Difference between revisions of "User talk:Cath"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Confused) |
(→Confused: Response) |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
I was only emulating the style of “Macbeth” by adding empty categories to the various pages. In fact, it was his Neocola stub with the (previously) empty “varieties” category that inspired me to make my first contribution. I believe that a category with no informative text, while it may look a tad unprofessional to some, can motivate those who have useful information lurking about their brains, to add their knowledge to the pot … Though, if it’s against protocols to follow the examples left by senior members, I shall immediately stop. --[[User:Cybridsovereign|Cybridsovereign]] 02:57, 24 Jul 2008 (CDT) | I was only emulating the style of “Macbeth” by adding empty categories to the various pages. In fact, it was his Neocola stub with the (previously) empty “varieties” category that inspired me to make my first contribution. I believe that a category with no informative text, while it may look a tad unprofessional to some, can motivate those who have useful information lurking about their brains, to add their knowledge to the pot … Though, if it’s against protocols to follow the examples left by senior members, I shall immediately stop. --[[User:Cybridsovereign|Cybridsovereign]] 02:57, 24 Jul 2008 (CDT) | ||
:I don't have issues with empty categories, only when creating the empty category is the only thing you do on the page. The page you reference was greatly enhanced (rewritten/ links added, etc.) when that section was created (and left blank). Do you understand the difference? If you create an entirely new page but don't have all the info for it but have an idea of what sort of sections should exist but don't have the time or information to fill them in completely, that's perfectly understandable. If all you do is open up an already created article and add a section and "(to be added)" or "coming soon" and nothing else, that's a bit of a waste in my opinion. | |||
:I have no interest in discouraging you or anyone else from helping on this project. There's no way that we could do it on our own and all the help we get is greatly appreciated. Right now I feel a bit distressed because I see that there's so much that could be done and so few people actually doing it. If you see something you want to edit or you feel could be added to, please, do... making a list of jellies using the framework created by the omelette page you praised and one of the item databases should take no more than 10-20 minutes. That sort of addition will be much appreciated by me, as well as other editors, I'm sure. --[[User:Cath|Cath]] 03:42, 24 Jul 2008 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 08:42, 24 July 2008
Uploading images
Welcome to NeoDex! Just wanted to tell you that when uploading an image make sure to state its url address (without the http://) in the description. We look forward to more contributions from you :) --Dizzy 01:16, 7 Aug 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info and the welcome. I'll be sure to do that in future. Do you want me to add that to the other images I added? Also, the Dice-a-Roo image is a single image compiled of six others... but the single image is not on Neopets. Should I state the URLs for each of the individual images? --Cath
- Yes, please add the url for your other images. As for the Dice-a-roo, you can simply mention that you created this image and the individual pictures came from the neopets.com server. As long as you provide the source of the image, everything's fine. --Dizzy 04:25, 7 Aug 2007 (UTC)
- You can include the individual sources, yeah. Compilation images like that or Image:Pyramids trophies.png are fine where appropriate :¬). --Macbeth 17:18, 16 Aug 2007 (UTC)
Petpet Colour Release Dates
If anyone is interested, I have several years worth on a google document I created. I've made it through June 2005 and I'll be continuing with it over time. I have a lot that isn't here but I didn't want to add it until I had all the colours for a specific petpet, so I wouldn't be constantly editing pages. Do with it what you will: http://spreadsheets0.google.com/ccc?key=pdQ_09Wa_SlsosCc58J8SHw&hl=en -Cath 19:22, 19 Sep 2007 (UTC)
- Oh well done! --Macbeth 21:27, 20 Sep 2007 (UTC)
Typo Issue
And you have what against me correcting the typos? ~Mr.Wha...?
- I have nothing against you correcting typos on actual NeoDex pages. It's extremely helpful but it is a waste of time to edit the talk pages and it is best that the talk pages remain unedited other than for markup reasons like my moving your question into a new section. Also, if you were to go through and edit for typos every talk page in the Neodex, there would be no edits other than that, which is silly. Please, if you want to be helpful, edit real pages. There are hundreds of pages that need construction work done as well as hundreds of stub pages that need work. There are also plenty of pages that need articles that are written in a more professional or Wikipedia-style manner. Please take a few minutes to look over the Help page to get a better idea of proper Wiki coding as well. Thanks for wanting to help out! --Cath 21:00, 22 Jul 2008 (CDT)
Confused
I was only emulating the style of “Macbeth” by adding empty categories to the various pages. In fact, it was his Neocola stub with the (previously) empty “varieties” category that inspired me to make my first contribution. I believe that a category with no informative text, while it may look a tad unprofessional to some, can motivate those who have useful information lurking about their brains, to add their knowledge to the pot … Though, if it’s against protocols to follow the examples left by senior members, I shall immediately stop. --Cybridsovereign 02:57, 24 Jul 2008 (CDT)
- I don't have issues with empty categories, only when creating the empty category is the only thing you do on the page. The page you reference was greatly enhanced (rewritten/ links added, etc.) when that section was created (and left blank). Do you understand the difference? If you create an entirely new page but don't have all the info for it but have an idea of what sort of sections should exist but don't have the time or information to fill them in completely, that's perfectly understandable. If all you do is open up an already created article and add a section and "(to be added)" or "coming soon" and nothing else, that's a bit of a waste in my opinion.
- I have no interest in discouraging you or anyone else from helping on this project. There's no way that we could do it on our own and all the help we get is greatly appreciated. Right now I feel a bit distressed because I see that there's so much that could be done and so few people actually doing it. If you see something you want to edit or you feel could be added to, please, do... making a list of jellies using the framework created by the omelette page you praised and one of the item databases should take no more than 10-20 minutes. That sort of addition will be much appreciated by me, as well as other editors, I'm sure. --Cath 03:42, 24 Jul 2008 (CDT)