Talk:Archbishop's Robes (5e Equipment)
From D&D Wiki
Why was this completely converted to a new item when its completely different from what it was and seemingly not the same author? Shouldn't this just be a separate item not a redirect? On top of that the original author had a whole monk thing in their contribs, meaning that it was likely part of a set. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AstraAmbrosius (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.
- Considering that the page was brought to its current state approximately four years ago, and the original author has done nothing to contest this, I feel as though the argument is moot. Given that none of the three pages created by the original author reference each other, I also believe it to be irrelevant as to whether or not they were part of a set. The redirect in question has been removed, as it is by now most certainly obsolete. --Nuke The Earth (talk) 02:56, 15 September 2022 (MDT)
- Even if it was uncontested, isn't it still a form of vandalism to just completely remove the item when they are not the original author, and replace it instead of creating a separate one? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AstraAmbrosius (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.
- While it is generally considered good form to keep to the original author's interpretation, this is untenable in a number of instances. On larger pages, content can go through many iterations and be edited by a great number of users, such that the overall contribution of the page creator is minimal. This is not the case with this page. Rather, this page counted as 'abandoned' - the original author created it and, after a few edits, left it lie. Then, after more than a year, another user came along and edited it. This edit remained uncontested. Since the wiki is a community project, and no page is 'owned' by any user, consensus is what determines the status of each page. In this case, the original author refrained from giving input, and nobody else disagreed with the change, so it's been kept.
This edit was extensive, and falls under what some would call 'recycling' a page. If a page is abandoned or of particularly low quality, but sparks the seed of a better idea for a user, it can be completely overhauled into something new of (hopefully) higher quality. This is beneficial in many ways, as it creates new content for the wiki and prevents the administrators from needing to go through the abandonment and deletion processes for that particular page. I've recycled a number of pages myself, and I'm rather proud of what I've made of them. Of particular note are the pages Lindwurm Conflagration (5e Spell) and Usekh of the Dragon (5e Equipment).
I hope this helped answer your question more thoroughly, but if you find it has not, feel free to browse through the Help section.
- While it is generally considered good form to keep to the original author's interpretation, this is untenable in a number of instances. On larger pages, content can go through many iterations and be edited by a great number of users, such that the overall contribution of the page creator is minimal. This is not the case with this page. Rather, this page counted as 'abandoned' - the original author created it and, after a few edits, left it lie. Then, after more than a year, another user came along and edited it. This edit remained uncontested. Since the wiki is a community project, and no page is 'owned' by any user, consensus is what determines the status of each page. In this case, the original author refrained from giving input, and nobody else disagreed with the change, so it's been kept.
