You have been given a cookie!
Your dedication and diligence to the wiki has not gone unnoticed. A user has seen the progress you've made, and has given you a cookie because of it. Good work! The user had the following to say:
You have been given a plateful of cookies!
Fantastic work finishing off the Dawnstar:Bestiary images! That page been a goal of the Spin-off Series Completion Project for a long time, so it's great to see it so thoroughly completed. If you're interested, you might consider adding your name to the list of project members! —Legoless (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2019 (GMT)
You have been given a shiny gold star!
You are amazing.... Blades needs so much help and I'm really excited that you have taken an interest!! If you need any help with any game data based issues, please feel free to message me on Discord. But truly, thank you for all the fantastic work you do! Jeancey (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2020 (GMT)
Please don't change all pages to using the ON template. The information which dlc is involved is now only hard to find out (all named DLC) and it saves visually only a few characters anyway --Alfwyn (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2020 (GMT)
Creation Club Pages
Hi Dcsg. I noticed your changes to Skyrim:Thorn Hook and Skyrim:Screaming Maw - although you are technically correct that they are part of the basegame, this is really only relevant to modders. For all intents and purposes, it is part of the Saints & Seducers Creation and should be categorised accordingly to avoid confusing readers. If and when it actually becomes available in the basegame without mods or console commands, this can be revisited. I've readded the mod header and category and clarified their inclusion on Skyrim:Saints & Seducers. —Legoless (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2020 (GMT)
Snow Elf Template
I saw your edits to the bestiary. While I agree they are aquatic animals, that page is more a containment zone for the information-void aquatic catches in ESO. I think it would be better for an aquatic animal with any genuine amount of lore to it to stay in the main bestiary. A small addition to the aquatic animals page noting this is all I feel is really necessary. Alternatively, we could keep them on both pages, a small amount of redundancy is better than forcing people to scroll past hundreds of uninteresting examples for the few with real details. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 05:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- There was a discussion page about it mid-April (and even posted on Discord) where the consensus seemed to move all aquatic animals to that page. So now that they are moved, I think it's best to start up the discussion again before deciding what the actual purpose of the page is so it doesn't have to be moved back and forth. --Ilaro (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Congratulations on Patrolling!
- Yeah, meany different Bestiary entries need some work in that regard. It's something I've been meaning to do for a while, so if you would like to help with it, please do. -Dcsg (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Personally I don't think they should be consolidated, espeically creatures more or less unique to certain games, would make the bestiary feel less complete and would make users have a harder time finding stuff, I like the idea of making more dedicated lore pages but I don't think certain variants should just be stuck in them. I certainly agree that certain creatures like things from ESO should be consolidated though. — Unsigned comment by Tarponpet (talk • contribs) at 17:24 on 6 June 2021
- The #switch there defines the link. That logic adds a
(DLC)to the link when appropriate. Greymoor is found at Online:Greymoor and not Online:Greymoor (DLC). -Dcsg (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your enthusiasm for improving ESO's furniture pages! It's a crazy large project, and I have really enjoyed looking over some of the articles that have been worked on as part of it. However, I and a few other users have noted a lot of furniture pages marked for speedy deletion, even after multiple users expressed disagreement with it being appropriate to delete at all. Although the majority of the speedy deletion templates in question did not provide an explanation for the pages being blanked and marked to be removed as swiftly as possible, I did note that you undid an early attempt to reverse this action under the grounds that their deletion was maintenance in this edit. To quote from UESPWiki:Deletion Policy:
"Maintenance. This includes any pages which no longer serve a purpose on the wiki, and where the deletion would be uncontroversial, such as unused categories, unneeded disambiguation pages, pages created in error, or any other page where no objection to the deletion is reasonably expected."
As the pages in questions were not unused categories, unneeded disambiguation pages, or pages created in error, the final criteria is the only one it could still stand on as maintenance. However, considering there were objections to this action from three different users in just a day of them being marked for deletion, they should not have still been considered valid candidates for speedy deletion at that point. In most cases, I would personally recommend going for proposed deletion at the most on long-standing pages with multiple different contributors, and only after a clear consensus has been established in favor of such an action. It's very understandable how trying to proceed without taking those steps may make positive contributors like Kelinmiriel upset when they find their contributions are being discarded without so much as an explanation.
As a smaller related note, I understand how there might be some confusion on this topic as it is common practice to blank many pages marked for speedy deletion, but genuine content pages shouldn't be blanked when being marked for deletion. Similarly, while it's not strictly necessary, it's a highly encouraged practice to not mark a page for deletion until "What Links Here" has been cleared.
Lastly, it is critical that a page marked for deletion have the reasoning for its deletion put on the template. Without an explanation, it requires an administrator currently going through maintenance tasks to stop to determine the logic behind why the notice was added.
I get that big projects encourage a big amount of boldness, and that boldness can cause a desire for immediacy, but there are times when stopping for a consensus building conversation or using a slower procedure is the best way forward. I know this from firsthand experience, I've personally ran into the formalities of similar policies in the past and been knocked clear out! Still, in most of those cases I ended up learning more about why those policies were made, and gained a greater appreciation for them. I hope that you end up viewing this in a similar way in the future, and I wish you the best with all of your projects! --AKB Talk Cont Mail 06:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)