User talk:DimeCadmium

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello DimeCadmium! Welcome to UESPWiki! It's always good to have new members. If you would like to help improve any of our pages, you may want to take a look at the following links:

If you would like to spice up your userpage, click here for a list of userboxes you can use, including a guide to making your own.

When you're editing, it's always a good idea to leave edit summaries to explain the changes you have made to a particular page, and remember to sign your talk page posts with four tildes ~~~~. Also, the "show preview" button is a great way to view the changes you've made so far without actually saving the page (our patrollers really appreciate it!).

Feel free to practice editing in the sandbox or discuss the games in the forums. If you need any help, don't hesitate to contact one of our mentors. Have fun! —Legoless (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2014 (GMT)

Gracias! Being active on Wikipedia is, fortunately, good practice for editing other wikis. :P DimeCadmium (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2014 (GMT)

Old discussions[edit]

Hey, DimeCadmium! I noticed you've been replying to new comments on old discussions. I just wanted to let you know that when someone replies to a discussion that's more than a few months old, it's usually better to just delete the comment instead of giving it a reply and/or marking it unsigned. We call comments like these "necroposts", and we usually just revert them unless they provide important new information on a particularly important issue that hasn't been resolved. In the future, it's okay to delete any necroposts you come across instead of marking them unsigned. Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions. ThuumofReason (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2014 (GMT)

So rather than answering a question that's added, just ignore it, because it was added onto the end of a relevant section rather than in a new section? Okay... ~DimeCadmium...!!1! 15:31, 17 June 2014 (GMT)
Yeah, I don't think that anon user's comment should have been deleted as the previous given answer ("This room will completely reset...") is completely false (at least when you become Arch-mage). --Jimeee (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2014 (GMT)
(edit conflict) Well, if someone has a new question about the same issue, he/she can make a new discussion, but replies shouldn't be made in closed discussions. ThuumofReason (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2014 (GMT)
But shouldn't we then move it to a new section if it is a valid question? Otherwise we miss losing out on valuable information because it was a necropost. ~ Ad intellige (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2014 (GMT)
(edit conflict) For that particular instance, a note could have been made on the article about how the room becomes safe for storage once the player becomes Archmage (assuming there isn't one already), so there really wouldn't be any point to reviving a 3-year-old discussion when a simple edit would have sufficed. ThuumofReason (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2014 (GMT)
(edit conflict) That's entirely my point Thuum... they didn't do it properly, but that doesn't mean it's irrelevant or useless information; or that their question shouldn't be answered. I had no idea what the policy was (thus why I didn't move it), but (IMO) just removing it because it was typed in the wrong spot is "wrong". The problem with necroposting comes when it doesn't raise any new questions OR add any new information to the discussion. -- And yes, they should have added a new section perhaps, or just edited the page directly. But how many talk page notes are there out there "Hey here's new information: blablabla"? It happens. New users aren't comfortable editing the page itself. ~DimeCadmium...!!1! 15:53, 17 June 2014 (GMT)
Yes. And lets not forget not every anon user knows what jargon like a "necropost" is - or they are just trying to help by adding bit of info to a talkpage. Necroposts should be looked at on case by case. I don't think blind deletion is helpful. --Jimeee (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2014 (GMT)

() (edit conflict) I agree as well, there's no harm in just putting it under a new section if it's helpful and/or relevant to the article. It'll encourage people to contribute in a way they can. —<({Quill-Tail>> 16:02, 17 June 2014 (GMT)

(edit conflict) Can someone point me to the policy/guideline/whatever was used to form the consensus on necroposting? I looked over several common help pages and found nothing. I agree with Jimee on that blind deletion is not helpful. ~ Ad intellige (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2014 (GMT)
I looked a while back because blanket deletions was bothering me, but I couldn't find a policy on it. I assume its based on some Wikipedia policy. I was planning to bring this up on the Community Portal at some point though. --Jimeee (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2014 (GMT)

(edit conflict) In that particular instance, the information wasn't useless, and if it isn't in the article already, it can be added. But necroposting is, by definition, posting in a dead discussion, and even if a comment provides some new information, it's only when the issue is particularly important AND hasn't been resolved anywhere that we let it slide. Nothing would ever be resolved on the wiki if we could keep reviving issues that have been sitting around complete for months or years. For example, comments like this one may provide new information for the discussion, but it's information that could easily be found somewhere else, and the issue wasn't particularly important. If you're interested in the policy on editing talk pages, you can read it here. Hope this clears things up! :-) 16:10, 17 June 2014 (GMT)

The policy on necroposting is rather vague, and if there's a separate issue that was probably tacked on to the bottom of the page accidentally, then it's fine to make a new heading for it. But the idea behind it is that unless a post provides important new insights on a particularly pressing issue that hasn't been resolved, it's better to delete it. ThuumofReason (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2014 (GMT)
Policy: "Deletion when ... responds to a post so old it's unlikely to be read by the poster or of concern to anyone else". Edit in question: - It may be necroposting, but it's still relevant to the article at current and the discussion, and thusly "of concern to" someone else. It never says that the issue has to be major or "pressing". Yes, it would be better if they edited the article directly, or even made a new section, but that's where guiding new editors comes into play, not ignoring the comment because it was submitted inappropriately. ~DimeCadmium...!!1! 16:21, 17 June 2014 (GMT)
Honestly, I think it would be best to bring this debate up on the community portal, because if nothing else the policy is very vague, and we have about three different viewpoints expressed just on my talkpage already. :P ~DimeCadmium...!!1! 16:23, 17 June 2014 (GMT)
In the case of the Arch-Mage's Quarters post (which was useful) - whose responsibility should it be to add the information to the page before the talk page post is deleted and forgotten about? Because as it stands - if nobody said anything today - the reply on the talkpage would remain incorrect and the article would remain unchanged. --Jimeee (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2014 (GMT)

() We can certainly bring up a discussion to make the policy more clear, but that IS the policy. If it helps, we've had similar discussions before.

As for making the change, anyone can do it. I can do it right now, or you can, if you prefer. It's nobody's "responsibility" to make the change. ThuumofReason (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2014 (GMT)
I moved this to the Community Portal, so I think we should move all further discussion there. ~ Ad intellige (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2014 (GMT)