Tolkien Gateway

User talk:Amroth/2010

(Difference between revisions)
m (A couple more pointers: typpo)
m (An Eagle has picked up User:Amroth/2010 and carried it to User talk:Amroth/2010: surely what you meant.)

Revision as of 16:43, 3 April 2011

Archive.png
Archives
Archive.png
Welcome to Amroth's talk page archive.
Nuvola apps edu languages.png
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Tolkien Gateway. I hope you like the place and choose to join our work. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and we look forward to your future edits. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the Council forums or ask me on my talk page. Keep up the great work!

Some quick notes on the games

  • You can link to wikipedia easier by typing [[wikipedia:Macintosh|Macintosh]]. It looks cleaner in the article.
  • Please name image categories "Images from {Game's full title}"
  • And watch your English. Drop the "did"'s.

Otherwise, good job! Feel free to ask me anything you need. -- Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 15:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, didn't know you could do it so easy with wikipedia. My English Writing/Spelling is only not that good.--Amroth 15:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Nog wat korte notes: "in with" --> "in which" en "serie" --> "series" (enkelvoud en meervoud). -- Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 15:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, zulke dingen vergeet ik altijd (ook in het Nederlands). Maar ik zal er proberen op te letten--Amroth 14:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Series

Hi Amroth, I keep coming across "serie"; just to let you know - and I admit this is a bit unusual, but - in English the singular and plural is "series". Otherwise, keep up the good work! --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 22:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, didn't know that. --Amroth 10:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Getting out of hand

While Tolkien-related games are certainly in the scope of this wiki, I would say that poor quality amateur ones that probably have never been played by more than a dozen people is pushing it. Now not only are you adding them, you are adding poor quality amateur games that were never finished, and even the the people who didn't finish making poor quality amateur games that were never finished. I see no reason why you should completely duplicate Tolkien Games here, and several reasons why you shouldn't:

  • All the information, to the extent that it can ever conceivably be required, is already at Tolkien Games, and in a format much better suited to it.
    • Therefore it's extremely unlikely anyone will ever come here wanting to know who Matt Craighead is. And if they did, they wouldn't be any the wiser after seeing our article.
  • It's not very fair to the person who maintains that page - he has not, AFAIK, given us permission to use his work and you aren't even adding backlinks on the articles you create.
  • The articles you are creating are quite poor quality: they are stubby, not categorised and other editors are very unlikely to go back and fix your mistakes on them. This arguably reduces the average quality of Tolkien Gateway as a whole.

I'm not fan of the deletionists over at Wikipedia, but really, this is getting absurd. —Aulë the Smith (Tk·Cb) 13:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

They're Tolkien related, but I can see your point. I was already planning to expand (where possible) and reference them. BTW Tolkien Games isn't the only source I use, I also use Giantbomb too. --Amroth 15:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
My suggestion would be to consolidate articles that are likely remain stubby into lists, and to make more use of external links to TolkienGames and Giantbomb. (P.S. reading my message back it sounded a lot more harsh than I intended, sorry about that) —Aulë the Smith (Tk·Cb) 15:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
So like this? So yes, I agree with it to make lists for game like The Shire.
I'll look in it after dinner --Amroth 16:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Couple of stylistic pointers

Hi Amroth! I've been editing some of your game-related articles this morning and I have a couple of pointers on some stylistic errors you continue to make:

  1. Try not to get "with" confused with "which", "that", or "whom": with means "happened together", "whom" relates to a person, and on which/that see this (at the bottom of the page);
  2. If it's a title of game or book, italicise it so it is clear to the reader;
  3. When it comes to lists (e.g. categories or platforms), please alphabetise (unless you know the specific release dates of the games, then listing them in release date order is probably better);
  4. When it comes to referencing, in English we tend to put the reference after the punctuation mark,[1] and not like this[2].
  1. After
  2. Not before

If you're ever struggling to write a sentence in English, perhaps try running it through Google Translate (it's very good in my experience), or send me a quick message on my talk page or in TG's IRC (I'm usually there)!

You're definitely improving, so keep it up! --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 12:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record putting footnotes before or after punctuation is an arbitrary stylistic choice, not something that's standard "in English". After is more common, and ubiquitous on TG, but some style guides say before (e.g. Nature's). IMO it's really not important as long as there is consistency within an article. —Aulë the Smith (Tk·Cb) 15:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I was taught at secondary school, college and university that footnotes should be placed after punctuation marks because otherwise it looks a mess and you shouldn't be including the reference within the clause you are referencing. I have never encountered anyone recommending otherwise. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 16:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I just linked to someone that does otherwise: the world's most prestigious scientific journal. Most scientific journals prefer that way, in fact, probably because their footnotes usually standard for Harvard-style inline citations with a separate bibliography section. I really don't care either way, but you can't deny that both styles are widely accepted (regardless of what your teachers told you). —Aulë the Smith (Tk·Cb) 17:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I didn't deny it: I said "we tend". Until you sent me that link, I had never come across anyone who said otherwise: my background is in social sciences and they always go after punctuation marks there. Please stop being nitpicky on someone's else's talkpage - take it up on mine if it bothers you. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 17:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
If Amroth is looking to improve his English I thought he might want to do so on accurate advice, that's all. If you are worried about cluttering up his talk page I suggest you stop posting replies that amount to "I didn't know that <because>" and let the matter lie. —Aulë the Smith (Tk·Cb) 19:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Meeting - Sunday 5th September

Hi, Amroth - I hope you've enjoyed your holiday! Just a quick message to inform you that we are holding our next Meeting on Sunday, 5th September 2010 at 7pm UTC. Whether you are or aren't able to attend, please sign your name on the here. Hope to see you on Sunday! --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 18:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

A couple more pointers

I have a couple more pointers for you:

  1. If an article is useless, rather than blanking the page, add "{{delete}}" and then the article will be flagged for deletion and then Ederchil or I know to delete it;/
  2. When using infoboxes, do copy the codes from the template pages (such as Hobbit or Men infoboxes), so the correct fields are inserted in the article. For instance I've noticed you put, for example, "race=hobbit" but that doesn't actually do it anything as there's no race field. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 18:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thanks, for the explanation --Amroth

Some more points

  • There's a difference between "it's" and "its". "it's" is short for "it is", like "he's" or "she's". "Its" is a possessive of "it" - like "his" or "her".
  • Also, there's a difference between "to teach" and "to learn"; they're different aspects of leren.
"To teach" betekent lesgeven; het doorgeven van kennis naar de persoon toe.
"To learn" betekent het aanleren, dus het verkrijgen van kennis.
Dus: to teach = leraar, to learn = leerling. Hoop dat dat helpt. -- Ederchil (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 14:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Oké. Ik dacht altijd dat "teach" and "learn" synoniemen waren. Bedankt voor de tip. --Amroth

Meeting - Sunday 3rd October

Hi Amroth - do you reckon you'll be available for tomorrow's meeting? It would be good to see you there! --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 20:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)