Forum:Character page minimum standard (from Memorial Vote)

Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Character page minimum standard (from Memorial Vote)

Hi Folks,

I think it was clear from the vote on the memorial page that a lot of votes were on the basis that a more general rule should be issued rather than dealing with this on an "exception" basis.

Core Proposal

I suggest amending our policy "all named characters should have a page to the following:

“In general, all named characters should have their own page. However, this is subject to the requirement that all pages must have enough content to "stand on their own""”

This for character pages puts the "all characters must have a page" rule on an equal basis to the "all articles must have enough content to stand on their own".

On this basis the memorial pages, and other character pages that consist of "X existed, X is dead. x is mentioned on Y" could be removed.

Interpretation extention

If it was felt it was needed, we could include the following in the rule to help it be applied correctly.

“If a character is mentioned in more than one place, or is interactable, then enough information is deemed to exist to justify a page.”

Pages that don't meet that standard would be on a case by case basis - a mentioned only character in only a single place could still exist, subject to there being enough info for the page to stand on its own, but reassures those worried this is a tipping point that most character pages are safe - they won't be folded into other pages.

Comments

Any thoughts? Agent c (talk) 13:26, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

Seems like we'll be able to delete just about any mentioned-only content then, I guess. - ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 13:53, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Take Anthony House for instance. He is mentioned-only, but we still have ample information on him and anyone that tried taking him out would be met with a unanimous disagreement. Sigmund Fraud _{Talk to me} 13:59, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

I still feel like we also need to define what a character is. I hardly consider names on a wall to be characters. By that logic, we should have a page about Kilroy considing that he was apparantly at the hidden bunker (sarcasm). <br\> Lord Onions: Dat Onion Ring Luvin Fox! (Talk) 15:15, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

The sad thing is that technically we should have one on those grounds. Anyway, for me the answer is simple;

"In general all named characters should have their own page, however pages actually need to have enough content to support their existence. If a number of characters can be expressed as a list on another page, without any information being lost then they should be presented as a list instead."

"E.G if in game there is a restaurant called Nando's and a prewar terminal can be accessed which lists all staff's names and nothing else (and this is the one and only mention of any of those members of staff) then we should only have a list of these members of staff under a heading of "pre war Nando's staff" (or similar) and not make a page for each and every staff member. As all we know about these people is A) their names and B) their worked at Nandos pre war, a simple list of "Names of prewar Nando's employees" would offer the same information as individual pages for each one"

"However, every person who cannot be grouped in with others, or presented as a list should be given their own page even if it would be equally lacking in information as the previous example."

"E.G. A man called Rodger will run up to you and ask "have you seen my friend steve?" (who never appears in the game). We have very little information on Steve other than A) his name, B) he is friend with Rodger and C) he is missing, however he is not part of a larger group of people and thus is deserving of his own page."

I understand that this is a tad lengthy (and British) to actually act as a policy we follow, however this is pretty much how I view the situation. If condensed down I feel this would work as a good policy. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 16:00, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

Needs more re-writing. I am not saying that the idea being thrown around here is the worst idea ever, even though I still vehemently disagree with it, but the current writing being proposed, would put almost every mentioned-only character article into risk. Especially our Van Buren articles.

I am biased against these changes, so I might propose alternatives, if no one else can create a satisfactory one - but until then, I just want it on the record that I do not support this proposed amendment to the policy. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 16:13, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I certainly don't want all our mention only pages going away, which is why I personally think that the rewritten policy should only deal with lists of people who are all, as far as we are aware, the same (other than say name and rank). Memorial characters, and the original members of vaults spring to mind, for example. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 16:16, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

I just think that we should be really careful. Not just in the short-run, but we also must always think of any possible consequences that policy changes such as this one, can have in the future. Right now, our community might understand that this policy change is mostly in regards to extremely vague and no-faced characters, such as those listed on the Boulder Memorial.

But original intent is lost in time, and so will this/these forums. Vague rules do have a place on this wiki, and that is not something I am arguing against. But in this case, I really do believe that we should be getting as specific as humanely possible. I would prefer if this amendment never happens, but if it does, that is what I would prefer seeing. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 16:29, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

Basically sums up my biggest concern. I no longer see any point in making mentioned-only pages at the moment, as I expect them to get deleted in the long run anyway. Be it next week when this passes, be it in 5 years when this site is full of new people and no-one remembers this discussion. - ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 16:36, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. I know that when I made edits and improvements, I am thinking, at the very most, my work will be re-written in the future, and that is fine, since I was still able to help build a foundation to improve off of. But when the reality sinks in with policy proposals such as this one, that my work might not even exist eventually, no matter how much research and time I put into my work? Pretty damn demotivational.

Takes time and effort to create. Takes almost nothing to destroy. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 16:42, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

The proposal wouldn't put most of the Van Buren characters at risk. Almost all of them would have been interactable, and thus move into the protected category. I'm sure most of the rest would be able to stand on their own, as the design docs do not tend to list throwaway names. Any character who required any research would probably find themselves intentioned in two places, or that research would have resulted in more than a token amount of information, thus justifying the page. Agent c (talk) 16:47, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

That is all well and good, in theory. But with the gung-ho removals being proposed lately, and are being contemplated further as we speak, I have absolutely no faith in that being the reality in practice. One can argue with me over that, until they are blue in the face - will not change my mind in the least, when hundreds of articles are being put at risk, and I see comments such as this one: "Fuck these articles, then we can go after the 'Real world' articles and this wiki will have infinitely less clutter." User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 17:02, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

I think you greatly misrepresent the situation, and the number of articles at risk. Agent c (talk) 17:08, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

Time will tell - and I am not just speaking of concerns regarding VB articles. Consider it both a gut-feeling, and a general concern born from what I have already seen.

In the end, I content myself with knowing that I am at least trying to prevent article culling for the sake of simple culling. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 17:21, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is proposing culling articles for the sake of culling articles, but instead discouraging having an article for the sake of having an article - in my view the article on Greece is a prime example of where then current policies (and incorrect enforcement of them) has lead us down the wrong path in a lot of ways. Agent c (talk) 17:29, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia for Fallout knowledge. If any knowledge constitutes Fallout knowledge, then it all has a place on here. That includes even if a few users decide to cull such articles - they will still have a place here, even if that place is not properly recognized.

I spent years of my life on this wiki, especially as the project lead for our stubs, re-writing dubious and irrelevant information so that our articles were both informative and entertaining whenever possible. So it especially unnerves me, when I see culling being proposed as an alternative to re-writing articles for wiki quality. In regards to real-world articles, I do agree that we should not be copying anything from Wikipedia, in alleged cases where that is actually happening. In those cases, I reiterate: a re-write in our own words is all that is necessary.

I just wish more constructive solutions were being found, instead of the easy way out always being proposed. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 17:53, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

And how exactly do we rewrite a page that does not have, and never will have, any information whatsoever? Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 17:57, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

I could easily re-write our memorial characters - many of them would be near identical, but it is possible, and with clever use of mixing words, I could still make each article unique in their own way. My estimate would be 2-3 paragraphs would be possible with imagination. And I say that with experience - remember who it was, that cleaned up hundreds of our stubs, many of them with little to no information available, so that our wiki could get spotlighted.

Seems to be a defeatist attitude, to always assume that just because there is not much information, means that there is not any information at all. Especially in regards to the memorial characters, who have a ton of lore behind their collective duty. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 18:04, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

The information is not being removed. The information will still on the wiki, but will just be on a different page. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 17:59, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

I have already argued my stance on how this is not beneficial, either - the memorial vote specified just about everything. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 18:04, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

(←)  Ok, then please show me how you would expand Sandra Abbot from two sentences to three paragraphs. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 18:11, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

1) I am under the same impression as Peace, here - why should I even contemplate putting my time and energy into certain articles, if they are likely to be deleted?

2) I have a wall that I have built in front of myself, here on Nukapedia. I have started editing elsewhere, for many many many reasons, until certain things change here on Nukapedia. An example that I will still use, and was one of the final straws for me in regards to creating original content, was back when it took me nearly a year and a half, to create an article over one of the most important aspects of lore in established Fallout history. Not only were users blatantly ignoring Fallout canon, but the proposition was also, in ignorance, called racist and bigoted.

• So, sure, I will re-write that article. Elsewhere. I might do the same on Nukapedia, too, but only once it is guaranteed that I will not be wasting my time. Once it is guaranteed that my work will actually be given a fair chance. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 18:19, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

"why should I even contemplate putting my time and energy into certain articles, if they are likely to be deleted?" because if you rewrite it to make it appear as if it has enough content then it WON'T be at risk. The only reason they are at risk right now is because of how empty they are, if you were to redo them so they were not empty that issue would go away and thus we would not be talking about deleting them. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 18:25, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

If you could rewrite that page so it did actually have substancial information such that it was about 3 paragraphs and wasn't "maybe this and maybe that, we don't know this and don't know that", then I don't see how I could do anything but "Guarantee" the page wont be deleted

However, if you want something unchanging... Writing for Wikis is not for you. Writing for Books perhaps is. Agent c (talk) 18:30, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

-sigh- Putting words into my mouth. Again. Let me drudge up a quote that should have already been read by the time anyone got to this point in the forum: "I know that when I made edits and improvements, I am thinking, at the very most, my work will be re-written in the future, and that is fine, since I was still able to help build a foundation to improve off of. But when the reality sinks in with policy proposals such as this one, that my work might not even exist eventually, no matter how much research and time I put into my work? Pretty damn demotivational."

So here is the deal: when I get the time, I will re-write that article, as an example. Not on here, though. I can link to it in private, if that is wished, but I am fully uninterested in making such changes here, while there are still forums going on, suggesting the culling of our articles. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 18:34, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

“ut when the reality sinks in with policy proposals such as this one, that my work might not even exist eventually, no matter how much research and time I put into my work?”

I'm sorry you feel its demotivational, and I understand that completely, we all want to build something that lasts; but that is part of what wikis are about - what exists today might not exist tomorrow.

However, unless your research and work came back with, well, pretty much nothing, then there is no reason to believe that it would be removed with either my or Jasper's proposal. The result would be an article with unique content that wasn't just a cut-copy of everything else in the same list. Agent c (talk) 18:46, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

A little clarification:

1. The problem is not that I want everything to exist, even 50+ years into the future. The problem, is spending hours/days/weeks/months, researching and creating content that directly correlates with the Fallout universe, and having that content removed or questioned for nonsensical reasons. There is a huge difference between reasonable change, and just having my time wasted.
2. Unique content is a problem for certain articles. But when I see people talking about outright removing real-world articles, because they are allegedly copied from Wikipedia (in which I know this is not entirely true, if true at all), or when I see people talking about merging characters onto a single, more vague article, which makes less sense for users to look up than individual names, when we could have a general article detailing everything, and articles for each character, to make searching for that information as optimal as possible, then I consider it all to be an inability to be innovative.

Honestly, all of our problems can be solved with creative writing. Not by lumping everything together, or by removing content because we cannot be arsed to make it unique in our own words. It is one of the reasons why I am so concerned to see users that barely edit, if at all, jumping onto forums such as these. There are times when everyone can have a legitimate opinion, and then there are times where actual experience is needed to make an educated opinion. And I know that I am not the only user that feels this way. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 19:00, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

"I am fully uninterested in making such changes here, while there are still forums going on, suggesting the culling of our articles." At the risk of sounding like a broken record, if these pages are improved and made longer then far less people will want them removed for being too short. I am afraid to say that your word of "lets keep these pages and I will fix them later" isn't enough to fill me with confidence that these pages will (or even can) be fixed. In order for me to change my stance, and stand in favour of these pages being kept, then I need solid proof that these pages CAN be improved to a reasonable level. It is not that I do not believe you, Leon. I certainly don't think that you are attempting to mislead us here, but it is also possible that you are misjudging your ability to expand these pages. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 18:51, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

I already said that I am willing to create an example - just elsewhere. If a link would be considered advertising, for whatever reason, I even offered to send the link privately.

I pride myself on my work-ethic - if I say I can do something, then I guarantee you that I will do my very best. I am busy, only checking in on here for a few moments at a time. But I will get to work tonight/tomorrow, and I will have something done by tomorrow. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 19:00, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

I think you gravely missestimate what creative writing can do. If I again revert to the Greece page, we had a page that basically said Greece is a place, we don't know anything about it, but a long time ago people who used to live in that part of the world believed in Posiedon, therefore Greece is referenced in Fallout"... If we take these memorial pages, all we have is a name, and a (common) place of death, that's it. Aside from inventing facts, or trying some geneology/enymology from name sites (which would be speculatory beyond belief) I really don' see how these pages can be expanded. Creative writing is great, but factual creative writing cannot create facts where none existed bebefore. Agent c (talk) 19:05, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

One of the worst assumptions to make, in general - not just with editing - is to make the assumption that one has personally taken every option into account when dealing with a given situation. You say that the memorial characters only have a name and place of death. I say that they have a rich history, signifying one of the most important moments in Mojave history since the Great War. I can do wonders with all of the history behind the Mojave conscripts, and their sacrifice for a hunk of cement (as important as that hunk of cement is).

My specialty is observational information, and delving into lore. I think it has been well established, especially as the self-titled Bane of Speculation, that I do not just create facts from thin-air, nor do I expect for speculation to stand. As for Greece, I have actually never traveled to that article. So I will not have an opinion, there, until I actually look into, and whatever possible information is available to us. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 19:11, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

Well, I much look forward to seeing the changes you make. However, until I have seen them I will continue to believe that they cannot be made. Seeing is believing, after all. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 19:16, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

As an anti-Nihilist, I would normally argue against that. But that would be a fully-fledged discussion of existentialism that would swallow this forum. ;)

Putting my smart-assedness aside, I can understand that. I will update with a link when I can. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 19:21, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

VB random sampling

As there was some concern about Van Buren a characters, I applied both proposed elements to a random sample of articles. Apologies for the formatting, on mobile. If there is a specific page or another category that people want me to analyse. Please say so.

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Frieda_Van_Graff

• Test 1: mentioned in more than one place?: Yes - Hoover design Docs AND new Vegas
• Test 2: Stands on own? Page has lots of information justifying its existence

Result : Clear pass

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Nina

• Test 1: Fail. Boulder only
• Test 2: Pass. Page contains more than token information

Result: Pass

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Davidson

• Test 1: Fail - Bomb only
• test 2: Pass - page contains more than token information

Result : pass

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Pierre_LaPoubelle

• Test 1 - fail - Hoover only
• Test 2 - pass - page contains more than token information

Result : pass

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Hank_(Van_Buren)

• Test 1 - fail - reservation only
• Test 2 - pass page contains more than token info

Result : pass

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Candice_Morris

• Test 1 - fail - Hoover only
• Test 2 - pass - page contains more than token info.

Final random selection was Harold, who speaks for himself.

Sample method: me scrolling with my eyes shut and then stabbing at random.

Forget further specifying, why not target the specific policy itself?-... again?

I believe any attempts to further refine the exception clause to FW:ORG are not only pointless, but also redundant and perplexing to me as the proposed changes on the memorial vote was seeking to do exactly that.

This sentiment comes from the general spirit of FW:ORG itself...

“Reader convenience and clear structure: Content distribution across articles should be clearly structured and convenient for readers. Simply put, this means information should be presented in a way that allows readers to easily find what they are looking for.

In detail, this means:

• When creating a new article, it should always be considered whether its subject is too weak to carry an own article and whether it would be more convenient for readers if it were merged with another article. If the answer to these questions are positive, the article should rather be merged (if possible).”

... along with Gunny's own response before we were privy to the exception clause during the discussion page.

“There is a clearly written policy on this matter and if they fail to meet that policy, they should be removed. The only argument is do they meet the threshold established. I do not believe so.”— The Gunny

From this, the fact nobody even knew of the clause in the guidelines during the vote and discussion process, and the fact the vote was going to pass in favor of removing the memorial pages before we knew of the exception, I believe we are capable of discerning what justifies page creation and what doesn't without any specific clause or further specified clause with just the general guidelines as it stands.

Therefore, we should simply remove the exception section and simply treat articles the way we normally do, and if disagreements should arise, we should simply treat them all the normally as well. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 20:10, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

No offense, but speak for yourself. :/ This exception was one of the major catalysts in the creation of articles such as Button Gwinnett, and has been a prominent aspect of editing that major editors have had to take into account. Just because a few users forgot about this exception, many of them mostly only hanging around chat, does not mean that nobody knows of this guideline, nor does it mean that it should immediately be scrapped. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 20:17, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

"Just because a few users forgot about this exception, many of them mostly only hanging around chat, does not mean that nobody knows of this guidelinen, or does it mean that it should immediately be scrapped." But equally it is an option that should be discussed. Also, I fail to see how people spending time in chat somehow devalues their option, or is at all relevant here. Everyone's vote on this is equal, people who only use chat/only read blogs/only edit/do none of the above all get a say. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 20:35, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

I never suggested that this is something that should not be discussed. The problem entirely lies with the fact that Ever just made it out as if this was some rule that no one knew about, and because of that, it should be scrapped without further discussion. Maybe Ever does want discussion, first, but in that case, he should re-write: "Therefore, we should simply remove the exception section and simply treat articles the way we normally do..."

As for devaluation of opinion, I strongly disagree with you. Users who do not understand what a wiki is, or how one works, should be refraining from voting on matters that they either do not understand, or barely understand. Votes are not inherently equal - that is a Utopian view that has no relevance in reality. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 20:46, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

I'm not offended, but I am disappointed. I didn't say we didn't know about this exception when we made the articles in question, I said,

“the fact nobody even knew of the clause in the guidelines during the vote and discussion process”— Me in the very thing you replied to

... which I inferred from such gems as,

“Well, despite me being the creator of this forum and presently having a good amount of support... this forum may need to be closed. As it turns out, there is a policy about this that... well, nobody noticed before.”— Paladin117

“Incredible. Not a single user (until now), among both proponents and opponents, noticed this.”— Skire

... to reach the very same logical endpoint and snide comment to yours as the next quoted author,

“lmao don't act like you knew that exception rule was there boy, if ya did, you woulda said something.”— ToCxHawK

Also,

“many of them mostly only hanging around chat”— You

Would you care to omit any future pointless and demeaning comments from your rhetoric?- because even if true, spending one's time (however much time) on chat doesn't excuse a user from having insight about the nature of this or any wiki's content. Besides, how would you know?- you're never there.

And finally, the reason this guideline should be scrapped is because it violates the fundamental nature of the general guidelines it's an exception to. The fact people didn't even know what it was, voted against its nature, and that a bureaucrat himself directly stated it violated general policy, during the discussion and first voting process is, what I believe, the natural consequence to this exception's contradictory nature. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 21:00, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

Let us not change our stories. As shown in your quote, not only did you say "...the fact," which means you were leaving no room for interpretation, but you also said "...nobody even knew," even though this is a generalization that is not true - at the very least, I knew about this exception, as I have created content based around it before.

You see it as pointless - I do not. You do not get good at welding by reading about it. You get good at it by doing it. You do not get good at shooting a rifle by reading about, either, and the same goes for almost every aspect of life, from having children, to building a car. Editing is no different - it is a skill that is learned through hard work and dedication. Not by sitting in chat and having a minimal article count.

As for the rest, that is your opinion. As long as we can have a discussion, and not outright say that the exception should be removed, then all is fine. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 21:08, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

If you prefer it I say, "with the likely notion that somebody somewhere other than the discussion and first voting process knew about this exception clause but didn't say anything during the discussion and first voting process because they weren't present in the discussion and first voting process" rather than indulging approximations, then knock yourself out.

If you'll allow me to return the favor, it would appear you are clearly ignorant of auditory and visual learning methods that are devoid of what you described (kinesthetic learning), so I'm afraid your generalizations that one doesn't learn any other way are not true - at the very least. So your validations for your comments I found pointless and demeaning are unsatisfactory and I'd appreciate it that you'd know when you're speaking for yourself.

So yeah, it is my opinion, that's the entire point of this discussion forum is it not? I don't believe me saying,

“Therefore, we should simply remove the exception section and simply treat articles the way we normally do, and if disagreements should arise, we should simply treat them all the normally as well.”

automatically means I think we should scrap due process on this matter, but allow me to clarify anyway as I can see the confusion. I believe it should be a voting option to remove the exception guideline for my reasons stated elsewhere in this thread. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 21:45, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

If you are going to put words into my mouth, like everyone seems to love doing around here, then I see no point in humouring your arguments anymore. Just another gung-ho user trying to force their opinions down everyone's throats, is all. For clarification, I did not state that visual/auditory stimulation cannot be an effective learning aid. Seems reading comprehension is your big one, as I only mentioned that certain aspects of life, at times many if not most, can only be learned effectively by actually taking regular, physical part in it. If you genuinely believe that you can become an effective engineer, scientist, doctor, lawyer, etc. etc. etc., by reading, and then pretending to have an in depth knowledge of what it is like to be any of those, then you are deluded.

So putting aside your fallacious arguments, I will conclude this conversation by suggesting to you, for future reference, to not make grandiose assumptions over the validity of any of our rules, simply because a few users were ignorant of said rules. Their ignorance is not justification for anything, and suggesting otherwise, is blatant misdirection. I also suggest looking at the big picture, so that you can make an attempt to understand what will happen later down the road, not having this exception, and not even making an amendment to its complimentary rule. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 21:53, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, you didn't state it was the only method and I'm sorry. But I still disagree with your opinion, proficiency with editing and wiki organization is as attainable from reading as it is doing, and that those who don't edit are not automatically excluded or devalued from wiki politics than those who edit and vice versa. So I still find your original comment demeaning but no longer pointless.

And this wasn't a few users, this was every user who chose to be involved in the first vote and discussion process for the forum regarding the removal of the "redundant" Boulder City memorial pages up until someone said something about it a day after the vote was held after an entire week's discussion in which the article containing the exception itself was linked. This included a total of five admins, three bureaucrats, and a slough of other users including myself. I don't believe it's grandiose to state the general disregard for this guideline after seeing that as I don't believe it's negligible to consider when considering the legitimacy of a content guideline.

And I have considered the big picture in my rationale to Agent c's first comment in this section, that the general guidelines can be cited and enforced to the same effect as the further specification of this exception clause as well as our guidelines in how to deal with edit conflict that could arise from any sort of disagreement over the matter. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 22:28, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

Ever, whilst I do appreciate the "Most elegant" solution is to scrap it... I can already see arguments over "subject is too weak to carry an own article and whether it would be more convenient for readers if it were merged with another article" happening. Agent c (talk) 20:39, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

I recognize the subjectivity of the guideline's wording, but I believe we can manage with it given the majority of this matter prior to discovery of the exception clause. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 21:00, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

"Users who do not understand what a wiki is, or how one works, should be refraining from voting on matters that they either do not understand, or barely understand. Votes are not inherently equal - that is a Utopian view that has no relevance in reality." And how do you propose we enforce that? Who is to make the judgment call that someone's vote is worth more? Many of the people who frequent chat (myself and paladin, for example) are admins or moderators, or people who have generally contributed a lot to the wiki over time. While I do not personally view everyone's vote as equal, we as a wiki must consider them equal else we devolve in to a elitist community based on "well there are 8 votes for and only 2 against, but I think those 8 votes only count for half and those 2 vote count for triple each, so it;s really 4 for and 6 against." and I do not want to be in that kinda wiki. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 21:13, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

It cannot be enforced anymore, as we no longer have a leadership structure that relies on a figurehead to make the tough decisions - the decisions that sometimes have to ignore our own rules. All I am saying, in this case, is that just because a bunch of users did not know about a certain rule, does not mean much when some of them barely know anything about our wiki's infrastructure in the first place.

As for being elitist, that is a legitimate concern. It is a fine line between discerning whether a user knows what they are talking about, or looking down on users for not having particular skills. I value all users - that includes chat-goers, as they help grow our community and wiki influence. But that does not mean I am going to ignore it, when they delve into aspects of this wiki that they are unsure of. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 21:17, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

(←)  okay, I think this is well off the path, can we get back to the topic? Ta. Agent c (talk) 21:17, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

We can; after mulling it over on chat and hearing other users say what they think, it'd probably be for the best if we just iron out something specific regarding this and all similar content to avoid disagreements and confusion over the general wording as it seems widely varying solutions arise from them.

I still find it odd and concerning a concept of reader convenience is neither similar nor intuitive among users here given how editors themselves are still readers of our own content and I feel the demonstrated inconvenience through redundancy is rather obvious. I'm also perplexed as to why we shot down the memorial vote since it sought something very similar if not identical in result to this forum, but I'm happy to do whatever is necessary to quell the dissenting opinion on this, similar, and future matters. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 06:20, August 21, 2015 (UTC)

I do wonder, though, whether or not if the specifying of this whole exception guideline could cover the other concerns raised surrounding the memorial vote, such as the countries forum, or the Forum:Real World which similarly sought and seek, respectively, to remove articles which, as of yet, have nothing unique to the Fallout series outside of a mention or mentions.

Could not specifying the guideline further warrant the recreation of pages agreed to be deleted? Could this forum have an effect on Forum:Real World? Couldn't we re-word the guidelines themselves to better clarify the spirit of the general guidelines that the exception is an exception to if we were to remove it? I'm not certain specifying the exception guideline is the best course, though I do agree specification to some degree is warranted. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 07:20, August 21, 2015 (UTC)

If other pending discussions would cause redundant guideline/policy votes, then I agree that everything should be taken into account at once. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 07:29, August 21, 2015 (UTC)

Since my own forum for the discussion is essentially dead, I wholeheartedly agree we should touch on the relevance of the 'real world' articles. I believe it was Sarkhan brought one up with Button Gwinnett, citing it as one of the pages which the very exception in the policy was intended for. That page in particular is a headscratcher since I don't quite understand why we can't just leave him under the trivia section of the robot, especially considering we're already linking to the much more detailed Wikipedia counterpart within it. It's just another redundancy that really needs to be addressed. ^{BOLTMAN FOREVER} 08:21, August 21, 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Alek. What exactly is it about our Button Gwinnett article that is special? Leave him as a note on Button Gwinnett (robot) with a link to wikipedia. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 14:27, August 21, 2015 (UTC)

Example

I apologize that it took me longer than I was originally intending to get this example written out; however, as promised, I proudly present this forum with a re-write that I instigated on the Sandra Abbot article.

It is a rough re-write, and I plan on revisiting her article again soon, along with her comrades' articles. For now, though, I feel that this re-write is a good example as to how creative writing can solve our issues with the bare-boned memorial characters.

Thank you all for giving me this chance to show that even the most mundane articles, can be redeemed. I really do hope that this example can change at least a single user's mind, that is in opposition towards the memorial characters' existence. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 01:49, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to do this and I will admit, it does make the page appear better. However, my real gripe is still present that all the information on this page can be reflected before a list of all the other service men and women who it applies to. (i.e. all names that appear on the Boulder City memorial). JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 01:57, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

I can understand that. But I genuinely believe that the independent articles can do good standing on their own, and then a general overview can be given on the Boulder City article, as a way to compliment the independent articles.

I hope I have shown that these articles can be fleshed out, and building further off of the lore foundation that I used, each of the articles can easily be re-written in unique ways.

Can complimentary alternatives not be a thing, instead of placing all of our faith into the Boulder City article? User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 02:01, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

I have a few questions:

1. What does the first paragraph have to do with Sandra?
2. How do you know she's a conscript?
3. How do you know she was supposed to be in the fighting?
4. How do you know she lasted until the destruction of Boulder City?
5. Legate Lanius?
6. What's the point of paragraph 4?

Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 02:04, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

The article is mostly details from the Battle of Boulder dam article, spliced with a lot of speculation.

“Private Sandra Abbot was one such conscript”

Speculation, she could have been a volunteer.

“...that was tasked towards the defense of the Hoover Dam”

Speculation, We do not know what her orders or mission were, just that she died at that place during the battle. She could have been tasked with some other role.

“a tactical decision was made to booby-trap the town, in which Abbot and many of her comrades laid down their lives baiting the Legion into.”

Again, speculatory as to what her role was. Maybe she was a supply clerk hit by a stray bullet. We simply do not know.

“Her bravery”

Speculation. Whilst it may be a normal thing to gnerally refer to a military officer as "Brave", No evidence has been supplied of any "brave" acts at all. For all we know as soon as it looked like there was a legion attack, she ran cowering into the town, locked her self in a cupboard and then died when the booby traps went off.

Agent c (talk) 02:06, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm with Jasper with this. The page, while well written, still has a problem with artificially extending it's length and doesn't really offer any info unique to that particular subject. It's like a college paper that's obviously stretching out a detail in order to satisfy a particular length requirement. I'd also like to point out that some of the pages on there seem to assume both gender and relation without any external information to confirm it (mainly with a page like Tracy Quon, a general neutral name assumed female, which assumes Paul Quon is their brother based on nothing but a shared last name). It just seems far more convienient and elegent to simply keep the names on the Boulder Memorial page. As Shakespeare once wrote: "brevity is the soul of wit" ^{BOLTMAN FOREVER} 02:13, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

1. It is background information that explains her fate, and how her fate was realized. If you are suggesting that background information cannot be on an article, then prepare to remove a looooot of valid content from Nukapedia.
2. The majority of the NCR forces in the Mojave were conscripted - that includes many of the officers, although we do have confirmed exceptions in regards to officers. If you can show me proof that even a single NCR soldier in the Mojave was a volunteer that was shipped to the Mojave from California, then I will change the wording.
3. You are joking, right? She was a soldier, at Boulder City during the most defining moment of the First Battle of Hoover Dam. Even if she did not have any orders, she was there to fight. You also cannot argue with my wording in regards to 'tasked', as all NCR soldiers in the Mojave were tasked with Hoover Dam's defense. Whether she was directly tasked, is irrelevant, and is not even suggested.
4. I never said that she did last until the destruction. I clearly said: "...Abbot and many of her comrades laid down their lives baiting the Legion into." She could have died as a sentry during the initial moments of the bait. She could have died during the actual baiting of the Legion. She could have died from the town's destruction. Who knows? I purposefully used ambiguous writing.
5. Yes. The victory secured at Boulder City, disrupted the Legate's efforts at the Hoover Dam. If you do not know the lore behind the First Battle of the Hoover Dam, then I think you need to hold back on your critique.
6. It is flavour material, that is still relevant. It might not be necessary, but not everything has to be 100% necessary - you are just nitpicking.
7. I never suggested that Abbot died fighting. I will need a quote of me suggesting otherwise before I argue any further on this point.
8. Abbot was recognized on the memorial, which means that there is absolutely nothing suggesting that she was a coward or traitor. Until there is a good argument suggesting why a coward or traitor would be recognized on the memorial, my suspension of belief has not been satisfied - that includes if she hid away, as they would have found her corpse cowering away from the battle.

I was challenged to re-write a memorial character article, and I did. I showed that it was possible - so if you guys are just going to attack the re-write, instead of acknowledging what I have proved to be possible, then so be it. Just another case of raising the bar, and I am not going to get sucked into that. With that aside, I will be double-checking my references, and making sure everything is up to standards - like I said, this was a rough re-write, and I fully intend on revisiting her article, as well as other relevant articles. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 02:17, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

“The majority of the NCR forces in the Mojave were conscripted - that includes many of the officers, although we do have confirmed exceptions in regards to officers. If you can show me proof that even a single NCR soldier in the Mojave was a volunteer that was shipped to the Mojave from California, then I will change the wording.”

While I don't know about being shipped from California Mags joined under her own free will "I guess I wanted to make something of myself, you know? Be the best of the best. I *wanted* to be a ranger, but... guess this is as close as I get." and O'Hanrahan may have "As the biggest one it was my job to go join the Army so's my sisters could eat and so's we wouldn't all be killed by raiders and Jesus would love us." (it is debatable exactly what me means by "my job" and it is possible that he is a conscript, so feel free to disregard him without too much argument from me. Mags however, clearly made a choice to join.) JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 02:26, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

I thank you for looking into the matter, but Mag's dialogue does not prove that she was a volunteer - joined and conscripted are synonymous. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 02:31, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

She says WHY she joined. She was motivated to join for a reason. Conscription is compulsory, but she makes it clear that she joined because she chose to, not because she was made to. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 02:34, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

If I was conscripted, I would also want to be the best of the best - especially with how unforgiving the NCR are, and how poor many of the NCR's citizens are outside of the capital (brahmin baron and whatnot). User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 03:11, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

She specifically says the reason she joined up was because she wanted to be a ranger. If I ask someone "why are you here" and they say "I wanted to be", then I assume that they wanted to be there and not that they HAVE to be there. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 02:43, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

Key-word there, being "...assume." User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 03:11, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

And you are not making an assumption at all? You are saying that she must be a conscript, despite her dialog implying the opposite. There is not a single line she says that states, or even comes close to stating, that she was forced to join the military. When asked "why did you join" she responds with "I joined because I wanted to make something of myself" and not "I did not have a choice". Her reason for joining was based on "want" and not "need". Unless you can find a source that says that A) Mags was conscripted and/or B) literally every single other member of the NCR military was consscripted then YOU sir are also making an assumption. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 03:16, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

I am actually not - I am using observational information to state what the game has given to us. That is subject to change at any time; if I can find even a single soldier in the Mojave, that does not fit into the special exceptions such as 1st Recon, then I will be running a re-write. And I am searching - there are a lot of dialogue files, and it will take a while to go through them all. But so far, I am not finding anything definitive.

Same goes for everything else. An example is that I state that Dornan is a male, because he is referred to as such in NV, and has a male voice actor. But F2 has him classified as a female, so if it is ever revealed later that Dornan was actually a female using a voice-filter or something, then a re-write will be sure to come. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 03:38, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

All I've seen is that you can fill a page with content. The problem is a lot of the information isn't all that relevant, and again, is an attempt to pad a page that is otherwise lacking content. Would it not be a better position in content creation to keep pages informative as possible but also avoid verbosity? ^{BOLTMAN FOREVER} 02:33, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

I can use that argument against almost every article on this wiki. If you honestly do not think that padded information is important, then I welcome you to start a forum to discuss padding, as you are suggesting that most of this wiki should be deleted.

As for why I feel this to be important, I have already made my arguments known.

1. If users want to look up the names, it is much simpler to, you know, actually have their names to look up. The memorial article is much more vague, and is not the first thought to come into my head.
2. Who says that complimentary articles cannot exist? We can have the independent articles, and the overview on the memorial article. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that - it is not like we have limited space on this wiki. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 02:42, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

Padding, in and of itself, is not neccesarily bad. My argument is that the page is essentially all padding. Padding should be complimentary, it should never compose the vast majority of a page. If a user wants to look up the names, maybe they could simply redirect to the Boulder City memorial (not that anyone would in the first place). My argument is only one of convenience. We can have as many pages as we want on this wiki, doesn't necessarily mean we should or more pages is always the best alternative. The pages are nothing more than a waste of space that could easily be supplanted by a list which would arguably provide better functionality for both less effort and clutter. ^{BOLTMAN FOREVER} 02:51, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

I can respect your opinion - between us, I believe we simply have a clash of ideology, in regards to how this wiki operates. I am under the belief that our founder proposed - that we are an encyclopedia, and we should have an article over every bit of Fallout information presented to us. I believe in being as thorough and tedious as possible - all it can do is help us, especially in conjunction with complimentary articles and overviews. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 03:00, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

1. It has nothing to do with *her* background, which is what the section is about.
2. You find me a source that the majority are conscripts and I will find someone that isn't.
3. So, Reyes, Carl Mayes, and Alex Richards are at Camp Forlorn Hope to fight?
4. Actually, you did say that. Specifically, you said: "the town was almost entirely destroyed, as well, costing the lives of many NCR conscripts, which included the life of Private Sandra Abbot".
5. Weird, the wikis state that Lanius wasn't even a member of the Legion yet, but obviously you know more about lore than everyone else.
6. It's 100% unnecessary.

Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 02:34, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

Again: that is being nitpicky to the extreme.

1. It absolutely does have to do with her background. In fact, the First Battle of Hoover Dam, is the only background that she has, and her involvement included a defining moment for the battle, which resulted in her death. If you are trying to tell me that information of the battle, leading up to the moment of her death, is irrelevant, then I truly feel sorry for you as an editor.
2. The source is the game itself, and is extremely common knowledge I am not going to spend more of my time, meeting out your fallacious raising of the bar. You asked me to prove to you that I could flesh out the memorial character articles - I did so, and that is still not good enough for you. Now, you are settling in with attacking the re-write, instead of acknowledging the principle of the matter. So no. I will check my references, but I am not going to keep meeting larger and larger demands, when I have already proved my point.
3. All soldiers in the Mojave are tasked with the defense of the Mojave and its key elements. If any soldier is shown not willing to fight, then the NCR have precedents shown in how they deal with traitors and cowards.
4. You are reading into that wrong - maybe it needs additional re-writing, in fact I am sure that it does, but I was in no way suggesting as to the means of her exact death.
5. You are right - I was being hasty, and I meant to refer to the older Legate. Having to try and answer so many questions at once does that.
6. I do not care what you think. You do not get to decide what is, and what is not necessary on an article. It is that attitude, that is rather sickening to me, and is one of the reasons why I do not edit here anymore. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 02:57, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

1. No, the politics of a faction are not a direct part of a person's backstory unless they actually involve themselves in it. Should every ghoul character start by explaining that they are a product of the United States and China going to war and causing the Great War that created the radiation that might have ghoulified them?
2. If it's common knowledge, finding a source should be easy. A search of the wiki got no results.

Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 03:10, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

1. Apples and oranges. The information I put on Abbot's article, regarding the battle, was factual. Saying that all ghouls are a product of Great War radiation, is not factual, as we do not have evidence on possible ghouls before the War, and then there are ghouls that are proven to have been created from other sources. Please do not use loaded comparisons.
2. I will be researching the sources. But I am officially done with proving my point on here. I already proved my original point, and the bar has officially been raised even further. I do not have the time, nor the energy to entertain even more fallacious expectations. The only reason why I am still here, is to gather valuable input. For instance, it was great to realize that I needed to correct my Legate point, and I also made my wording more ambiguous after you were misinterpreting my older words. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 03:20, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

Err, since when do we work on a "Prove me wrong" basis. In Vietnam, WW1/2 there were conscripts, there were also volunteers. Unless there is evidence stating that the NCR does not accept volunteers, presuming everyone is a conscript is speculation. This also goes for the bravery part - it simply may not have been reported, or the NCR may not have wanted the PR disaster of having a "Coward" amongst the "Heroes". Is your narrative likely? Yeah, I'll grant you that, but we don't work on a likely basis, we work on facts, and where they are unclear, we do not state them as clear facts. Agent c (talk) 02:44, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

“Looking for a place where he could be of some use, Boone found himself re-enlisting with his old unit.”— Boone's ending slide

Positive proof that Voluntary Enlistment is possible in the NCR Miltary. Agent c (talk) 02:53, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

Comparing real-world elements to how the NCR handles its conscript army, does not impress me. I also never said that the NCR does not accept volunteers, so again, I appreciate having words put into my mouth - what I actually said, is that it is referenced in-game, time and time again, that the army sent to the Mojave was a conscript army - the only exceptions I can think of, are a couple of the officers, 1st Recon, and later when the Rangers are sent in. If I can get even a single iota of proof, contradicting this information, such as seen with a regular soldier being confirmed as an enlisted soldier, or a volunteer soldier, then I will immediately do a re-write.

Suspension of belief is important in regards to content. Extending your logic, I can question almost every little thing on this wiki. How do we know that Dornan was a male? How do we know that Emerald Solo is a female? How do we know that Hanlon is not really a body-snatcher in human disguise?

Boone is an exception - he was a part of 1st Recon, similar to how the Rangers are also confirmed to not be conscripts. I am not talking about them - I am talking about a regular private. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 02:55, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

In which case it remains speculation. Unless you have positive proof that no other resasonable narrative can exist, its speculation.

The NCR aren't stupid, they're desperate. If you have two legs, two arms, and are dumb enough to sign on the line, does anyone really think they'd say no?

“How do we know that Dornan was a male”

The game specifically tells us so. The game does not specifically say "There were no volunteers just conscripts".

Agent c (talk) 02:59, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

1. Not speculation - it is clearly stated that the army sent into the Mojave, was a conscript army. Not just once, but many times. That is solid information - it might not be 100% accurate, but the burden of proof is on proving alleged inaccuracies.
2. Actually, the game says that Dornan is a female. Solo was a female, but had a male voice actor. And again, if we need 100% proof to state something, then I use my example again, as to how we can suggest that Hanlon is not a body-snatcher or some such bullshit? There is expecting references, and then there is having outrageous demands. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 03:04, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

“Not speculation - it is clearly stated that the army sent into the Mojave, was a conscript army. Not just once, but many times. That is solid information - it might not be 100% accurate, but the burden of proof is on proving alleged inaccuracies.”

Of course, I agree that the burden of proof is on the claim maker. But the first person to make a claim was you, after all. You stated she (as a fact) is a conscript, thus the burden of proof should be on you. An inability to disprove this fact is not the same as proof for it. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 03:08, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

A "Conscript" army is just an army that relies on Conscripts. You've already conceeded that the entire army isn't Conscripts... therefore how can you justify trying to read the term to mean "all members were conscripts"? Agent c (talk) 03:11, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

I never said that all members of the NCR army are conscripts. I would never say that, especially after all of the work I did on the NCR articles, writing about their personal military and hardware. I specifically stated that the army that was sent into the Mojave, was recognized in-game as a conscript army, with a few exceptions seen with a couple of their officers, 1st Recon, and later, the Rangers. But these exceptions have nothing to do with a private. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 03:14, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

So you accept that in a "Conscript army" there are members who are not conscripts.

On that basis, what factual evidence do you have that no private is a volunteer?

To suggest that any army "on the move" and desperate for manpower would turn down a willing volunteer (without good cause) defies all logic. Agent c (talk) 03:17, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

The principle of the matter. Why use a conscript army? To use as a cheap and effective medium of brute force, without over-expending more valuable assets. Inherently, though, conscripts are not trained as well as enlisted soldiers and officers. So it becomes necessary to have special forces involved, such as 1st Recon, the Rangers, and a couple/few decorated war heroes.

A private does not fit into any of those special exceptions. So when I am told, in-game, that the army sent into the Mojave is a conscript army, then I see nothing to satisfy my suspension of belief, that they made an exception for a green private.

While we are at it, how do we know that Oliver was really a general? He might be referred to as one, but we are never actually given any proof towards his promotion in any legitimate manner. For all we know, he is a twin that has assumed the identity of the real general. You have no proof that this is not the case - but of course, it would be nonsensical to suggest that, as it falls outside of the realms of our SoB. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 03:26, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

Except it's stated that Oliver is a general, where is it stated that it's a conscript army? Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 03:35, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

The point went right over your head. :P As for where it is stated that the Mojave army is a conscript army, that is common knowledge. I will be researching my resources where I edited that article - but I reiterate: I am done making my point, here, as the bar has been officially raised. I am only here for insight, as I have already made a few corrections on the article based on what has been discussed here. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 03:41, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

The problem is, common knowledge is something that everyone, or at least mostly everyone, believes, and yet the editors of both Nukapedia and the Vault are questioning that they're all conscripts. How can it be common knowledge when only one person is stating it? Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 03:54, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

Who says only one person is stating it? "Space. The final frontier." ~The-Artist-64 (talk) 03:58, August 22, 2015 (UTC)The-Artist-64

I was leading someone into saying that, and now I point you to the Salient Green article, where even though there is no proof at all in regards to the behind the scenes section, aside from a similar name, that speculation was still strong-handed in there.

In any case, I have lost interest in this topic for now. I will be running references next chance I get, and I will be listing my sources. Entirely dependent on what I find, more might need to be re-written. We will see. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 03:59, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 04:02, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

You think you are being clever, but you really are not. :P

We have been through that time and time again. Behind the scenes only calls of a TEXTUAL OR VISUAL CORRELATION, and a similar name fits in to that. Claiming someone was drafted on grounds of "I see no evidence against it" is two different things and you know it. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 04:03, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

Similar is not synonymous with direct correlation. All that case proved, is that wording could be twisted around to fit certain users' speculation. At least in this case being discussed, there is actual in-game dialogue stating the Mojave NCR army was conscripted. But in other cases, 0 sources were needed to add in outright speculation. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 04:11, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

"In-game dialogue" that you are yet to show us. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 04:13, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

I will explain one more time: I was challenged to flesh out one of the memorial characters, and I proved that it was possible - although there is still more work that needs to be done.

Instead of acknowledging that I completed the challenge, regardless of whether it needs to be cleaned up some more (not the point), I was met with the fallacious raising of the bar.

I will be looking up references, and I will do my best to source everything in regards to my recent work on the Abbot article. But do not expect for me to keep meeting each new goal that you all lay out for me, even though I already proved my point. I do not play that game. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 04:17, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

I guess people were just underwhelmed by the article that was immediately tagged for clean-up and has multiple missing references. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 04:20, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

Ahhh - the classic passive aggressive Paladin, always looking down on the work of others as inferior. At least I made an attempt, and I will still be making an attempt. Much more than you have done. So keep being judgmental - I do not give a shite. I am content with knowing that at least I care enough to do something, and that I have enough of a work ethic to create content, instead of always trying to destroy content. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 04:24, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

Literally the FIRST THING I said was "Thank you for taking the time to do this and I will admit, it does make the page appear better." How is that NOT "acknowledging that I completed the challenge"? And maybe, just maybe Leon people just don't think you did "complete the challenge" because, as has been made clear with previous comments, they do not think that the information you added is relevant or true. You put words on the page, and you feel those words belong there. That is fine, but do you really need a pat on the back from every single person here? Not everyone here thinks you succeeded with that page. We are not laying out new goals, we are asking for the same things now that we did before. There is more on the page, correct, but we don;t think that what is on the page is good. Anyone can add more to the page, but that was not the challenge. Teh challenge was to add things to the page that are worth adding. I could have opened the page, clicked edit, and held down the F key for a few minutes and got a long page. However, it would have been a bad page and that, Leon, is what people are saying you made. Nobody is denying that you made a page, but they are denying the quality of it and if that is so hard for you to swallow then I am sorry, but you need to wake up and accept that you live in a world where not everyone views your work as being as good as you believe it is. You can sit there and spout fallacies all you like, but it will not change what we believe about what you added, sources will, so maybe you could spend less time telling us to acknowledge your work and more time DOING THAT WORK maybe we wouldn't have wasted the last god knows how long arguing. Now, did you have to make this page? No, no you did not. And again, I appreciate that you took the time out to do so, but if you just wanted us to all say "good job leon, I'm convinced" and call it a day then I am afraid you came to the wrong place. You have proven your point, sure, but only to yourself. You have managed to convince yourself of something you already believed which, I am going to be honest here, is not hard in the slightest. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 04:27, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

I really do not care what you think. :) There is a reason why I stopped editing here, and that is because, frankly, the atmosphere here at this wiki is poisonous. And the funny part is that many of you do not even realize that you all are chasing off your best editors. Hell, I know personally that yet another one of Nukapedia's prominent users is seriously contemplating editing off-Nukapedia soon, because they feel that their work is always being looked down on, which has been further frustrated by all of the removals being noted lately.

Honestly, I could have ignored this forum and the others, as since I am working at the competition, too, these removals and loss of editors can technically be seen as a good thing. At least I can hold my head up high, knowing that I would rather try and keep helping this wiki, instead of seeing its plight as an opportunity.

I stand by my belief that this wiki is quickly falling to the editors that only care about the rules and chat, instead of actual content and our editors. But then it is failed to be taken into account, that if users such as J, Broc, Peace, Hail and others left, Nukapedia would essentially be dead.

I have already proven that new content can be written using established lore. I have already tried to appeal that complimentary articles can be had, and that all of these removals are not necessary. But you all are already set in your beliefs - I am not really arguing for any of your benefits. I am arguing, in the hopes that others can at least hear a different viewpoint. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 04:39, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

I've thought about leaving too- there certainly is a bitter, toxic air surrounding the wiki. Not that me leaving would make much of a difference, but you can definitely see a lot of it from this thread. Insults being thrown around like nothing- jeez, apparently according to a certain Vault 117 Dweller, I'm 'trying to be clever, but I'm not'. Not professional, to say the least. Anyways, will we be voting on the new policy or what? "Space. The final frontier." ~The-Artist-64 (talk) 04:48, August 22, 2015 (UTC)The-Artist-64

“And the funny part is that many of you do not even realize that you all are chasing off your best editors.”

If by "best editors" you mean you, who I have had many complaints about in the past, due to you being a general deterrent to many people, including myself to the point where I do not what to have to take part in any conversation which you have joined, as I know it will end the same way, then I am happy to see the back of these "best editors".

“At least I can hold my head up high, knowing that I would rather try and keep helping this wiki, instead of seeing its plight as an opportunity.”

Which is what we are ALSO TRYING TO DO. We just ave different views on how to help. Please do not tell me you are so arrogant that you think anyone that has a different idea to you is malicious.

“I am arguing, in the hopes that others can at least hear a different viewpoint.”

Something I have always seen you be unable to do, as you seem to sit there with your fingers in your ears saying "lalallalalallala" until everyone goes away.

“I have already proven that new content can be written using established lore.”

You have proven that, yes, but you have not proven it can be done well, which is what we questioned.

I also have taken the liberty of drafting up a quick page, similar to yours it needs some fine tuning but I am sure you will accept that, as we are both very busy. Please look at it here. I believe you will find it's length much to your liking, although I am working on making it even longer. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 04:52, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

"If by "best editors" you mean you, who I have had many complaints about in the past, due to you being a general deterrent to many people, including myself to the point where I do not what to have to take part in any conversation which you have joined, as I know it will end the same way, then I am happy to see the back of these "best editors"."

Heheheh. You really have no idea. I can no longer count on two hands how many people have left because of the chat politics over the years, and I know after a recent incident that I helped mediate, another prominent user was also thinking about leaving Nukapedia. With these removals, yet another prominent user has confided in me their intent to leave.

Better hope that Fallout 4 brings in new editors, and that you all can keep them around. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 04:57, August 22, 2015 (UTC)