User talk:Chaos2651

From The Coppermind
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Quick Citation question[edit]

Hey :-). Should I switch to using the sa1, sa2 citation abbreviations instead of wok and wor? Is there a list somewhere of what the preferred abbreviations are for the rest of the books? Thanks --KalynaAnne (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Sa1, sa2 seem to be the ones Joe defaults to, and I think they are slightly better. Typically for series go with the numbered one, like mb1, mb2, etc, I think. It's not a big deal though. -- Chaos2651 (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
My reasoning behind preferring the numbered versions is that it's unlikely they will clash with other potential book names in the future, either explicitly with titles that have the same initials, or just with combinations that are very similar (like wok, wor, woa, hoa, they're all quite close). But as Eric said I don't have strict preferences and I tend not to change them around if they are in one style (well, I have to make myself not XD) --Joe ST (talk) 07:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

New Category[edit]

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[edit]

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.[edit]

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? -- User:Snote85

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)**

Thank you very much Sir and Fraulein, I like what has been done. I don't know why but I kept assuming it would be turned into a 20 word paragraph and all the time I spent reading and re-reading would be wasted (Well more so than how time is wasted editing a wikipedia on a fictional setting and trying to summarize conjecture). I appreciate your time and efforts in helping me. The bad news is that now I've been reading Warbreaker and will have to start editing that info now! (just kidding!) Also, I would say not manufactured but moved or transferred, maybe? (I'm just saying because you asked, and assume you want to know, not because I'm a grammar nazi.) I assume you mean no edit is permanent, but neither is it tossed away carelessly. Which is good to know. Thank you Joe and Meg, you two have been exceedingly nice to me. I appreciate your time. -- User:Snote85

As a programmer, I would say something like refactored would do, but merged would also do --Joe ST (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

shardplade protection[edit]

You fuly protected shardblade. I assume that is due to spoilers. Since the book is out, the protection should be removed? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


a question on characters[edit]

Is there any reason why it’s not ok to list all of the characters for a book in the characters section? I went through a lot of trouble to compile all of the characters Who were missing from the character list of Elantris only to have them removed with the only reason given on the edit list being a notification that there was no reason to list them all. If possible I’d like a clarification as to the exact reasoning, maybe something more specific as to what constitutes a character who is allowed to be on a character list in the first place as a lot of the deleted characters weren’t even ones that I had added in the first place. Animalia555 (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm so glad you registered an account so we can finally chat about this. I figured it was all the same person, but with anonymous IPs that sometimes change, it's hard to tell.
I realize the book pages are not super great on the Coppermind and need work. I'd still like to explain the perspective as to why I did that. I don't believe a Characters section on a book page should be an exhaustive list of every character in the text. Indeed, the section is called Main Characters. The proper location for lists like that would be categories, in this case Category:Selish for all people on Sel. (This does have a slight drawback in that this includes Emperor's Soul characters, but there are not too many of those.) Categories have a lot of value as they don't require maintenance from editors other than making sure when a new article is made, it goes in the right category. For characters, that happens automatically with the character infobox. Having a list on a book or series page is suboptimal as it would require an editor to go through and make sure every character is listed there. Categories render that work unnecessary. I realize this kind of sucks if you collated all those characters; categories aren't necessarily the most obvious thing on here. For that, I'm sorry.
I don't think it's a good policy to list every character that appears in a book on its respective book page. Think if we did that for Way of Kings. That would be a massive list that really, a category should be used for instead. I think having only a list of prominent characters on a book page is useful. I removed the Other Characters section as they seemed to be the less prominent ones. There is also an aesthetic argument for articles to generally contain prose, and not lists. For similar reasons, we only put prominent characters on the navboxes--the boxes at the bottom of the page.
Ultimately we should probably have a link to the category on the Main Character section on books so people can easily find the entire list. Though one does exist on the navbox (click Characters on the Elantris navbox), I've added that here to the character section. --Chaos2651 (talk) 04:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

At least with Elantris it’s easy to tell who the main characters are due to the triad system. 172.68.58.249

Please explain![edit]

Hi, Eric! Please explain why have you removed me from the editors? I can't create any new pages now! --Auri (Express yourself, be heard!) 08:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Which pages need creating, in your opinion? Windrunner added this so you could make your talk pages and we'd like to just see how things progress before giving blanket page creation ability. Most pages should ideally exist already. Please feel free to contact us, or for live feedback, come in our Discord server where many staff can answer your questions-- Chaos2651 (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I will try if the forums would let me log in. Turns out, I may need to re-create an account on there. Thanks for the help! Who stole that username Auri? Auri has always been my username for a long time. --Auri (Express yourself, be heard!) 08:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Auri is a character in Kingkiller Chronicles, and I imagine plenty of places on the internet people have that username. Sorry! Also, can I please recommend you not use your automated tool for adjusting typos here? I've noticed it has adjusted things on talk pages that are other people's replies, and it is generating objectively wrong grammar changes like changing "slimfish" to "slim fish". Please disable those here, thanks! -- Chaos2651 (talk) 08:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I cannot do that. I won't do it on talk pages but I need to do it on articles. Everyone else appreciates me fixing grammar. If I do make a mistake, please let me know! --Auri (Express yourself, be heard!) 08:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Please do not take offense, but the automated tool you are using on articles actively has required us to clean up most edits you have done. For example it changed "metalminds" to "metal minds" which clearly is incorrect given how it is written in Era 1. Obviously, this is fantasy, so things probably won't be in the dictionary. We do not want to have to need to closely scrutinize all your edits for such errors. Turn it off; you've made errors already. Please go look in your contrib list and see that many of your edits have needed to be altered, and I believe this tool is the cause. It is not being helpful. I'm sorry if this hurts your workflow, but we pride ourselves on accuracy towards the text, and such automated edits show your plugin is not sophisticated enough here to deal with the made-up words that will be commonplace here. -- Chaos2651 (talk) 08:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Healing spike[edit]

You may be interested in my response to your comment at Talk:Steel Inquisitor. - Ebmid2 (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I have now edited my response, by the way. - Ebmid2 (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)