Talk:Shardhammer

Missing information?

Why does every article seem to have the "This article is missing information" comment? --Voidbinder (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

That notice appears on every page marked as a {{stub}}. Which is one of four article classifications (the others being {{complete}}, {{good}}, and {{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.--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? --Voidbinder (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

If an article has all of the current relevant knowledge then it should get marked as {{complete}}.--WeiryWriter (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The question then becomes, is Shardhammer complete enough to be marked as such? --Joe ST (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...--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. --Voidbinder (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)