FANDOM


Forums: Index > Wiki proposals and applications > Creation Club Solution
 
Gametitle-Wiki
Gametitle-Wiki

Hi everyone:

The good thing about votes are they're usually very good at establishing the consensus position. Either there's one clear winner, or another....

...Except the times there isn't. And Creation club seems to be one of those times.

Both private and public discussions of the vote discussions on how to interpret the vote inevitably lead to opinions on how someone thinks CC content should be handled (perhaps in some new way), rather than trying to work out what the vote means.

So, we're going to resolve this now, somehow. Agent c (talk)

Reading the old voteEdit

So, Question 1 is really easy "Do we include Creation Club content on the wiki?" You clearly said yes - 23:3. Some of you did include reservations.

So, it is the consensus is that Creation Club content will be added to the wiki, somehow. Not covering it is not an option.

Question 2 is where it gets tough - Do we do Single, Single with exceptions, or multiple pages? 8:7:6 is damn close - an even 3-way split. Is a vote for Single Page With Exceptions a preference for a single page, or a preference for multiple pages where relevant? So, we need to reconcile that, somehow.

Question 3 is also tough. It's basically a even split, and neither outcome has 50% support. So there is no consensus on if non Bethesda-made (just overseen) Creation Club Content should be included.

On Question 4, although the vote is close, it is diverse enough for there to be a consensus position. Links from the main pages should only in exceptional cases link to Creation Club Content.

So, how do we fix this mess?

Possible solutionsEdit

Let's just focus on question 2 for now. Since we've agreed we are going to cover something - somehow - how are we going to cover it?

A. Using the Tabber on the main wiki See Jspoel's sandbox for an example of multiple pages on tabber.

  • It's on the main wiki, and all content we're covering is there.
  • Some editors might be confused with Tabber coding (but it's not that hard).
  • It does appear like individual pages, but you can't interlink between them.
  • The heading Edit buttons don't work.
  • It makes the page coding long.
  • Our editorial guidelines continue to apply.
  • Searches will not resolve on the Wiki (this could be resolved with Redirect pages).

B. Putting creation club as a "Daughter Wiki" (on the Exodus platform), except for a single overview page. For an example of how it could appear see this page.

  • It's not on the Main Wiki, except for that overview. The Daughter wiki can have slightly different branding (and will have a different URL) that makes it clear to visitors that this is not part of our "Canon" content. MemoryAlpha does something similar with Star Trek Licensed Content (Memory Beta).
  • It's individual pages.
  • All "Main Wiki" links for the CC content would point to the overview page, which in turn would point to the Sister wiki. The Daughter wiki would link back into the Mother wiki as we would normally link.
  • You edit those pages like you normally would.
  • You may need a new account for the daughter wiki (or you can edit as an anon user).
  • Page coding is normal length, but there's the option to try some new stuff with Exodus.
  • Our editorial guidelines would be mirrored to this resource.
  • Creative Club searches will not resolve on the Mother Wiki (this could be resolved with Reidirect pages).

C. Take the middle option on 2 as the compromise position. (Overview page is the default position, some exceptional cases get multiple pages).

  • It's on the main wiki, and all content we're covering is there.
  • It's pretty simple and effective.
  • This was rejected by about 66% of voters

D. Forget the single page stuff, and just do multiple pages on the wiki

  • It's on the main wiki, and all content we're covering is there.
  • It's pretty simple and effective.
  • This was rejected by 66% of voters.

E. No Multiple pages, a single overview page is all we need.

  • This was rejected by 66% of voters.
  • It would mean some visitors will not find what they are looking for.

PollEdit

So, this is going to be one of those Alternative vote jobs I love so much. If you haven't done this before, its simple. You stick your signature down next to your first preference.

I'm not finished yet.

If none of these options gets 50%, the least supported option gets eliminated. In the event this happens and your vote is one of the eliminated ones, I'm going to look in your comment after your vote to see which option you preferred next, and move your vote there (if it hasn't been eliminated yet), and I'll keep doing that until something gets over 50% of the remaining votes.

If you don't put preferences, or you don't put everything in order, your vote "dies" after your last preference is eliminated, and will be treated as neutral from there on. If the Neutrals ever get above 50%, then I'm going to throw my hands up in dismay, so please, don't do that.

So, your vote should look like this:

Option Z

  • I, C, U, P Agent c (talk) 21:50, September 27, 2017 (UTC)

Or maybe this

Option G

  • Agent c (talk) 21:50, September 27, 2017 (UTC) Y, U, C
Poll finished on 9:50 pm October 4, 2017 (UTC).
Poll
  • A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken.
  • You can vote by placing the following line in the appropriate section of the option you support:
    • # {{yes}} ~~~
  • Please do not edit other people's votes.

First Preference VotesEdit

Option AEdit

  1. Icon check A, E, D, C, B Glauber0 Howdy! 22:12, September 27, 2017 (UTC)

Option BEdit

  1. C, E, D, A Agent c (talk) 21:53, September 27, 2017 (UTC)
  2. What does Option C mean? Single overview with some exceptions? If so, my list is: C, E, A, D. Sigmund Fraud Talk Contributions 21:57, September 27, 2017 (UTC)

Option CEdit

  1. Icon check I always prefer simple solutions. The limitations of finding info by search on a tabber page make that for me less useful. I think there will be some real options to use the exodus platform for serving content that is too hard to serve from wikia servers, but I feel this is not a good case for that. I also feel a lot of this content does not merit it's own page. My order or preference would be C, E, D, A, B.  The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 22:46, September 27, 2017 (UTC)
  2. Icon check C, E, D, B, A Paladin117>>iff bored; 23:40, September 27, 2017 (UTC)

Option DEdit

  1. Icon check So D, and then C. Those are the only options for me. I wasn't aware of the no edit problem in the tabbers. CC is growing on me. Sorry, but I'm really against putting it on another wiki. Getting way ahead of things in my opinion. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 23:28, September 27, 2017 (UTC) -- Update on the CC data: User:Jspoelstra/sandbox3
  2. Icon check If where gonna do at least it easier to find and clearer instead of one giant page of mods. From a simple man who wishes to stop struggling to do website wiki things on mobile. E.g all other votes and Chad's user page sorry about that by the way. User: Pedro Washington
  3. Icon check 123123abcabc (talk) 16:42, September 28, 2017 (UTC)
  4. Icon check B then C (depending on the definition) Rationale in the comments Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin
  5. Icon check This one feels like it would work the best. Rebel427 ~ I'll be your huckleberry 02:21, September 29, 2017 (UTC)
  6. Icon check D and then C. Some purely cosmetic mods can share a page. I'll elaborate my point of view and finish the stubs (User:YoDsanklai/PowerHorseArmorMod|Power Horse Armor mod, User:YoDsanklai/PowerHorseArmor|Power Horse Armor, User:YoDsanklai/Scabby|Scabby) I created later tonight. My 4G network is terrible in the train. --YOD ᕦ(ò_óˇ)ᕤ 13:16, September 30, 2017 (UTC)
  7. Icon check D C E. I am 100% against this, whatever you call them they are still mods and should not be covered. That being said, my opinion lost the vote. Although I won't add this content to the Wiki I will maintain our standards over them, like I would for any other article. As for this vote itself, I hope I understood them correctly. D - Give them all pages? If they are going to be here this is the most logical way to do it. See E below. C - only slightly better than E below. E last resort for my votes, 1-page overview? - This would make a super long page, and whereas a single page has the space for more information, a single page for all would have to share the space and things may go missed. As for the other votes, I don't think Tabs would work. As new content gets released another tab would need to be added, making the page load longer and the tab headers more cramped.Xa3talkContributions 20:55, October 1, 2017 (UTC)

Option EEdit

  1. Icon check E, B, C, A Yodamort (talk) 21:54, September 27, 2017 (UTC)
  2. Icon check E, A, D, C, B. In order of my reasoning: I prefer E most for canon reasons. One page, and short descriptions of each. Perhaps a table could do nicely. Following that, A is a close second: it could work well, but because of the 1) edit button issues and 2) it looks horrible on mobile, a table or something would still be better in my opinion, hence E is slightly above A for me. Next up is D: although I'm not a fan of giving this stuff near-canon status, the fact is that this option is the simplest and most straightforward one. It'll also be the leaat confusing to navigate. Next up C: some exceptional cases get special pages. I don't personally like this approach because it's inconsistent. I think all pages should be handled the same one way or another. And finally B: While I like the idea of Exodus and we do need tests for content, this isn't a good way to use it right now in my opinion. Splitting content between wikis is one of the last things I'm interested in. If the content is on both wikis, sure; maybe a combination of A and B could work okay - individual pages on Exodus but a tab page here. But B by itself? Not interested. Nomad | Talk | Discord | NMC 03:31, September 28, 2017 (UTC)
  3. Icon check Ecd. Not much info is needed on any item, as most appear in a single place, with no story or anything worthy of the title of 'quest'. Just the name, what it is, and stats. Bethesda didn't give us much to cover, so it's better to combine it and put it aside than fill the wiki with noncanon stubs. Soviet (talk)

Comments, or requests to help you voteEdit

Well, this is going well, isn't it? Already we're back to a tie... We have exactly two votes on four of the options already. Nomad | Talk | Discord | NMC 11:57, September 28, 2017 (UTC)

Just a little, I havent cast my votes yet because it's going to be a pain on mobile to do. My own personal feelings on the subject we are a wiki, this is a platform created by Bethesda with content that has their Devs over sight it at minimum. Non-canon is given the appropriate number of articles (BOS Shelter) to fit the content. With CC you have two other veins in play on the vote: it's mod content and not a game (ethics) and we don't like that platform and don't want it reflected here so let's make it as small as possible. The content is here, we have agreed we should cover it, do we really need to be making a bunch of extra rules and covenants around it, or should we just get on with the job of covering it? Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 13:55, September 28, 2017 (UTC)


If this situation was to persist, I’d model taking each equal result away to see where preferences lead. A would be eliminated as it only has 1 vote, then we’d be looking at where the second preferences go, However at an eyeballs glance, it seems C is ahead when we start looking at second preferences. Agent c (talk) 14:40, September 28, 2017 (UTC)


Saka's voting rationaleEdit

I touched on this earlier, as far as I am concerned we have agreed to Creation Club content. We have a rules to govern article standards and creating a new standard because "we don't like the concept/they are mods", feels like we are trying to make a political statement or lesser their importance and value to us. We are a wiki that covers Fallout, Creation Club is now a part of that domain and we as editors, made the conscious decision to take the task of accurately recording and archiving this information for others. I'm going to pick Nomads rationale apart here too:

  • "I prefer E most for canon reasons."" Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel and Fallout Shelter are non-canon and how many articles do they get? Dozens.
  • "Next up is D: although I'm not a fan of giving this stuff near-canon status, the fact is that this option is the simplest and most straightforward one." We all accept that Creation Club is non-canon, one of the Mods is the BFG from DOOM, that couldn't be placed anywhere near Canon even with an article of it's own.
  • "Following that, A is a close second: it could work well, but because of the 1) edit button issues and 2) it looks horrible on mobile, a table or something would still be better in my opinion, hence E is slightly above A for me." Either of these options are not suitable for mobile. Tables do not handle well to any wiki's mobile platform, Tabs don't work. You're going to make this information difficult/inaccessible to mobile users. We already have this issue with the Fallout 4 dialogue files, but that is more a necessary evil.
  • " B: While I like the idea of Exodus and we do need tests for content, this isn't a good way to use it right now in my opinion. Splitting content between wikis is one of the last things I'm interested in." I'm also going to pull a part of Gunny's rationale in here too: "I think there will be some real options to use the exodus platform for serving content that is too hard to serve from wikia servers, but I feel this is not a good case for that." I agree entirely that Exodus is not intended for this type of scenario, I offered it as a compromise To keep those that wanted very little CC on the wiki, whilst allowing those that wanted to work on making solid, consistent articles for the content the space to do so. Frankly if we try to reduce and minimalise the content, we may find ourselves left behind. if we are going to cover it in part here, we should do so fully, if not we should have an affiliate who will do the work for us instead.

Every time this conversation comes up in chat/forum we have those who hate the concept and the ideal that it stands for. Emotion needs to be left at the door when these votes happen, especially when feelings are high on the subject as they are with Creation Club. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 19:03, September 28, 2017 (UTC)

"Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel and Fallout Shelter are non-canon and how many articles do they get? Dozens." Yeah, but FOBOS and FOS have way more content than Creation Club does. What will an article on the chrome Pip-Boy skin add, exactly? Paladin117>>iff bored; 00:57, September 29, 2017 (UTC)
More than This does I'm going to bet. Agent c (talk) 01:40, September 29, 2017 (UTC)
And I'm all for deleting that. Paladin117>>iff bored; 01:41, September 29, 2017 (UTC)
And the two different "prison Keys" (One for tactics, one for BOS)?, the De-Luxe Mountain Man All-In-One Survival Kits, the Vigilant_Citizen's_Hotline, Denver_PIPBoy_entries, Intra-Vault_mail, General_Accounting_Office, Blind albino newt, SecBot, Deep Throat volume 1059..... Agent c (talk) 01:48, September 29, 2017 (UTC)
Those are better at least, but yeah, some of those can be gotten rid of too. Paladin117>>iff bored; 01:55, September 29, 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── From FW:MAS:

  1. Strength of an article: Every article should be "strong" enough to stand on its own. This means the subject provides enough content to write an article of decent length about it.
  2. 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.

I would consider a Pip-Boy skin not strong enough to stand on its own, a power armor paint job, which actually has "moving parts", hence making it strong enough to stand on its own. So again, why are trying to re-invent the wheel for CC when we have rules that can be applied largely off the shelf? Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 06:47, September 29, 2017 (UTC)

What will an article on the chrome Pip-Boy skin add, exactly?

We'd make a single article about the three paint jobs (Chrome, Onyx, Swamp Camo). The article would give the information that despite the description in the store, the paint jobs do not alter the Pip-Boy capabilities or the Sole Survivor characteristics in any way. The article would also contain a gallery with 6 pictures: one from the third person view and another from the first person view of each paint job to show what each paint job looks like in the game. Pretty much like we do with the FO4 power armor paint schemes.

I follow Skaratte's opinion on that we already have rules that can be applied. It seems we are only divided on recognizing the Creation Club as official content. --YOD ᕦ(ò_óˇ)ᕤ 19:21, October 1, 2017 (UTC)

ExamplesEdit

I drafted some example articles for the Power Horse Armor mod/DLC, here are the articles :

  • User:YoDsanklai/PowerHorseArmorMod|PowerHorseArmorMod : A single page about the mod resuming the contents and giving an overview.
  • User:YoDsanklai/Giddyup!|Giddyup! : An article about the quest that leads the player character to find the Power Horse Armor.
  • User:YoDsanklai/PowerHorseArmor|PowerHorseArmor : An article about the Power Horse Armor itself.
  • User:YoDsanklai/Scabby|Scabby : An article about the creator of the Power Horse Armor.
  • User:YoDsanklai/Scabby's journal|Scabby's journal : An article about the daily journal of the creator.
  • User:YoDsanklai/Betty Buttercup|Betty Buttercup : An article about the unique piece of junk that inspired the creation of the Power Horse Armor.

When the articles are finished we should at least get that amount of information on each page. We can't really skip a full article like the one on the power armor to give details on the ballistic/energy resistance of the armor, the article on Scabby also seems necessary to explain the genesis of the armor and the article about the journal is also necessary to hold that kind of transcript.

Some other mods like the Power Horse Armor could use a dedicated overview page along with the individual articles. Some mods like the PA paint jobs don't provide that much content but we can gather 3 paint jobs on a single article, that's not really an issue.

--YOD ᕦ(ò_óˇ)ᕤ 19:02, October 1, 2017 (UTC)


ResultEdit

15 people have voted. As such, the required number of votes for an option to succeed is 8.

A - 1 Vote B - 2 Votes C - 2 Votes D - 7 Votes E - 3 Votes


No option has achieved the required margin, we move to transfer the lowest.

Round 1Edit

Option A is eliminated. Glauvber0's vote transfers to E

B - 2 Votes C - 2 Votes D - 7 Votes E - 4 Votes

As no option has achieved the required margin, we continue the process.

As there are 2 options with 2 votes, we will model each of these in turn.

Model 1 Round 2Edit

Option B is eliminated. Both votes transfer to C

C - 4 Votes D - 7 Votes E - 4 Votes

And we're modelling 2 again

Model 1.1 Round 3Edit

Option C is eliminated, the votes transfer to E D - 7 Votes E - 8 Votes

Option E wins by 1 vote on the third round

Model 1.2 Round 3Edit

If we eliminated E, the votes would transfer to 2 of each.

C - 6 Votes D - 9 Votes

Option D wins by 3

Model 2 Round 2Edit

If Option C is eliminated, both votes go to E

B - 2 Votes D - 7 Votes E - 6 Votes

This leaves us with much cleaner results - there is no split requiring further models.

Model 2 Round 3Edit

When B's votes are transferred to E:

D - 7 Votes E - 8 Votes.


We're at option E wins.

As such, as E wins in Model 2, and half the time in Model 1, E narrowly wins.

Are there any objections? Agent c (talk) 20:13, October 5, 2017 (UTC)

Out of interest, if you were to redistribute every vote to second preference then add it to the pre-existing totals, how would that change the results? With such a narrow margin in the outcome, I'd like to see if that throws E as a strong outlier, or if it flips it in another direction. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 17:49, October 6, 2017 (UTC)
What does E exactly mean? Is it a single overview page for all the mods? An overview page for each mod? Anyway it is not compatible with the amount of content we have and it will force us to censor some content officially produced by Bethesda, that's not something we are used to do on this wiki. I'm also disappointed by the vote since we didn't have a visual draft for each solution and the vote was launched before we could show some of the drafts. --YOD ᕦ(ò_óˇ)ᕤ 23:12, October 7, 2017 (UTC)

Saka ModelEdit

Start with first preferences

A - 1 Vote B - 2 Votes C - 2 Votes D - 7 Votes E - 3 Votes

And then the second preferences A - 1 goes to E B - 2 go to E C - 2 go to E D - 3xC and 1xB, 3x votes die E - 1 Each to A B C

Which gives us

A - 2 Votes B - 4 Votes C - 6 Votes D - 7 Votes E - 8 Votes

So E would win, but again narrowly.

Thing is, over time I've begun to think I've made a mistake with my vote, and I'd probably now B C D rather than BCE... that would throw another spanner in the works. Agent c (talk) 18:20, October 8, 2017 (UTC)

Everything points to a narrow vote, albeit 2 models point to e by one vote. Is the community happy to accept e as the outcome, or does it want an all in vote between e and d to call it once and for all? We knew this wouldn't be a highly contentious vote and without a firm consensus it is likely to come around again. Plus YoD wasn't happy that the demo articles for D weren't available before the vote was called (one could arguement defense wasn't given time to prepare it's case). Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 18:27, October 8, 2017 (UTC)

I am beginning to think a final runoff might be neccessary... but the system was supposed to negate a need for that. Argh. Agent c (talk) 18:30, October 8, 2017 (UTC)

The result is as decisive as the subject itself. A lot of people voting with their hearts (I know for a fact one of those e votes is because a user doesn't want us to cover period). From the Moot yesterday at TES they agreed to hold on making a decision until they have spoken to the mods wiki, may I suggest we hold until then, as there may be a solution there? Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 18:35, October 8, 2017 (UTC)
No, I think any coverage we have to do is within ourselves (be it on a new wiki within our control, or within the main wiki). The Fallout Mods wiki I believe is as dead as a dodo, and a general mods/CC wiki makes even less sense. Agent c (talk) 18:49, October 8, 2017 (UTC)
When you're working with this type of option-cutting - based polling, I frankly don't think 17 votes is enough to cut it. There will be no definitive answer; also, the votes we list after the first choice are usually picked by us almost at random. While I said before that I'd prefer E most, I don't think we have enough votes to justify making E a final decision. As such, I'm going to ask a simple poll question on this topic tomorrow; I believe that if we combine the results of that poll with this one, we may get a slightly better answer (judging by the ~40 results that the weekly polls tend to get apiece). Please note, though, that in order for this to work, the people who voted on this question already will have to vote on the new one too. Otherwise it'll end up with a split decision again because of inadequate voting. Agent C's picking-apart of my response kind of illustrates the point - virtually every answer given to this can be challenged quite easily. We need a straightforward poll count to resolve this - and getting a count from regularly-visiting anonymous users too (which account for ~1/3 - 1/2 of weekly poll responses) may assist deciding what the community that reads these pages really wants. |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 11:48, October 12, 2017 (UTC)
First off, who are you to unilaterally decide all of this? The bureaucrats decide the result of votes, not you. Second, the polls are the most unreliable form of voting ever conceived, so why would we take that seriously? Paladin117>>iff bored; 00:40, October 15, 2017 (UTC)
we most certainly will not use a poll to finish creating this policy, too easy to spam votes. By policy we do this in the forums. If c wants to do a run off, we do a run off. If not, we stick with the results here. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 04:01, October 15, 2017 (UTC)
Evidently you misread my quote? I never said it would decide which way we go necessarily. My point is that it will be a helpful factor to consider in breaking ties, not that it necessarily needs to break a close decision. Simply a factor to keep an eye on. |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 13:27, October 15, 2017 (UTC)


When you're working with this type of option-cutting - based polling, I frankly don't think 17 votes is enough to cut it.

We have an established Quorum listed in the guidelines - and that number is 10. I'm not going to debate the rightness or wrongness of the quorum figure, but suffice to say it has been met.

I really hate that this has run on this long, but the requirement in the guidelines is Consensus. I cannot say with honesty it has been met.

As such, We're going to do this one last time between the two leaders. No more options, no more considerations. A single vote above the other will win it. That vote is here. We're not using the "poll" thing as that is very very very easy to engage in ballot stuffing. Agent c (talk) 20:27, October 15, 2017 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+