Difference between revisions of "Talk:Shardhammer"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (→Missing information?: reply) |
WeiryWriter (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
:: 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) |
:: 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) |
Revision as of 21:16, 27 February 2015
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)
- 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)