User talk:Meg
Correcting Little Things
Sometimes I see a letter missing or something like that, is this okay for you, if I correct such things?
- That is indeed a good thing for people to do :) when writing large articles, it is inevitable that spelling mistakes are made --Joe ST (talk) 07:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Your general awesomeness
Hey Meg, I just wanted to let you know your edits are really good, and I'm glad you're here editing :D As such, on the main 17th Shard forums, I gave you a Coppermind award! Seriously, thank you for all that you're doing. -- Chaos2651 (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed, your help has been excellent over the past month or so, thank you :D --Joe ST (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
twok or sa1
@Joe: I'm prone of using twok in my references but I saw (extreme-idling on the wiki because the forum seems down) that you changed twok in sa1. So I see that both of them don't really work on the same page now my question: should I better use sa1 than twok? Don't want you to be forced to edit all my references :P. --Meg (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Unless I'm mistaken, either or should be fine, every editor has his or her preference. Like I like using "tfe" instead of "mistborn 1" for example.
- Also, on a side note, the transcription is done! I'll send you the link when the site's back up, or when I have time to make it to chat
- --Windrunner (talk)
- Hey Meg. You may have noticed that when you have two refs to chapter 7 (say), but each has a different book identifier (sa1/twok, mb1/tfe, e/elantris, etc) they get shown as two different references. I just had an idea how to fix this... XD but I prefer sa1/mb1/etc as they may lead to less ambiguity in the future; in cases where we have books with similar initialisms, we might as well use the series as the id. That's the reasoning behind 'sa1', and its my preference only. I do usually go through and convert them if I spot them, because I'm strange :D and I enjoy editing :P --Joe ST (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- EDIT: done, mix and match as you like :)
I know! :P
Hey, I knew it was the epilogue :P I just wasn't sure how to cite the Endnote. -- Chaos2651 (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- *adds a section to
{{c}}for 'endnote'
You see, it took me nearly half an hour to 'create' this endnote reference ... :P (Nonetheless thanks for the new "c" section :)) Meg (talk) 07:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Dashes
I back-changed my dashes :). I did use them because they are used in English books. So I searched one and c&p'd it into my texts :). But I will not do this again; "--" is quite easier. And I hoped I didn't use a dash <–> but an em dash em dash <—> (the difference is nearly not visible, the em dash is a bit longer :/). Meg (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Em dashes are fine if you'd like; I wouldn't worry about that much at all :) -- Chaos2651 (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Whitespace
Would you like more whitespace between paragraphs? Does anyone else have any opinions? It doesn't need to be a full lines worth --Joe ST (talk) 10:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- Whitespace -> yes. For more clarity and more readability (for myopic or other not good seeing people), especially when the footnote numbers ([1]) are in the text (because they stretch the gap between the lines). That's a thing of all wikis, that the paragraphs "change" their style from single line spacing to a bigger spacing when notes are made.
- What means the third sentence? Sorry, I don't understand. :( Meg (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Ahh ok, I can see that that might be a problem. And I meant that if I do change it, it wont have to be as big as two lines. --Joe ST (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. But my issue is that the gaps between such a "new line" and text with notes is exact the same. So it doesn't really contrast with the text itself. But please don't bother with my special preferences about this. :) Meg (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I know I increased the line spacing once, but it could be a bit more if you want. Not MUCH more, but just a little bit. I think it's all right now. Two lines is too much. I don't really understand the issue with footnotes at the moment. -- Chaos2651 (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)