Forum:Discussion merge Nukapedia / The Vault

Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Discussion merge Nukapedia / The Vault

In light of the voting results on the Nukapedia The Vault merge formal vote, the bureaucrat team have decided to put the voting process on hold. Many no voters' complaint is that there hasn't been a proper discussion yet, in which everyone's concerns can be raised. With this discussion forum, we believe a much wider support base for the merge can be created. If you have them, place your concerns below. Following the discussion, the vote forum will be unlocked again, making it possible for people to reconsider their vote.

Comments

While I am a supporter of the merge, I think it is a great idea, it's clear some people are concerned with the quality of the content that is getting merged in, specifically making sure the content is following rules and is clean and it's being changed in the merge process to be so, not just copy and pasted without a second, hard look. I haven't personally witnessed these problems but I would just like to suggest that we should not only have a couple venues for communication where editors can ask about and/or inform how to merge certain content properly, but also provide clear direction to those venues. A forum post specifically for getting/giving merge help and the Nukapedia discord merger channel are great potential venues, it only needs to be made clear to content mergers that these resources would or already exist. Enclave Soldier Elliott (talk) 21:01, October 1, 2019 (UTC)

Voting was paused before I had a chance to fully consider my own voting preference and rationale. I whole heartedly support the idea of the two wikis merging together, and we, as both members of the Nukapedia and the Vault, will only benefit from the merger. Though, prior to this discussion having been opened up, it would have been with enough of a caveat to justify voting neutrally, at least for the time. The only flaws seem to be with the implementation not the idea, and I cannot make that point clear enough.

Both Dekker and Mara have already voiced the most common complaints I have seen from community members actively participating in the merger, and though I believe we all do expect there to be a little lag during the transition phase, there seems to have been a visible dismissal of many of these issues. The longer the merger goes on, the more these issues will compound, and I see no reason to allow for an otherwise avoidable scenario where there is an immediate need for an editorial project to correct these problems once the merger concludes. There are tens of thousands of articles that will need to be checked for new information, references, images, or other content present on the Vault that may not be present on Nuka, so this project is going to take a ‘’very’’ long time to complete in its entirety; shelfing concerns or simple advising users to “be bold” as they arise will likely leave such concerns, many of which are completely valid, to either be overlooked, solved inconsistently, and overall lead to additional problems.

My suggestion for an improvement to the current system is for a two-step verification on the checklists to prevent as many policy noncompliant edits or regrettable instances of page wiping and replacing. Whichever user performs the original check and edit can leave there mark as it currently sits, and a user who verifiably knows what they are doing can perform a follow up approval. Because there have been, unfortunately, some glaringly noncompliant pages merged, specifically regarding locations, transferred over by users who, by all accounts, should know better. This “weasel” language as Mara phrased it appears somewhat regularly on Vault articles and are being imported wholesale, when now rather than later is the best time to correct these issues which are minor as individual instances but will be a far greater inconvenience if given the chance persist several thousand times over. A secondary check would also prevent instances of wiping and pasting which could lead to valuable information being lost.

Based on the comments already present on the voting, it might also be necessary to reiterate the basic how’s and why’s since many of the “no” votes are not actually concerning a fundamental disagreement with the idea of joint wiki but rather with a lack of communication leading up to the merger. Might help put a few of their minds at ease.

My two cents anyway. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 21:28, October 1, 2019 (UTC)

As per both of the above, I believe a merge is certainly in due coming. But this certainly feels a lot like we're getting a fair amount of "merge the wikis now, fix it later"... I don't feel like that is a good thing to be doing. Some folks believe that it is more efficient that way. Perhaps it is, short term, but in the long term we could be creating some rather dangerous precedents for article quality if articles are haphazardly mashed without doing it right the first time. Now, this is not to say that every merged article is done poorly; far from it. Plenty of the editors working right now are doing the best they can to merge. But glaring examples of editors merging without a clear guide as to how articles need merged, and the exact policies up front for doing so.... give the impression that we need considerably more communication on a forum from the staff's opinions on how this should be done. |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 23:11, October 1, 2019 (UTC)

As expressed on Discord, on Skysteam's forum discussion, and in my initial vote, my main concern is with the lack of care for existing Nukapedia editing policies that some of the imports are taking. This concern is compounded by the anecdotes that some editors are approaching this merge with a "fix it later" or "someone else's problem" attitude. I have been assured now on multiple occasions throughout the process that NP content policies trump TV ones and, where there is a problem with that, due process will be followed to amend existing NP content policies. Evidently this stance has either not been effectively communicated or is just being ignored. If this is actually the stance that the merger is taking, then I would like to see the following:

More specific guidelines on the project page to this effect - e.g. "When merging, ensure that the final content meets with the wiki's existing policies."; "Where there is divergence between the content policies of the two wikis, the Nukapedia content policy takes precedence." Content policies are what makes the wiki coherent and, even though I have not been here long, I can see that significant time and effort has gone into developing them. Choosing to just ignore them or "leave it to someone else to fix" is a piss-poor attitude to have, regardless of how much more valuable you consider your time to be relative to the "someone else".
Where there is agreement that minor changes should be made to article layouts to accommodate sections which exist in TV articles (for example, a 'points of interest' subheading being included under 'Layout'), that the relevant guidelines are amended to reflect this.
Where there are major changes to be made, that due process is followed in getting things changed, rather than there being a unilateral decision to make changes without documentation. We need to be able to point to evidence of a decision when someone gets sassy about "why are things like this it's so stupid".
~~Exhortation~~ Encouragement of merging editors to have a care when merging and not just copy-pasting the material. This is a once in a wiki-lifetime opportunity to pseudo-QA basically every single page on the wiki so we should really take the chance to.

I am also supportive of a double sign-off or a peer review on each merged article, ideally by a representative from each wiki. However, I appreciate that this probably calls for more editing resources than we have so I am content with having the above implemented.

Do this and my mind will be set more at ease with regards to the merger. Actually follow-through and we're really onto a good thing. --L84tea ^{Would you like a cup of tea?} 00:15, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of the merger, but I don't think it is being handled properly from an editing standpoint. While it has been said already, the issue is that some content is effectively copy pasted with no attention paid to corrections. This is especially obvious when the article includes references, as The Vault calls pages about terminal entries "Location terminals" whereas Nukapedia calls them "Location terminal entries", creating redlinks. Another problem is capitalisation, as articles for the same thing, but with different capitalisation (especially holotapes) show up as redlinks. It isn't the biggest of issues, and is relatively easy to fix, but it consistently happens when content is imported from The Vault. Aiden4017 (talk) 02:38, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

The redlinks are the most irritating thing to me because they are literally the easiest thing to spot and fix prior to publishing. These are very basic editing considerations which we seem to be okay with overlooking for some reason? --L84tea

^{Would you like a cup of tea?} 02:44, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not difficult to type one word (entries) or simply check the links as you type them in. What really annoys me is that it's usually not even a full word, it's something as simple as Vault 94 G.E.C.K. recording vs Vault 94 G.E.C.K. Recording. Aiden4017 (talk) 06:30, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

I feel as if certain issues are being blow out of proportion, as I've been going through the articles being debated over in the Discord server, and all I am seeing are fairly minor issues that are dealt with on a daily basis, regardless of the merge. Everything being brought up, from capitalization to speculation, are common issues among the wiki, and these issues should be treated exactly as how they've always been treated since the respective guidelines & policies were created.

"...merge the wikis now, fix it later..." - I keep seeing this quote floating around as justification that the merge is on some sort of rocky road, when the fact of the matter is that only a single editor from The Vault has said anything like that, and it should also be noted that they are not a rights-holder that can attempt to force in that line of reasoning. Let's ground ourselves in reality here, and understand that a single editor's opinion on the merge, isn't reflective of the actual merge itself.

"...my main concern is with the lack of care for existing Nukapedia editing policies..." - That's a rather harsh breach of the good faith rules that this wiki employs. As any new editor can attest to, Nukapedia has a rather vast and extensive set of guidelines & policies that can be intimidating for anyone trying to jump into the article-space. Not every editor from The Vault is going to immediately be able to understand and memorize the differences in rules on Nukapedia, and it's as simple as pointing them in the right direction whenever their habits carried over make an appearance. If the behaviour continues, get someone involved to act as a mediator, and hash things out personally rather than beating around the bush.

Red-links, by their very nature, are an incredibly important part of building a wiki, and I'd rather not see a stigma against them created; especially when red-links are easy to track down and build upon by any editor interested in tackling our maintenance categories. Even Wikipedia finds red-links useful, and the link provided is a good read for those looking to understand the concept better.

- OT: As for the discussion forum itself, I welcome any chance to discuss the merge more in-depth, and I hope to see people getting involved with this forum as work continues around the wiki. Ultimately, though, I do believe that the only way we'll be able to understand what needs to be done, and how to improve the processes involved, is by actually going through with the merge and learning as we go. Talking is nice and all, but learning from hindsight is a better teaching tool than hypothetical scenarios that may or may not happen. ^寧靜 07:11, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

Both Aiden and I are referring to issues that we are already seeing repeatedly in the imports, so I at least would appreciate not having these concerns dismissed as "hypothetical scenarios". --L84tea

^{Would you like a cup of tea?} 07:24, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

To reiterate, I still can't see as to how these issues are any different than what happens on the wiki almost daily, regardless of the merge. They are issues, and I am not disputing that - but they are minor issues, and do not require extensive discussions, votes, nor legislation to deal with, rather than speaking to people on a personal level about their editing habits.

That appears to be our main deviation in thinking on the matter. Personal interactions vs impersonal legislation, which we already have way too much of. ^寧靜

07:37, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

I would like to point out that in my intial comment I'm not talking about redlinks in terms of there being no articles, I'm talking about links that, while correct on The Vault, do not link to the corresponding page on Nukapedia. Again not hypothetical, this is happening constantly. Aiden4017 (talk) 07:33, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

I felt it necessary to point out that red-links are important, as while I understand the point you were making, you were still putting an emphasis on red-links, rather than just addressing the issue as nothing more than a lack of research before linking.

There was a time on Nukapedia where red-links were ostracized, which is the only reason I'm going out of my way to make note on the matter. ^寧靜

07:37, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to add that it's hypocritical to say that we should "learn from hindsight" and then say that there's nothing we can try to do to resolve these issues which are being raised with the benefit of hindsight. I've suggested some practical and unobtrusive ways to address some of the more basic concerns which have been expressed, what is the problem with implementing them? --L84tea

^{Would you like a cup of tea?} 07:36, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

Where did I say that? You seem to be attaching words to what I've said that are in no way indicative of what I'm trying to get across. ^寧靜

07:38, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

"Talking is nice and all, but learning from hindsight is a better teaching tool than hypothetical scenarios that may or may not happen" implies that we're here just to talk in hypotheticals. I am learning from hindsight, and in hindsight the project guidelines for the merger should have been more explicit with regards to 1) that merged information should continue to adhere to the relevant wiki's content policy and 2) that it's not just a copy-paste job, you should check what you're merging to ensure that, at the very least, the links are working. Again, I've suggested a really quite easy way to allay some of my concerns, yet seemingly these suggestions are being dismissed along with the concerns. Yes, sure we deal with these "small issues" all the time but not in the this volume. There is no way we can keep up with a patrol log like this when it's not one but 20 links which need to be fixed in a single edit. --L84tea ^{Would you like a cup of tea?} 07:48, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

I apologize if that is the way I came across. As I also noted, I welcome further discussion on the merge as we continue onwards, as there are certainly going to be issues that need to be addressed. My criticisms lie solely in the more minor issues being brought up, which are not really what I'd call merge-related, and are, instead, common mistakes found on the wiki, that should be dealt with just as we've been dealing with them for years.

To address the more serious concerns, for example the copy/pasting, that is something that needs to be amended. I'm not sure yet if there's more than a single example of an editor doing this so far, but it is something that doesn't need to be happening if not necessary, even from just a single source.

As a veteran editor, I can't say that I agree with you about the volume claim. I've been around for multiple game releases, and the merge is going at a much slower pace than what we've seen compared to new content being released - with the exceptions of Shelter and 76. This is extra work, yes; but if the claim is being made that it's too much to handle, then we genuinely have a serious problem on our hands regarding the number of editors able to keep the wiki running. I'll be editing soon as well, so I'll be doing my part in keeping the RC up-to-date. ^寧靜

07:57, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

The minor issues we are commenting on are occurring disproportionately in imported articles, so yes I daresay they are merge-related even if they're not particularly sexy issues. Again, I have suggested something straightforward which neither creates red tape nor seeks to antagonise incoming editors. You have yet to acknowledge or address this, instead choosing to focus on minimising what I, and other people, consider to be issues. Yes, they may be minor in the grand scheme of things but it sure doesn't feel good to have them dismissed like that. I've been told to empathise with the new and unfamiliar situation that incoming editors are facing but maybe that empathy should go both ways. --L84tea

^{Would you like a cup of tea?} 08:08, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

Then I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this matter. I am aware that these issues are happening, and they will continue to be amended as necessary - but I can't say that I see these issues as anything more than minor annoyances that are an every day part of life when working on a wiki.

I haven't commented on that yet, because I just got back home from work, it is 3 in the morning, and I still need to think on those matters more heavily before I officially comment on them. I am not obligated to respond to every single last idea brought up here at the same exact time, and I can't say that I appreciate your disparaging comments towards me, all because I am not responding to you in the exact way in which you wish me to. I will reply to you on your ideas when I am ready to, so calm your horses. ^寧靜

08:17, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

Unlike a major content release, however, this project is entirely one taken on at will, and is, by no means one which requires the same levels of time crunch. There should be no rush nor reason to dismiss "common" mistakes as being acceptable en masse if they can be mitigated or avoided. One of the main problems as I understand it quite literally is more minor issues and a willingness, as shown here, to dismiss the problem as a non-issue. Rather than allow sloppy work now, which will inevitably require a mop up later, assuming it is even caught (not everything is as easily diagnosable as red links born from differing naming conventions). And this conversation largely epitomizes the concerns of everyone above and on the voting page, a tacit "sure someone else can fix it later" rather than addressing it now. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 08:11, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

There's seems to be a bit of a disconnect that I'm noticing here, with how people are perceiving my thoughts on the matter. I may consider many of the issues brought up as minor, but in no way am I suggesting that they are acceptable. As I have stated a few times over now, these issues are to be dealt with as we've been dealing with them for years now. The merge is not some unique beast where the guidelines & policies are warped and dolled out differently.

What I want to see happening, is the editors making these mistakes, being spoken to personally, on the wiki, not the Discord, and having the relevant rules being made crystal clear. When it comes to the more minor issues being brought up, I see my suggestion as being much more successful, than indirectly tackling the issues by tacking them onto the merge discussions/vote. ^寧靜

08:21, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

(←) It is not a matter of perception, it is a matter of articulation. If your feelings differ from your voiced opinions, feel free to clarify, but if your justification for dismissal and condescension are that you are too tired to take the time to write a more thoughtful, "official" reply then it falls on deaf ears. Leon, you literally entered the conversation, incorrectly interpreted a complaint and talked down to on the user who raised the issued, and after having the problem explained to you, decided to cop out because you are tired and by no means obligated to respond. Then why respond at all? Quite frankly, you are coming across as a dick. In the span of around an hour, you have singlehandedly managed to embody some of the worst of the problems which have been raised.

I have no issue with speaking to individual editors, especially if they are frequently committing the same errors. That may very well be the only solution in some cases, but these are not random fans who were hoping to contribute some new information to the wiki but are unfamiliar with Nuka polices. These are very much editors, not random anons and one off users. So I would argue that more information upfront and clearly presented would be merited as well, as I would hope editors are capable of reading and understanding the rules. Would be quite difficult to make it this far otherwise. The point of this discussion, at least so far as I am concerned, is to highlight the issues and bumps along the way which should be caught and corrected now, rather than months or years from now. And preemptive troubleshooting as a result of greater discussion is exactly the kind of benefit that the merger should have received prior to starting the official vote. I believe we both agree the merger is a great idea, but where we seemingly differ is that I believe its implementation thus far has not been so smooth as to say it is satisfactory to move on without at least attempting to address the already present issues. And alienating the very users with an apparent, even if unintentional, disinterest does nothing to foster a positive relationship between anyone. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 09:02, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm getting tired of the buzz-words you and Sax share between yourselves to use against me at every opportunity possible. Just because I disagree with someone, doesn't mean I'm being dismissive. Just because I disagree with someone, doesn't mean I'm being condescending. I am allowed my opinion, just as everyone else is, in the time-frame that I see fit. And whether you want to accept it or not, I take every opinion I see into account, and I've been discussing them extensively with people such as Tag.

You accuse me of coming across as a dick, yet you are the one entitled enough to suggest that I not comment until I am able to comment on everything, you suggest that I embody the worst of the problems being brought up which is downright nonsensical and a personal attack, and you suggest that I have no idea what I'm talking about, dismissing the issues brought up here without even understanding them, when I have stated over and over and over and over again that these issues do need to be addressed, but in a personal way that involves directly talking to people, instead of passive-aggressively inserting editor-conflicts into the merge discussions/votes. If you want to keep inserting your personal issues with me into your replies, then I'd highly suggest you take them to my talk-page, instead, and leave your more objective thoughts on this forum, instead.

Back onto the topic, I do not agree with your thoughts on the matter. As someone who has personally jumped between the two Fallout wikis, and has worked on many other large-scale wikis as well, discerning the differences in rules between communities can be incredibly difficult, and are almost always exponentially more extensive than the rules you'd see on, say, /d. Members of the The Vault migrating over to Nukapedia, should be treated exactly as new members still adjusting to the environment, and that includes making them aware of the guidelines and policies as necessary. In the end, being able to read/understand the rules has little to nothing to going through a re-adjusting period to break old habits. ^寧靜

09:30, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

If you are tired of the way people react to you, I would suggest better evaluating your interactions with others to determine why multiple people have come to the same conclusion and what traits of yours have led to your predicament, but your aside has no place in this forum. I am certain that Sax can speak for himself, but he is not here and has not aired any specific grievances or concerns regarding the community discussion aside from the fact he, along with many other voters, believe one should occur. Any pre-existing issue you have with him, is an issue you have with him and is not one relevant to this conversation in the slightest.

I can assure you that I did not choose buzz words. In response to users voicing concerns, you arrived to tell them the concerns were of no consequence no more convincingly than it would have been to tell them the earth is flat. Feel free to chose which ever word you believe to have the least baggage: dismissal, disinterest, lack of concern, indifference, etc. I am not pointing out some vague notion or a behavior never once exhibited; I am pointing out the nature of your participation in the forum thus far. For reference, one need only look to the above comments. There is nothing I can say to make my case more so than you already have done. My opinions on this matter are my own, and when relevant to the conversation, I will share them at my discretion. Should you feel the need to continue any discussion relating to our interactions, you know where my talk page is.

Re-adjusting to old habits is hardly the only issue, unless I should take your meaning to be that editors from the Vault habitually leave broken links without taking the time to check them, add superfluous "weasel" words as Mara put it, and are more interested in the speed at which a task is performed rather than the quality of the final product. As I said, taking the time to speak with individual editors is a good idea, but I do not believe it is the end all be all solution. But what most definitely is not the solution is telling people who voice concerns about ongoing issues that the problem will be sorted out by someone else later or that any attempts to lessen and relieve the damage are futile. To that point, this is not a personal attack on you or own who you are, but rather it is a critique of your comments, and no one's comments, yours and mine included, are beyond reproach. No matter how uncomfortable it may be to hear. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 10:39, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

We're going off topic here and this barely serves any purpose for the topic at hand now. I'd suggest stopping it here and now.
- FDekker ^talk 11:29, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

On one hand there are issues such as leaving unnecessary red links, which I can't help but think shows a lack of care, and on the other hand there are issues such as creating hundreds of stubs, which is against our current policy. Now I'd be the last editor to say that anyone would need to know all policies by heart. My point is more that I agree that it's usually best to speak to people personally to discuss errors, but some errors occur so often that it's not an individual problem but one more deeply embedded into this merge. We need to have 1) clear guidelines for what is and is not acceptable, so that we can point people to these guidelines if we think they make an error, and 2) have the courtesy to talk to each other individually for smaller issues or suggestions. These guidelines could be placed on the wiki merger project page, for example. I would hope that this is sufficient to prevent these issues, but if this is not enough we can always follow Dyre's suggestion to create a review process.
- FDekker ^talk 10:15, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

Having a helpful tips section on the project page, where those signed up have to sign-off on having read them all, seems like a fairly good compromise solution to me. And even if there are members making similar mistakes yet haven't signed up, they can always be linked to the project page as well to get a general idea of where to look to improve their editing on Nukapedia. ^寧靜

10:21, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

Comprehensively addressing the issues

Rather than respond to every single comment and thus keep this discussion going in circles, I'd like to address the issues raised. This might be a lengthy post, so please stick with me (and if you're responding, do so in a comprehensive fashion, so that this may continue to be a constructive discussion, rather than turn into a back and forth; everyone wants the merge to happen, we're here to work out a solution). Also, keep in mind that I'm speaking as someone who has professionally worked on wikis for six years

General points

Policies: Although some users feel differently, there is simply no real material difference between the policies. The Vault has directed little attention to updating policies, with the focus being on revising and generating content. The exception are Referencing guidelines, which can be readily imported to establish a common standard for references. Other perceived differences are simply a case of Fandom having an explicit statement of what is taken as implicit on Gamepedia. Harmonization is trivial and we have replied in this spirit to the discussion raised, agreeing with Skysteam's points raised.
Technical debt: The formatting differences between the two wikis are not major and are mostly up to conventions. Both sites have a decapitalization policy, for instance, but due to different priorities (referencing and rewriting over maintenance), this has not been implemented as consistently as possible. This is where aid would be very welcome, especially from editors concerned about it. Other issues, such as different naming of terminal pages ("terminals" vs. "terminal entries") is a matter of me running a bot every now and then to automatically correct the links; I haven't done it yet because the focus is on bringing it in the first place. Similarly, location infobox functionality imported from Gamepedia for Fallout 76 will require a bot run once the import is complete (and would also cover converting "terminals" to "terminal entries").
Reference grouping: Given that the Bible and non-game sources are unclear when it comes to their canonicity, I figured that this can be addressed by simply leaving it up to the reader to decide, with the wiki not trying to act as arbiter of canon (since that's not our job). This can be seen on eg. Sino-American War, where references are grouped together according to source: Released games, which are the only thing definitively canon (except for two games), are simple numbers, while outside sources are grouped and clearly identified as coming from the Fallout Bible and Game Guide.

Speculation

Some users have regularly attacked The Vault and its editors for "allowing speculation". This is not true. Some conventions exist to make linking easier (eg. differentiating between the VB02 variant in Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas and the one introduced in Fallout 4), but speculation is not permitted. That's why the focus is on making sure as much information as humanly possible is referenced (we once had twenty-odd references for the Enclave, simply because someone on a talk page argued it was just the name for the oil rig; this has since been removed for sanity).

The problem is that there is no real point of reference for determining what speculation is, and so it is used by some users as a bludgeon to win arguments, rather than a scalpel to improve the quality of articles. To counter this, I propose we adopt a simple method of determining what's speculation and what's not:

Is there a reference for the claim?
Does the reference support the claim?
Is the reference contradicted by other references?
Are any assumptions necessary to accept the claim?

Notably, this also requires us to be judicious and pay attention to facts. For example, while a great many fans assume power armor is tank-like or was meant to replace tanks, this is not reflected by any sort of source, barring an ambiguous statement in the Fallout Bible which is hyperbolic (like the Fallout 2 intro and its imaginative claim of continents falling beneath boiling oceans). The same goes for any advanced power armor lore or claims it was invented purely by the Enclave (which are not backed by any sources in the games; the only lore on that subject is a half-sentence in the not so reliable Fallout 2 Official Strategies and Secrets).

Content

The first priority for a wiki should always be information and accuracy. The form in which that information is presented is of secondary concern. The merge should focus on bringing the quality parts of both sides. This does mean stripping parts or even entire articles. The only concern should be quality, rather than which site's wording to use. To quote Wikipedia's guideline on content ownership:

All content—articles, categories, templates, and other types of pages—is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or how high-standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page. Also, a person or an organization that is the subject of an article does not own the article, and has no right to dictate what the article may say.

We are all here to create the ultimate guide to Fallout and that means making sweeping changes and overhauls as much as necessary to improve the quality of the articles. This is especially important with Fallout, as many articles have an immense accumulated technical debt, to use FDekker's phrasing. For example, the Vault article, which is cited as an example of overwriting. Importing The Vault's article wholesale was the only option, as the local article was only cosmetically different from the article eight years ago. It has been barely updated despite the release of two full games in the meantime. The current version has been imported from The Vault for the simple reason that it has overhauled that eight years old article and greatly expanded the contents to cover Vaults in detail (increasing the word count by 60% - from roughly 3200 to 5300 - with a total sum of 122 references in contrast with the previous 11).

Dealing with technical debt isn't merely capitalization or linking corrections - it also means wholesale evaluation and overhauling of existing articles. Our only concern should be quality and focus on being the ultimate guide, without being attached to what came before. This will also allow to eliminate dubious content on both sides, including things everyone assumes to be true just because they've been around for years (like the Mister Handy article, which prior to overhauling included my and Ausir's entirely fan-made division of Mr Handy models, completely ignoring sources).

For the purpose of determining how to overhaul, we can follow a simple checklist:

How old is the article, i.e. how long since it had a comprehensive overhaul and rewrite?
Is the article referenced? Can it be referenced without the need for an overhaul?
Is an improved version readily available on either side?

As usual, keep the focus on quality, especially when it comes to old, old articles that haven't been updated in years.

Participation

Finally, something of note: Given that nearly everyone wants the merge to happen (at least nearly every editor and administrator still actively making edits and improving the wiki), the best way to ensure that the merge happens the right way is to get involved and actively edit the articles and bring content over. There is a lot of things to do and the more people participate - by editing, merging, streamlining, referencing, everything that moves forward - the sooner we will get it done, and the fewer problems we will have.

In general, this is what six years of being a wiki manager taught me: Activity and editing is good, especially with big projects. We all have the same goal in mind - the ultimate guide to Fallout - and lending a hand in achieving this goal is the best possible way to achieve that.

Summary

Seriously guys, we all want the same thing. _Tagaziel ^(call!) 10:41, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

Comments

I agree that the policies are virtually the same, but complaints about differences in policies are really complaints about the differences in how strictly these policies are applied. As you say, this becomes apparent when looking at capitalisation. Initially I would have said that not fixing capitalisation is an act of carelessness or sloppiness since I think it should be trivial to follow for experienced editors, but if I hear Leon then I'm wrong about that and some form of aid is indeed needed there. Tag/Leon/Vaulters, what is the best way we can help with this? (This also goes for referring to the player character as "they"/"them" by the way.)

As for the bot fixing terminal links, how often do you run this bot? I don't think it's acceptable to have an unnecessary red link like that on our page for, say, a week. Those things need to be fixed quickly as to not disturb our regular readers. We can't make this place look like a mess with red links and missing templates. It's good to hear that the technical debt is resolved quicker than I initially thought. Perhaps it's an idea to write down the procedures on how this is done so that others can verify that the problems they see will indeed be fixed in time, allowing them to concentrate on other issues?

I really like the references on the Sino-American page by the way! Looks really really good and organised. ❤

For speculation I agree that there is no objective standard that can tell us what counts as speculation. As far as I have seen the wikis have similar standards for speculation. I think the difference we have is with regards to original research; NP has virtually none while TV has quite a bit of it. For example, it renames "post-cryogenic syndrome" to "post-cryonic syndrome", identifying vehicles based on their real-world counterparts, adding interpretations to events, and so on. I'm not saying that this is especially good or bad, just that this is a difference in attitude between NP and TV, and I think it needs to be reconciled somehow.

I also agree that the merge means that NP's articles will be updated, and that some parts will be overwritten or thrown out during the merge. Ultimately, this comes down to trusting that the merger has made the decision on what to retain and what to throw away carefully with the right (applications of) policies in mind. I think that the issue regarding original research I mentioned above is the main stopper here, in addition to a potential lack of trust in the merger's capabilities.

The ancient users among us will know each other from before the split and will naturally trust each other and know each other's capabilities, but this is not true for new users. Yes, everyone wants the merge, but we all need to work on communication and mutual trust.
- FDekker ^talk 12:53, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

Three weeks into the merge, I'd like to summarize what's been done, and given the hundreds of pages that have been changed, I feel there's been done a good job, and ok, some content may have been overwritten, but it's done with care, been proofread before with many references added. The bulk of the importing has been done by Vault users Tagaziel (location pages) and Dave, and I've mostly formatted them, solving red links. I don't think we need to worry about these. Also, mostly only the background was updated there, and the notable loot. What more that has been done are many faction pages (and new, related pages), and correct me if I'm wrong, but they've been rewritten on the Vault, and the largely replaced the content on Nukapedia. Some may say, there must still be some good content there, but combining such huge articles is very time consuming and difficult, and we don't have unlimited manpower. So I'm ok with that for the flow and continuation of the work. What could be done, and is practical, is leave a summary comment with these imports. And leave another checkbox mark in the progress table so that another user can verify it. I'd like to note that help, especially from the more experienced members, would be much appreciated. We're just starting the merge, and there will continue to arise issues in the future (pages where we may have the better content/gameplay), but we must have faith that they can be solved along the way. Jspoel

14:16, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

I plan on adding much, much more when on later, but I have to ask a serious question first: Are we on some kind of deadline that nobody wants to mention? Is the Vault getting deleted at the end of the year or something? People seem to be acting like an additional week or two's worth of work is going to somehow kill this entire project. Checking your work before submitting it isn't hard. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 17:09, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by “harmonisation is trivial” or which of my points you agree with, but I will say that I have been a staunch advocate for merging Vault-Nukapedia polices... which even just from the past two weeks on the discord, I can see are definitely different in certain areas. Skysteam (talk) 21:17, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this means either, and it seems like the point of that previous forum you created were largely ignored. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 21:39, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, now that I am home, I can address Tag's post. Also, I've gotten to used to reddit, so I will be formatting it like this.

“Policies: Although some users feel differently, there is simply no real material difference between the policies.”

In that case, we have different approaches on how to interpret our policies, which is arguably worse.

“Other issues, such as different naming of terminal pages ("terminals" vs. "terminal entries") is a matter of me running a bot every now and then to automatically correct the links; I haven't done it yet because the focus is on bringing it in the first place. Similarly, location infobox functionality imported from Gamepedia for Fallout 76 will require a bot run once the import is complete (and would also cover converting "terminals" to "terminal entries").”

Wouldn't it make more sense to run right now, on the Vault, then import the already modified content, versus leaving tons of broken articles for who knows how long? It would be faster, easier, and more convenient for basically everyone.

“Some conventions exist to make linking easier (eg. differentiating between the VB02 variant in Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas and the one introduced in Fallout 4), but speculation is not permitted.”

Wouldn't "Vertibird (Fallout 3)" and "Vertibird (Fallout 4)" accomplish the exact same thing without having to make up a fan designation?

“No one, no matter how skilled, or how high-standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page.”

But for many, this is exactly what you are doing when you replace a page that hundreds have worked on for a version that you prefer.

“For example, the Vault article, which is cited as an example of overwriting. Importing The Vault's article wholesale was the only option, as the local article was only cosmetically different from the article eight years ago. It has been barely updated despite the release of two full games in the meantime. The current version has been imported from The Vault for the simple reason that it has overhauled that eight years old article and greatly expanded the contents to cover Vaults in detail (increasing the word count by 60% - from roughly 3200 to 5300 - with a total sum of 122 references in contrast with the previous 11).”

I wouldn't call 720 edits "barely updated." I also highly doubt it was the only option, most of the word count seems to be in the giant references section, and I also question the higher quality part given the cluttered images throughout. We don't usually (or ever) have several galleries scattered throughout the page. I can also tell you that there are other pages being replaced wholesale, and they are not always high-quality replacements.

Also, I've been told by several people, including admins and staff members, that part of the agreement was that wholesale replacements would not happen under any circumstances. So either they're wrong or people are ignoring the agreement. I've been nice enough to ignore those people's suggestions of just mass reverting it, but it's still questionable as hell. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 21:39, October 2, 2019 (UTC)