Ugh, that explains it. The Bonecharms are one of my least favorite pages due to how bloody convoluted the whole thing is. I think there was some discussion and agreements made a while ago concerning the ins and outs of that page because the importance of bonecharms changed so much from D1 to D2. This resulted in it being given a pass on certain Manual of Style rules due to the overly complicated manner of the page.
As I was never a fan of the article, my contributions were superficial at best so I never really paid much attention to what was being done.
Yeah, I don't like how messy it is either. If you ask me, the lists of bonecharms really need to be separated into D1 and D2 pages, and the main page should only include lore/story-related information.
If you are uncertain what a particular category means, I suggest you ask an admin or other veteran editor before adding them willy-nilly to every page without consideration.
Walkthroughs category is NOT to be added to Mission pages unless an actual walkthrough is Present which most of these pages do not have. Otherwise there'd be little point in having two categories meaning the exact same thing.
Geist, you got to chill. The reason I added them because someone has already added Follow the Ink to the CAT, and it's been like that for a long time. Plus, if I make mistakes, you can just drop me a simple message and I can fix them - that's the point of a collaborative site. You are making me feel very uncomfortable because I will hesitate to edit anything from now on for fear of messing anything up.
The difference is, it being one category on one page is likely to be overlooked.
When a bunch are made in quick succession, it tends to get noticed.
As for my message, that's the way I write. I noticed in previous messages to you I have written the same way and (as far as I know) you didn't take it as a personal attack upon you. I don't know why this one is different.
However, I've found that when wanting to get my point across it does little to no good to say something simply or reply with a short answer especially if I need to say why something needs or doesn't need to be done.
My more modest replies were not taken as way of explanation and there was back and forth debate until I had to SPELL OUT EVERY FACET of my stance in a 341-word clarification. This has happened on more than one occasion (not saying with just you) and it seems if I am more forceful, direct, and long-winded with my replies, my point seems to get across better.
And don't forget I have also encouraged and praised your actions, edits, and other activities here. You're not receiving constant "warnings" about your activities nor are you getting threats of being banned, so I would say you're doing fine overall and I don't understand why you would think my goal would be to make you uncomfortable.
Ugh... another long-winded response from me. Just what I was trying to avoid. Anyway, sorry if my reply came off like a diatribe against your actions; such was not my intent. I will try and be more mindful of how my posts may come across before posting them in the future.
Hey, I'm sorry for being agressive, I had a rough day today - but that's no excuse though. But I just want to say that it's not about how long or how detailed your responses are, you can have effective communications without using many words. In the Overseer case for example, you basically said "You're wrong" without any explanation, which I admit, triggered me a little bit, leading to a prolonged disussion. You can simmply say "this is speculative and likely a gameplay device to help players distinguish important characters", and I'd have been totally fine with that. Or in this case I feel like you use words that are quite heavy such as "without consideration" or "cease this activity", which might sound accusational. You know, you can just explain that the Walkthrough CAT only contains pages with walkthrough videos and ask me to fix my mistakes, I'd be happy to do so.
Sorry if you think this is trivial but I believe communication is very important, especially in a place where people never have face-to-face conversations.
I understand now that's the way you communicate and will also try not to take it personal. But I hope you can extend your considerations not just to me but to other editors as well, especially new people.
Hey! Just to clarify, I said "Please cease this activity." :P
Joking aside, one of the most consistent errors that I commit is my failure to realize that tone and inflection are not as easily communicated across a silent medium such as print.
For example, I always question the necessity of exclamation points, and then when I do use them in messages I second-guess myself as to whether they come off aggressive or not. Another thing I do is capitalize letters when trying to draw attention to something, but others merely take it as me shouting at them, which I'm honestly not trying to do... usually.
As for the Overseer example, what I initially assumed explained my actions apparently failed to do so. I mean, even Pauolo understood my point but it still didn't seem to be satisfactorily clear enough until my final (exceedingly long) response.
You can simmply say "this is speculative and likely a gameplay device to help players distinguish important characters"
Unfortunately, that's probably never gonna happen. I would like to say I'll try to do that, but that is not how I talk/communicate nor how I process my thoughts ahead of time, so it would basically be me lying - and I don't wish to be accused of that. Also, as I've stated, you're not the only person I have done this to, because there are some people who don't seem to get a clue unless every last iota is explained to them.
As for you having a bad day, pssh, don't worry about; I completely understand. I had literally just woke up to something like 14+ alerts from various fandoms I had to check on, so you're fine. I slapped together my message as quick as I could to prevent more from being done in the hopes of preventing excessively counter-edits and 'undo's on my part. I don't like flooding the 'Recent Wiki Activity' log with such things from me as I think it looks overly aggressive or obsessive on my part.
Anyway, as far as I am concerned we're still cool. I do realize that my oft-times abrupt persona can come across rough; I didn't acquire that aka of "Bad Cop" on my profile page for nothing. ;)
Death of the Outsider is a separate self-contained expansion for the Dishonored series, not DLC for Dishonored 2.
I am not 100% sure, but some of your edits seem to indicate that you think it is. The only DLC that Dishonored 2 had was the Imperial Assassin's Pack. There were also some game updates, but they weren't really DLCs so to speak.
Just a head's up. If I was mistaken, then my apologies.
That's too bad. I think they are too small to be anything of use. I was hoping for some images similar to those we have in D1's inventory. Right now, most D2 and DotO pages don't have a main photo similar to that style (some like Electrical Burst don't even have an image yet. Anyway, thanks for checking. Maybe I will try to get some close-up screenshots and edit with photoshop.
Once you "name" the first appearance of a reference, you don't need to include all of the additional information each time. Just put in the name like I did there on The Devlins page.
Also, based on other articles on the wiki, such as Dunwall we do include links for each reference. I believe this is in case a previous reference is deleted or the article is reworded and that link removed. Regardless, it's a handy way for users to quickly check on the references if need be. Thus, it supercedes, as it were, the usual one-link-only rule.
Hey, thanks for all of your efforts and interest in the Dishonored universe and the wiki.
I would be remiss though if I didn't clarify some minor rules:
please don't post links within the quotes at the top of the pages. This was a minor rule changed a while back and it is still in force today.
please do not post links to pages that haven't been created yet; this wiki is not in favor of broken/red links. It's okay if the page is going to be made say... within about ten minutes or so of when the link is made, but no more than about twenty minutes should be allowed without either a page devoted to the link, or that link being undone if you cannot add it in time.
Sorry if this sounds like I am being harsh; such is not my intent. Each wiki is different and these are simply some of our (lesser known) rules.
Hey actually, I have a question about red links. It's a good practice and a wikia mechanism that auto-links red links when new article is created. If we don't use red links, we will have to go back to existing articles to add them. It's also a way to show editors that "we don't have this page yet, please create it". Is there any particular reason why we don't do this? If you say it's for aesthetic reason, it's fine, I just want to understand the reason behind it.
A couple of reasons actually. Aesthetic is one, yes.
We also had a very strong push with a good deal of our regular editors to fix redirects, remove duplicate pages, fix red links, and adjust broken references. This was agreed upon by the majority of our most active members and the process just sorta stuck.
Finally, other wikis seem to have these red links and they stay that way for while, even with the suggested idea being 'hey, we need this page made up'. It doesn't seem to press people to make them as well as it should, and with our wiki slowing considerably since D1 and D2, it just doesn't seem new pages get created all that often.