User talk:Chaos2651

New Category

It occurs to me that we have two goals on the Coppermind: to get new articles and to make old articles better. In improving articles, there is theoretically two end goals, either they are Complete or they are Exemplary. Many Stubs are, in some respects, the proto-version of Complete articles--short articles that just need some more info, and then we'll have all known information on the subject. It occurs to me that we need a category for articles that are Notable or important. That is, they are candidates to become Exemplary articles. Articles in this category should be very good, and superior to other wiki's offerings. Stubs give us a way to know what we need to work on, but I think a Notable category would allow editors to ensure we have very important articles to be awesome. What do you think?

Practically speaking, Notable articles would be many things in the series navboxes like main characters, magic systems, important places, lore, etc. Does this make sense what I'm getting at? What do you think? -- Chaos2651 (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I think this sounds smart. That way we can point people at this category so everyone knows what's crucial for the wiki to be most informative. There are invariably some articles that are more important then this. Although, I'm not one to be talking, considering all the useless little articles I usually end up making XD --Windrunner (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, will the Notable category contain the notable but Exemplary articles? --Joe ST (talk) 06:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I suppose in my brain I thought Exemplary will be a subset of Notable (which makes it kinda different from Stubs, in that respect.) I don't really know. But, fortunately, there are so few Exemplary articles that'd be easy to fix :P -- Chaos2651 (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

battle of the tower

I knew there should be a name for the battle but it wasn't coming to mind at the time. Thank you for your edit :D

The Kaladin's Judgement page.

Delete it if you like. I just did spend a lot of time and put quite a bit of effort into making it and was kinda proud of it, I understand it doesn't meet the needs or design of the site, but if you wouldn't mind helping me a bit. If you can find anywhere else to put the information, or a way to combine it with the Kaladin page so that I don't mess up stuff others have written and are proud of, I would highly greatly appreciate it. I am just so unfamiliar with so much on this or any other wiki, and I keep trying to get answers to what to do, and plead my case, but I feel like I'm just being annoy, when all I want to do is help. So, in short I appreciate your time and assistance and will do whatever you think would help me keep the paragraphs I wrote in a way that will benefit the community and visitors to the page. --User:Snote85

I can probably answer for Eric, in saying that you don't need to worry about impinging on other peoples edits, and you can rest assured that when we get round to it (if you don't get to it first) someone will come along and merge your page into the Kaladin page. Thank you again for the contributions, you should continue with them. --Joe ST (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Snote! I fear you've misinterpreted that deletion flag there. I do definitely appreciate the page and none of its content will be lost, I swear! :) I merely put that flag there so that we remembered, at some point, to move the content from there to the Kaladin page. We do not delete content--that would be dumb! Your hard work will not go away. But from the discussion on its talk page, I do feel it is better to move it to the Kaladin page. But please don't be offended :) We're not removing the content, it's just going to have a new home. -- Chaos2651 (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I think I jumped to an abrupt conclusion. I kept waiting for an answer to my last comment on the Kaladin's Judgement talk page, and then I noticed it flagged for deletion and my heart kinda sunk. I am trying to decide how best to handle it. I get that I made a mess of things when I made a summary page for events when there was already chapter summaries. I am just thinking of how I would want to read through information. I would like a streamlined "Kaladin's story" - "Insert bareboned facts in most comprehensible way possible here" "Dalinar's Story"- "Insert bareboned facts in most comprehensible way possible here" and so forth. I was trying to find out if I should make something like that, or not. I don't know if it would be anywhere near as useful or warranted as I imagine, or a complete waste of time. I will start combining the Kaladin character page with the information I put on the judgement page and if you all decide that info would be worthwhile in the format I'm suggesting I'll get started on a full on set of pages. I bring this up, not because I am smarter or more thorough or anything like that, but when I first read (listened to) the book. I knew I had missed a major part of the story because I had fallen asleep listening to it. Then came here to try to recoup that info without going back to reread the whole thing, or skip around in the dark to get to where I needed to pick up, and thought it would be be useful to have the summary I am talking about creating. In the long run I ended up relistening to the audiobook about at least a half dozen times to pick up all the parts I didn't get the first time and some parts more than that (the first time Kaladin speaks the second ideal for example).I get that I may be a very rare exception but also that it couldn't hurt to have it. Could it?

Oops, I didn't see this new comment until now, Snote, sorry. In the meanwhile I, uhm, manufactured (is this the right word here?) your informations from Kal's Judgement into the Kaladin-article and the TWoK-Summary for chapter 46. But, as Joe pointed out already, no edit is "cut in stone" on the wiki. (Or should I say: "cut in steel"? :)).

Generally I think that "summaries" should stay at the "summary"-articles and there should not be further "pure summaries" on other pages. Is this understandable? **Meg (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)**