violation and also isn't really necessary. I like the idea of literature sub-categories though and think that's the correct place for our work. Also, "literary study guide" is a better name to me since it's meant to be used alongside the real works so that's another option if we don't like the literature section. It would be nice to see other study guides. -within focus 18:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

ToDo: HTML version of the book
Already known, HTML version has many benefits, not mention improved readability in e-readers (through epub). Besides pdf version seems to be highly outdated. Moreover in modern days, pdf as a book format is absurd when most people have smartphones. Besides in Windows 10 epub can be read (elegantly) natively through Edge browser. I need not to point out Linux users that they know dozens of ways to handle epubs. Moreover, we don't care much of Mac users who are rare in first place and highly unlikely to stumble on Wikibooks since content is "free" here.
 * I'd argue that it's simpler to just hit up the web site for the HTML version, which also gives you the very latest, plus the occasional outside link where one is useful. I don't think we have an epub translation tool, and I will point out that Edge also reads PDF. Chazz (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, no well distributed e-reader supports nice viewing of web based book. I now question philosophy of Wikibooks.
 * As name suggests, it should offer books in abstract sense. My knowledge tells it is not much difficult to make a link which fetches all pages of a book in one go and presents in nice format. (similar to printable version)
 * Its now time to dump pdf for epub. Firstly, pdf is of no use. It is well read in larger screens (generally PC) which is rather pointless as you already state web version is better. Now it leaves people who own only PC without web access who somehow have acquired pdf. Now consider HTML version (easily converted to e-book formats), it is well read in any device with screen. It also not needs web access.
 * Now a bit abstract aspect, it is bit odd that we start using internet to read books, not to mention associated constraints. Well, as you see there are much better options available it is not normal to stick to legacy formats like pdf and constant web access. It will be lot better if we focus more on export methods than ways to keep user clinging to the site because books are meant be self contained. For references people can surely check on internet but most of user are not paranoid to relish references as they finish reading a sentence.
 * I repeat - as far as I know, we have no tool to make wiki into ePub. Did you want to write one?
 * Likewise, we have nothing like an "export to raw HTML" tool that I'm aware of. Did you want to write one of those?
 * Both of these issues affect not just WB, but all of Wikimedia. The PDF tool we use is written and maintained, if I recall correctly, on Meta. And your smartphone comment is spurious: normally, if you have a smartphone, you have web access through your cell provider. Chazz (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Cursed Child?
Why hasn’t this wikibook incorporated Harry Potter and the Cursed Child? Jtantley (discuss • contribs) 01:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Because Harry Potter and the Cursed Child is not work by J. K. Rowling. Please read the Project Standards for more information on this subject. Chazz (talk) 04:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Translations and edition informations
Hello, I am an Italian Potterhead and a great appreciator of the Muggles' Guide, I was wondering whether it could be possible to start a section for each book detailing edition History and translations in the various Languages of the World. --King Remils (discuss • contribs) 08:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC).

Harry Potter wordmark
Hello!

I was perusing Wikimedia Commons, and noticed that a wordmark for Harry Potter is available.



I'm unsure if it would be useful for this book, but figured I'd bring it up. --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 21:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)