User talk:Debarra

Spores

Hi, I see you advised for the spore sub-sections on the Aether page to be merged into Aether_spores, however that page recomends a merge to Aether, which is why I added my table to Aether.

Please could you advise. Thanks -- ParshendiOfRhuidean

Hey ParshendiofRhuidean! Thanks for reaching out. I had seen that table you made and wanted to say thanks again as it seems quite handy. :)

As for the move templates I think they are just more for suggestions so nothing needs to be done on either of our ends. While on other similar sites there would be some kind of vote on it among all the users I gather that for some reason here they prefer to just have Keepers vote on it. Most probably they'll reach a conclusion at some stage and move the relevant stuff to either page so neither of us really need to worry about it right now.

In the meantime I'd just keep doing as you are doing, no real reason to worry about the merged tags atm and whenever one page is merged into the other it should just be transferred over if needed. Happy editing.--Debarra (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Also just to say in future if you have any issues there are the keepers, a list of them can be found here: Special:ListUsers/keeper. They basically function as the mods/admin of the site and can probably be of more use for most problems than myself. They'd be more than happy to help with any issues that may crop up.--Debarra (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for answering,

It seems that the Keepers have made their decision.

In the future, I will probably go straight to the Keepers, rather than asking somebody else!

Thanks again,

ParshendiOfRhuidean (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Nalthis

Hi there! Thanks for your hard work on the Nalthis page. It needed improvement, and we appreciate what you put into writing and citing everything. Unfortunately, the history section comes across as too detailed for the page. Generally on a Shardworld page we like to confine the history section to the "big picture" of events that occur on the planet. For instance, Threnody is a good example of the level of detail that's preferred. So all of that is to say, don't be too alarmed when you see it edited down. You could let some of the Keepers go through it, or if you prefer you can go through it yourself and get it to the point of being an overview of the planet's history. A lot of the content can be useful either in a culture section on the page (for the information regarding Returned in different nations, for example) or on other pages that are designed to handle more of the details. For instance, the Five Scholars article could use some of the content, as could Shashara and Hanald. If you'd like to discuss this further, you're welcome to reply here or the Nalthis talk page, or to join our Discord for Coppermind editors.
-- Truthwatch3r (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey Truthwatch3r, thanks for getting in touch. Apologies if the page was too indepth, may have gotten carried away making it. I can go through it myself but unfortunately I have some exams coming up and those need to take priority right now so it may take a week or two before I can properly dive into revising the section. If this doesn't work though and people want to do it themselves in the mean time that's grand as well.

Apologies again for any mess I made.

-- Debarra (talk)

No need to apologize. Like I said, your work is very appreciated and will be useful in other places! We're happy to let you go through it yourself and totally understand that exams take priority. Good luck with them!

-- Truthwatch3r (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey Truthwatch3r, went through them again and cut out most of the unneeded references. I've kept some details of the novel in the sections since I feel it would be weird to exclude them as the article felt incomplete without some details. If you want to look through the new version and revise is as needed that would be a help. Thanks again for your patience.

-- Debarra (talk)

Thank you very much! Yes I agree it definitely needs to include some of what goes on in the novel, as those are important parts of the world's history. I'll take a look at it sometime this week or the next. And thank you for taking the suggestion to pare it down gracefully!

-- Truthwatch3r (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

TLM Notes

Hey Debarra! Thanks for your work on all the new information from The Lost Metal! Just wanted to reach out to answer some questions/comments in some of your recent edits. The syntax for citing epilogues from the book is {{book ref|mb7|epilogue|#}} where # is the number of the epilogue. Also note that the names of God Metals, including trellium and harmonium/ettmetal, are not capitalized. With regard to trellium and "the final metal," as far as I can tell, it's never confirmed they are necessarily the same (and on a general note, I think it's probably better to double check the references before making a change like that). The only mentions of the final metal I can find are chapter 8, where Marasi thinks about Miles' last words and then touches the trellium spike she pulled from Granks, and chapter 60, where Marasi again thinks about Miles' last words after seeing the men of red and gold. Let me know if I'm missing a source though! Feel free to reach out if you have any other questions and happy editing!
--Stargazer (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey Stargazer, thanks for reaching out. I fixed the epilogue reference there so it should be to the correct one. In future though may it be worthwhile to consider having a system where they aren't numbered for citations? In the UK at least none of them have numbers ascribed to them, perhaps it is different in the US edition? I'll go on to fix those capitalisations now as well.

As for the 'final metal' I'll have to double check myself in a bit, I could have sworn they explicitly stated it was the final metal at some stage throughout the novel but can't find it at the moment whilst flicking through my copy.--Debarra (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, the epilogues have numbers on the table of contents in my copy. Interesting that's not universal. I assume they're just identified by point-of-view character in your copy? Unfortunately, I don't think there's really a way I can get {{book ref}} to handle both "Kelsier epilogue" and "epilogue 4" for example. But I'll definitely keep that in mind for the future; I may need to make bigger changes to that template if unnumbered parts is a thing that keeps happening (please Brandon no).

While I'm here, what did you have in mind from TLM that the Survival Shard page should be updated with? That quote from Marasi certainly seems to describe the fandom's experience with that Shard, but I'm coming up empty trying to think of an in-universe connection to the Shard in the book. I'm also trying to stay on top of a lot of stuff with this release though and am aware there's definitely some stuff I'm missing.

--Stargazer (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes in the UK version they are all just given the names of the relevant person with no numbers. It seems an odd difference between them and nothing I've heard of before happening. It seems sticking with the numbers in that case is easiest then.

As for the Survival Shard page I had nothing in particular in mind when adding it, I added the template for info to be added as it seemed it and the spoilers tag where always paired. As well as that I, to my knowledge, don't have any authority to declare pages as complete or incomplete and had simply presumed that since I added TLM info proper procedure would be to tag it so someone with that power could mark it as complete. The reason I added the quote was as you said, it seemed to be, imo, clearly alluding to the Survival Shard and thus I felt it fitting to use, even if not explicitly about the Shard in question.

If you have any other questions or queries please don't feel afraid to ask. :)--Debarra (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, the interactions between the various tags we use can be complex. To overview, {{spoilers}} applies whenever a page has information from a new book (though when a new book comes out, we'll generally add it preemptively, because we've decided that's better than someone forgetting to add the tag later); {{update}} applies when a page still needs information from a book to be added. So, once all the new information from a book has been added to a page, {{spoilers}} would stay, but {{update}} would go (e.g., Autonomy's page right now, since one of our staff already went through and updated that). There are separate tags at the bottom of the page for how complete it is—if it's incomplete, it's probably {{partial}}; if you think it's done, you can mark it as {{complete}}; and then one of the staff will (eventually) go through and add their signature to that after checking it over. If a page that had previously been reviewed by staff and then becomes incomplete because of new information, we'll also tag it as {{demoted|mb7}} (or whatever the relevant book code is).

With regard to that quote, what I'm sort of stumbling on is that, while Brandon might have been alluding to the Survival Shard, if he is, he's doing it on more of a meta level, about the "mystique" of the Shard we as fans have known exists for so long, but barely know anything about. Marasi doesn't know about the Survival Shard and we don't know enough about the Shard's motivations to say whether she even happened to accurately describe them. And so between how we write our articles from an in-world perspective and how we try to be strict about speculation, to me it just feels like a stretch to use that quote there. I can run it by the rest of the staff though if you want.

--Stargazer (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I just saw this now after finishing another batch of edits and have to leave for a while to complete some work on my end but will be sure to look through them and edit as needed once I am back.

While I do agree that the quote is quite meta I do think it notable that the entire page itself is meta and thus I would believe it fits the general tone of it. We simply don't have any canon references to the Shard to use. As well as that I would argue that it is a clear analogy to one of the last two Shards to be revealed, of which the survival shard may be one. The conversation later gives two examples that are the known plans of Odium and Ambition so I do not think it a stretch to imagine that someone like Brandon with such virtuosity in foreshadowing would insert similar hints towards the Survival Shards plan into the conversation. A talk page being opened to discuss the quote on the survival shard's page may be useful however.--Debarra (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Category trees

Hi Debarra :) I noticed you added the Lumaran culture category to Kulunut, Zapriel tea, and Regalthon. I've only just started editing here so I'm not sure how this usually works, but this strikes me as unnecessary, since those pages are already in the 'Lumaran food' or 'Lumaran events' categories, which are subcategories of Lumaran culture. Happy to discuss! Samwalton9 (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey Samwalton9! Thank's for reaching out. :)

I do see what you mean. I had added each of them to it as when I left them solely down as Lumaran food or events none of them actually showed up under the culture category for some reason, instead only the subcategory would be listed. If you want to revert that edit however feel free to do so, I just thought it had looked cleaner to have them all on the same category page.

Also while I have you thanks for all the edits around the site!--Debarra (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

That's how categories work in MediaWiki - the pages will only show up in the categories they're directly placed in, so users are required to navigate the category trees to find the pages they're interested in. On Wikipedia, articles are only ever in the bottom-most relevant category, and usually don't get duplicated to any parent categories, which is where my feeling that we shouldn't add the Lumaran culture category comes from. If things are done differently here that's fine by me too. And thanks! Enjoying it so far, even if I am mostly just tinkering with side characters so far. Samwalton9 (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Tress Cup Claims

Hey Debarra, small request. You (and some others) have a couple of things claimed on the "Tress Cup" spreadsheet, and we're asking people to do just one at a time. We're getting down to a point where there's only a handful left, so I want to make sure things are open unless someone is more or less actively working on it. Would you mind removing your name from all but one at a time? I'm going to go back through later tonight and reassign things myself if needed, but I wanted to give you a chance to pick whichever one you'd like to work on first (or else go ahead and add any work that you have done to the pages).--Jofwu (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I was unaware that we were only meant to do one at a time, when putting my name down practically everyone had multiple names down. The three used were small in comparison to the other claims made at that time.

In relation to the cup however feel free to remove all my claims as upon further reflection I do not have any interest in the cup nor am a fan of the atmosphere it seems to have created. As such I was planning to remove my claims on it anyway, if you want to do that on my behalf I have no issues with that.--Debarra (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

No worries. I should have communicated it better. The main announcement explains it, but I've now realized I mis-linked it on the Coppermind home page! Sorry about that. And sure, it's no problem to remove your name.--Jofwu (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hoid

Hi Debarra. I wanted to reach out because while I appreciate the work on the early portion of Hoid’s history, I see a mentioned plan for a full rewrite of his article. I am the person responsible for most of the content on that page, and am actively updating it, as I did with new Sunlit Man info. I am curious what sort of rewriting you had in mind? I think the history and ability sections are in pretty good shape, content-wise at least. As Hoid is an important article, I’ve briefly protected the page (after checking with the Keeper Team) until we’re on the same page about what’s to be done. Thanks! —Windrunner (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The suggested edits have been worked upon for quite a long time now, most probably the better part of a year by this stage, and are all clearly visible on the draft page on my profile. This is most definetly known to the Keepers as they have also on and off edited the draft page themselves so this is not new knowledge.

As well as this may I ask on what grounds you've decided to lock the page? From reading this is seems you are implying that solely yourself is allowed to edit the page in any substantial way, which reads as quite a tyrannical stance to take and one that is completely against the philosophy of letting others contribute to the site. If pages are going to be at random locked if anyone tries to improve them then why would anyone bother helping the site? --Debarra (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Debarra, I'm sorry that we started things out on this foot. I want to start by taking the temperature down. Nothing that has happened can be reasonably described as tyranny. We let people do what they want to do on their user pages and generally take little interest. When you start making major edits to the most-trafficked page on the Coppermind, it is going to get noticed and flagged. I didn't roll back your edits, or start taking them apart, or anything like that. I talked to the Keeper team, and then I pressed pause on the page, so that we can talk. I stated up front that I'd written a lot of the Hoid article because I wanted to be straightforward with you, not because no one but me can edit it.

Now to follow up on the actual topic at hand, I want to thank you for organizing some of the details in the early parts of Hoid's history in a better way, that's something I'd been meaning to do that I'd never gotten around to, and it's definitely better than it was. The Coppermind staff (not just myself) took a look at some of the edits though, and do think that there are elements where you are making assumptions not born out by the books or WoBs or overstate the confidence we have in that info. This is to be certain a balancing act, some level of assumption is necessary, but we think that you do go beyond that. It's part of what makes writing that section very difficult. I like what you've done here though and while there may be some minor tweaks that reduce the confidence that we state things (as Hoid's pre-White Sand history is pretty spotty) or add any of the info that Firesong has mentioned as being removed, I think that it should stay on the page.

Additionally, reading through the larger section you suggested to Firesong as indicative of what you'd like to do to the page, I think the level of detail you are providing is excessive for the task at hand. This is currently one of the longest pages on the Coppermind, and when it's all said and done I believe it will probably be one of the longest pages on the wiki after all the books come out. Hoid will be the protagonist to several forthcoming novels. The current history is written to balance level of detail with readability and brevity, and I think that in your revised history you include too much detail. We are not looking to have the Hoid article be rewritten from scratch at this time, particularly the history, personality, or abilities sections. If there are significant details or elements that you feel are missing, we can definitely add some of them.

If you want to head to the discord server, that is where a lot of our work discussion takes place and is ultimately chatting there works a lot better for our current wiki system than discussion through talk pages. If you'd rather speak to another member of the staff, instead of me, we can make that happen too, but I can honestly tell you that I am not speaking unilaterally here and you will not get a different answer from someone else. Thanks again for your help. --Windrunner (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I am also rather concerned about this, as I personally feel the edit has a substantially amount of unsubstantiated assumptions concerning chronology, and removes a substantial amount of content. I am concerned about how much more content will be erased, and how many more theories will be inserted into the text. I also feel it is made far harder to follow as it just turns it into several very long paragraphs which go on a large amount of separate subjects, without proper indentation to separate topics. It is ultimately a communication of less information in more words, due to how many details it erased and did not include. I also feel it is very disrespectful to completely erase the work of others without due discussion with the main editors of the page responsible for the content, as one should have done. It was also not the best to call a complete erasure and replacement of the work of others an update instead of a replacement, and imply you are going to erase all of their work to replace it with your own. I apologize for my bluntness, I just find this rather upsetting and am also not sure how else to put my criticisms.

It is not that no-one is allowed to edit, it is just that this, a series of large edits to the entire main body of an very important page, is a very big edit that should require more discussion. It more-so comes down to the specific context of this situation. And as Windrunner said, it is a brief lock while they discuss it, as large edits are worth discussion. --Firesong (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

If you feel there is unwarranted conjecture or theories being added to the page then feel free to edit the page so as to remove it. No content should have been deleted as the original was used as a basis for my version, if some information was somehow lost feel free to edit it back in. The entire point of the site is that you are free to edit in or remove such information without having to ask me. One of the reason why I decided it better to introduce things in a piecemeal fashion was so there would be more time to address and fix such things that other editors disagreed with. As well as this the draft version has been visible for almost a year and has a discussion page there, there has been a very long length of time to notice and share a concern over the idea of editing the Hoid page, a chance that is still there to discuss.

As well as this no ones work is being 'erased.' I fail to see the point of being so emotionally charged over a wiki that is designed to be publically edited. It is the basis of every wiki site that work will be substantially changed at some stage, I myself have added many substantial edits to different pages on the site and since then that work has been in turn substantially changed by others, including yourself; either to remove it or add more. I think we can all agree it would be quite frankly absurd for me to be against such edits to my own work and demand users come to me for my approval on any change. It is completely against the spirit of the site.

If we need the prior consent of every editor who helped contribute to a page before changing it ourselves, how is the site meant to even function?--Debarra (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree for the most part, it was you saying you were going to replace the entire history section that made it warrant more discussion, in my own opinion. Not the individual edit itself. Which isn't that bad on its own, though I feel the fat can be trimmed down a bit. And could use some formatting, as the paragraphs are too long, and yes, I can just add back some info when it gets opened again.

I apologize for my outburst, I did not act appropriately, I simply got stressed. I am genuinely sorry about how I acted. --Firesong (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

No need to apologise, I know you did not mean to come across as rude and you didn't in my opinion. Again feel free to totally change it as you think improves it. It's why I wanted to add stuff in slow bites so things could be further refined.

If you wish to look at the other work feel free to go to my profile and click under /hoid. The only history sections there I consider somewhat presentable (as from my own work to clarify) are from 'Origin' to 'Catacrandre.' (Inclusive) If you want feel free to have a look and leave a note under the discussion page there on what you think needs to be fixed so I can take it into account as I continue to work on it. I would only ask to not edit the draft page directly as I still view massive chunks of it as a work in progress and a lot of it is laid out in an order that I can somewhat follow to remind me where I was.--Debarra (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I am glad I didn't. I just always worry I do as I am often rather blunt. Especially when stressed or anxious. And don't worry, I won't edit your draft. (Feel free to delete that talk page I made because I forgot how to go to the actual talk page.) --Firesong (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)