User talk:Little-quiqueg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Leipheim

You asked for a check on Leipheim. I had a quick look and I didn't find anything wrong even the date of the first flight of the Me262 is correct. The only thing I'd whinge about is the dot on the map. It points to Ulm but I know it's the same in the German article. Anyway, why don't you have a go and expand this article by translating the rest from the German article? Cheers Ekki01 17:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

All right! Thanks a lot! I'll probably rewrite the article. I don't find the German one very good. It mostly goes on about which sports clubs there are and which party affiliation the city council has. I don't think a lot of international people will find that interesting. I have some info that I can use for a new article. About the map, I'll set my brother on the task. I'm sure he can give me better coordinates (I know nothing about this sort of thing!). Little-quiqueg 18:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I do agree. The German one is a bit meagre. So if you've got other information, do go ahead and rewrite/expand the English article (and if you feel like it the German one as well). I would like to help but I know next to nothing about Leipheim except that quite often people confuse it with Laupheim, where I'm from. Ekki01 18:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Preview

Thanks for pointing that out.

As a newspaper journalist, I have a tendency to look at the finished article and then tweak or 'renose' it - that's possible in print. But, there it doesn't leave an audit trail a mile long. Now you've drawn that to my attention, I'll do my utmost to tweak (etc) as little as possible.

I already use the preview function - but I've always found it much easier to read what I've mean to write rather what my hands have keyed in. I think most people find self-editing difficult. Usually, I write entries in Word first - to get a first look - before pasting it into the Wikipedia editor.

But obviously I need to write it, leave it and come back to it in Word before pasting. And I'll try to be a tad more self critical at Wikipedia editor preview time.

One example of how I've found I've had to an immediate re-edit is when the preview function doesn't give a true reflection of how, say, a picture will affect text - forcing, for example, a line turn. I can't remember what entries or when, I've felt it necessary to re-edit - and resave - to ensure that an unexpected line turn doesn't interfere with readability. That's print experience again.

But there's one thing I've discovered no way of previewing is references. I've found that it's only too easy to have second thoughts about a ref, for instance, if and where a line turns - and then have to re-edit - and resave - the section it applies to. Could you help with that please?

Academe 11:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean. It is rather tempting to tweak, but sometimes you just have to resist. And it's not like people are going to tear your head off if you do find something you'd like to improve once you've submitted. But 20 edits of commas and hyphens changed make the history confusing. Personally, I always make a list of minor edits I want to do on an article and get back to it next time I add something of substance.

As for Wiki's inability to show references properly, I know what you mean! And I don't think there is a way to make this work! Quite possibly there is a tool that helps you, but I would assume the reason for it to not show up is that it's a wiki-specific code that generates the references on the fly and that isn't covered in the preview.

Only way to avoid it is to use the template, I would assume. If you look at other references made by experienced Wikipedians you will notice that they usually always use the same template. I copy those and simply fill in my info: the URL, the title, publication date, writer's first and last name... etc. If you're careful with that and make sure not to delete any necessary signs there really isn't a lot that can go wrong. Those mistakes you'll most likely see in the preview already when the text shows up mangled.

Little-quiqueg 18:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)