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 vote
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 solutions
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.
Poll
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
Or maybe this
Option G
| ||||
First Preference Votes
Option A
Option B
- C, E, D, A Agent c (talk) 21:53, September 27, 2017 (UTC)
- 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 C
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 
22:46, September 27, 2017 (UTC)- C, E, D, B, A Paladin117>>iff bored; 23:40, September 27, 2017 (UTC)
Option D
- 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 23:28, September 27, 2017 (UTC)
- 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
- 123123abcabc (talk) 16:42, September 28, 2017 (UTC)
- B then C (depending on the definition) Rationale in the comments Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin
Option E
- E, B, C, A Yodamort (talk) 21:54, September 27, 2017 (UTC)
- 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)
Comments, or requests to help you vote
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 rationale
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)