Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Architecture articles by quality/16 and User talk:It wasn't me: Difference between pages

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:09, 12 October 2008

Welcome!

Hello, It wasn't me, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! --Ekki01 (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celle Air Base

Hello Ekki01,
I just observed you're fixing my translation of Celle Air Base.
At the moment I'm translating the article bit by bit from my German one. As it's more or less a word by word, at least a sentence by sentence translation it might sound very rough in English language (as an air traffic controller I'm used to English - but mainly the well knows phrases and less the grammar and wording in anzyclopadic use. SO I thank you very much for your "service" and want to encourage you to continue with the work once i've finished a new part - not that I want to abuse you, but my English really isn't that fluent as it should be (or I wish it to be). Thanks very much! --It wasn't me (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be a good idea to put newly translated parts first here or alternatively on the discussion page of Celle Air Base so it's possible for people to have a look at it before putting it directly into main space, otherwise you might get funny reactions and very sarcastic comments from native speakers. Another possibility is, of course, to create a sub-page to your accont where you put the translated parts for a check. Then they are more or less off-limits for uninvited eyes. Cheers, --Ekki01 (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely a good idea. I'll create a page User:It wasn't me/Celle Air Base and write the parts in there first. Thanks for the hint. --It wasn't me (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. But I won't have much time left to have a look at it tonight. Sorry. However, morgen ist auch noch ein Tag. BTW, have you thought of joining the Wikiproject Germany on the English Wikiepedia? Ciao, --Ekki01 (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NP regarding the time. I will first translate the article, than have a look over myself. During translation I surely will sound "Germanish". Later after a break and a coffee I can eliminate this partly - of course a second or even third pair of eyes is welcome anytime. And regarding the project - possibly I'll join in that some day. First I want to increase the quality of some German articles in the German Wikipedia I'm concerned with. Thereafter I surely have the time for changing over to the English (International) version of the encyclopedia. We keep in contact. --It wasn't me (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assolutamente, as we say in Italy. I'll keep an eye on your sub-page and we'll take it from there. Guads Nächtle. --Ekki01 (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arriverderci (oder so ähnlich) & and many thanks! --It wasn't me (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've copy-edited the "prehistory" and the "Wehrmacht" bit. Have a read through, please. I will carry on with the rest tomorrow. Perhaps you could start putting in the references. Don't worry that they are in German. If they are not available in English, always use the original. Grüße, --Ekki01 (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work, Ekki01! Today I spent my time in improving the "original" (meaning the German) version and there especially the history part of the Bundeswehr. As during last nights I didn't sleep as much as I would have liked to there won't be a progress today. Hopefully I'll be able to carry on my work tomorrow. --It wasn't me (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under User:It wasn't me/Former Units and Aircraft of Celle Air Base you find the translated lift of former units and a/c. If time allows please have a look over that as well. Thanks! --It wasn't me (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Take your time. Always rememeber Gut' Ding will Weile haben! I have finished editing the bits you've added. Have a look at it. One more thing: the link to the list of former units you placed at the top, I'd rather add to the "See also" section at the end of the article once we've finished. I shall also glance over the list first. Tot ziens, --Ekki01 (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hard day today. I did the translation of the entire article including all references by now. I even had a first view over it to eliminate the worst errors. Now I'm gonna have a break. Maybe you'll have the time to give the text a look-through? I intend to bring it "online" very soon.

I did a bit more proofreading, not as much as I intended, but still, better than nothing. I'll do some more later. I do have a few remarks however. I noticed that you separated the reference (inline quotations) into different sub-headings. Is that necessary? I cannot recall an article on the English wikipedia where that is done and I personally think that it is better for the reader to have just one section named references or something similar as it makes it easier to find a particular reference if one wishes to do so. Secondly, I think it might be a good idea to use a template for the references itself. There are several available atWikipedia:Citation templates. In my opinion and experience to use such a template makes referencing a lot easier with the additional advantage of standardising the way of referencing. One last thing, I still think that the list with the former units should be in a "See also" section and not in the running text as it is interrupts the flow of reading without actually enhancing the content with respect to information. And finally, I do hope that you mean with "very soon" when it's good and ready. In Dutch there is a good proverb: "Hardlopers zijn doodlopers!" Grüße, --Ekki01 (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I can't read (and understand) Dutch I won't "release" this article until you think it's worth it. On the other hand the article – even should it contain some errors in spelling – is way more informative than the present one. So don't want to wait too long. Additionally some personal reasons might lead me into a constant lack of time any hour lasting for days and weeks. So I used to make pressure on myself to get the translation done.

Regarding the references, well, I personally like the style I've choosen. But I understand that it isn't compatible to a wide mass. Well. At least it's giving a better overview (especially in regard to the articles of the Cellesche Zeitung) than just have them in the order they appear in the text. That applet you named I don't know as I didn't use such things (beside HotCat) in Wikipedia. But I'll have a look at it. Thanks for all the help and the hints! --It wasn't me (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the Dutch: it means something like "those who run fast, die first" (a very free translation). Yet, I can understand and fully comprehend that one wants to see the fruition of one's work as quickly as possible. I do agree that the article, once everything is done will be a lot more informative than the one I wrote (and originally copied from the German one originating in the days of yore). I am only saying that it will take some time. And regarding your personal reasons for haste, I know what you mean, we are all volunteers and do everything in our spare time. And, after all, there is a real life.

I wasn't critisising your way of referencing. I was merely implying that "usually", at least what I have come across in the English wikipedia, the references are put in order of appearance, regardless as to whether they may be repetetive, and not sorted by source material. The sources have to be mentioned in the appropriate section anyway.

And now to the citation templates. If you like, I can have a go at it and standardise the inline citations once they have all been inserted. Gruß,

I appreciate any work on the article you're offering. Especially as I'm not so used to the English Wikipedia (and it really differs from the German one in many belongings...). Presently I have no idea how the appearance would look like after implementing you citation templates. Maybe you can link me an article which has well standardised references so I can have a look at it? On the other hand, well, a bit arrogant maybe, I'm a bit proud of the referencing system I used as it differs from the usual articles I know (the standard I write an article and I want a "lesenswert" for it as fast as possible - articles of which I met various ones day by day in the German Wikipedia) so I use to stick to it a little bit... (but finally I would give way for standardisation of course). My main focus presently lays on the text itself as to make it worth reading for a native speaker even... And you're a great help with that, really! Even your first translation of one of my early German versions was outstanding (and way better than everything I would have been able to create). --It wasn't me (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Btw: The linking of the former units article inside the article was a product of German Review! Some people kept complaining that I should write down which aircraft which unit and so on I ment when writing the flying school teached on bigger and bigger planes, the Bundeswehr stationned several units and so on. I kept on telling that there exists an article dealing with exact these information which is linked one below the headline "Geschichte"... The kept on complaining.... So I integrated the link into the article itself... Maybe it's a good idea to let it inside. But maybe the English speaking readers are more, hm, well, not "intelligent" but, ehm, more, hm, on the watch (?) for such hints... You get what I mean I think... :) --It wasn't me (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The English wikipedia is quite different from the German wikipedia. Usually, people here are a lot more forgiving and work according the principle of "assume good faith," something which is every so often lacking on the German wikipedia. Generally, the tone is a lot friendlier. Also, here you don't have the very stringent relevance criteria as in the German one, so you don't have endless discussions about relevance (or not) as on the German one. However, unlike the German one, once you get onto controversial topics (i.e. is it Gdansk or Danzig) you get into all sort of problems and quite a lot of POV pushing by nationalists or other people personally involved in any kind. In that respect it's a bit like the German one, the only difference being, is that you are arguing worldwide. But still, it's a lot nicer place (in my opinion) than the German one: more tolerant. I remember when I did the original version (German) of Heersflugplatz Laupheim which I translated from my English version I received a SLA within 5 minutes. That's something which is nigh impossible on the English wikipedia and I have written, or contributed to, quite a few articles on obscure topics in the English wikipedia.

Anyway, there is no problem if you want to keep to your style of referencing. We shall see how it will be received once it's been put into the mainspace. And, of course, you're right, the main focus should be on the text. And there will be loads of people to correct, improve and critisise the version we will eventually put up for review. I would go for the Wikiproject Germany first for initial assessment and then for the other projects. But that's "Zukunftsmusik" anyway.

What I would propose with regards to the citation templates is, that I insert a couple of them and then you let me know what you think of them.

Oh, I am not too bothered about the link in the text concerning the former units. It's just that I think that this kind of additional information should be added at the end, especially since the history section covers a large area of time and is only of interest to the specialist but not to the general reader. But, I agree, it is a point of view and therefore a poijt of contention. Gruß, --Ekki01 (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To come back to the citations: I suggest you change the two book-references in the text into such a citation (reference number 6 and 11). So I exactly know where I've to look to and so I'll see what you ment. --It wasn't me (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I have done reference number 6 but it still needs the exact page reference. Have a look. I am off-line from now on. The RL beckons. But will check tomorrow. Gruß, --Ekki01 (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, honestly, it's ok. Although I can't see a remarkable benefit from it but additional work. With the next book I'd have a bigger problem (the book about the fire). The first mentioned book I bought in advance before I wrote the (German) article and I've got it in my shelf. The other book I personally haven't got available. I just read it in the cities archiv. So I can't tell a page number for the time being. And reagarding its content, I don't think it will be possible to picture out a certain page. More or less the entire book is a reference.
Because of the work you've had we should leave the reference number 6 now as it is, but I don't think it's worth the time to change all the references now. Maybe some time later after the article was published and got first feedbacks and so on. What's your opinion? I don't want to let you down or even embarras you with my remark - I hope you understand. --It wasn't me (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a bit more proofreading. I noticed under the location map some text that shouldn't be there, I suppose. Any idea how to remove it?

Regarding the referencing. I am not that bothered. I know it's tedious work and as far as I know the use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged. So it comes down to personal preference and we'd better leave it as it is now. Ekki01 (talk) 11:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got that text issue under the map fixed. I was wondering myself for days but didn't work on it so far. I just forgot a certain (obviously important) line. Thank you again for your time and work! --It wasn't me (talk) 12:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am thinking ahead but the section titled "additional information" has to be sorted according to the style guidelines (have a look here: Wikipedia:Layout). This means that the text of the article is followed by a section called "See also", then "Notes" (citations, i.e. footnotes), then a section called "Further reading" containing the literature and finally "External links", often called weblinks. No hurry as yet but something to keep in mind. And now back to the football. --Ekki01 (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the hint. Another difference compared with the Geman version... :) I restructured the relevant parts accordingly. --It wasn't me (talk) 07:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R.A.F. <=> RAF. In English the are no dots or full stops in abbreviations like RAF. When I lived in the UK the closest Royal Air Force base nearby was always written as RAF Finningley. See also here. Gruß, --Ekki01 (talk) 09:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at this website [1]. In around the middle of the article you'll find some photogrpahs of the base during the RAF times including a huge sign saying "R.A.F. Station Celle". As the sign for sure was set up by the British forces I took the dots in the R.A.F. from that. So I'm a bit of "between the chairs" regarding this. I personally believe the historical correct name was R.A.F. Station Celle (including the dots) but nowadays it is written RAF Celle. So the British forces changed the spelling some time inbetween I guess. --It wasn't me (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have noticed. But that was written in Germany and in German you use dots more often than in English (see D.L.V.). So you are correct with regards to the Germanised usage of the abbreviation. However, I do not want to argue over such a minor, no to say minute, topic. Once the article has been put into mainspace we shall see. Gruß, Ekki01 (talk) 09:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the point. Ok. I think I'll change that again and back to RAF. Regarding the D.L.V. I intend to let the points remain there. It had been the official abbreviation and therefore should be used in the article. --It wasn't me (talk) 10:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]