Editing Talk:Shardhammer
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Why does every article seem to have the "This article is missing information" comment? --[[User:Voidbinder|Voidbinder]] ([[User talk:Voidbinder|talk]]) 18:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC) |
Why does every article seem to have the "This article is missing information" comment? --[[User:Voidbinder|Voidbinder]] ([[User talk:Voidbinder|talk]]) 18:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | :That notice appears on every page marked as a {{t|stub}}. Which is one of four article classifications (the others being {{t|complete}}, {{t|partial}}, and {{t|exemplary}}) that we admins use to keep track of quality on the Coppermind. If you believe an article to no longer be a stub please bring it to our attention and we'll look it over and update the tag.--[[User:WeiryWriter|WeiryWriter]] ([[User talk:WeiryWriter|talk]]) 18:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | ::Is it possible that an article can be a stub and still contain all the available information on it's subject? Then would it still be appropriate to have that comment? --[[User:Voidbinder|Voidbinder]] ([[User talk:Voidbinder|talk]]) 19:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | :If an article has all of the current relevant knowledge then it should get marked as {{t|complete}}.--[[User:WeiryWriter|WeiryWriter]] ([[User talk:WeiryWriter|talk]]) 19:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | :: The question then becomes, is Shardhammer complete enough to be marked as such? --[[User:Fbstj|Joe ST]] ([[User talk:Fbstj|talk]]) 19:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | :It's possible, I'll try and take a look at it this weekend. We also need to come up with formalized sections for weapons and things...--[[User:WeiryWriter|WeiryWriter]] ([[User talk:WeiryWriter|talk]]) 21:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | ::Surely more information will come to light with additional SA novels. I searched both books for "warhammer", "hammer" and "shardhammer" and I think I gleaned all the relevant information. A second set of eyes would be great though. It's important to note, as well, that it was never called a Shardhammer until the second book. --[[User:Voidbinder|Voidbinder]] ([[User talk:Voidbinder|talk]]) 03:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | :Chapters with mentions of hammers: |
||
| − | :;WoK: 6, 21, 27, 28, 40, 56, 65, 66, 69 |
||
| − | :;WoR: 4, 24, 26, 29, 30, 32, 49, 51, 56, 57, 60, 67, 68, 81, 86 |
||
| − | : --[[User:Fbstj|Joe ST]] ([[User talk:Fbstj|talk]]) 11:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | ::Not all hammers spoken of are shardhammers. Hammers are used by common soldiers to fight Parshendi. I'll search again, but my usual method is to search for the term in an ebook and read each instance. Thanks! --[[User:Voidbinder|Voidbinder]] ([[User talk:Voidbinder|talk]]) 06:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | :Is this complete/resolved? --[[User:Fbstj|Joe ST]] ([[User talk:Fbstj|talk]]) 12:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC) |
||