 |
This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes. |
|---|
Hey everyone, this topic has been brought up a lot over the years informally on chat and other places, but I wished to finally create a formal discussion here. As most of you would know, Fallout: New Vegas has two memorials which list the names of deceased soldiers: the Yangtze Memorial and the Boulder City Memorial on the Boulder City page. For some reason, hundreds of pages were created for the characters listed on these memorials, such as Michael Kilpatrick and Sandra Abbot. As you can see from these examples, each of these articles are not only a grand total of three sentences each, but the only variation in these articles is the name of the deceased soldier. These pages add virtually nothing to the wiki, just restate what the memorial page itself already states, and is in clear violation of our content organization guideline, which states:
These articles are neither of decent length nor stand on their own since they're just copies of each other and their main memorial page. To go further, there is also a downside to these articles. When people see these lists and see links to the characters, they click and spend the time and effort expecting new information. Making these people clicking these links in order to find out there's literally nothing there, is both illogical and inconvenient (Reader convenience also being part of the content organization guideline). It doesn't exactly boost user confidence in our wiki to waste their time.
Thank you all, Paladin117>>iff bored; 00:37, August 2, 2015 (UTC)
P.S. Shouldn't the Boulder City Memorial at least get its own page?
Just copy and paste this line on the "I support these changes" section when this comes to vote, I'll put my sig on it.
- P.S. And I know right?- we have all these redundant as hell pages for each person on the Boulder City Memorial yet the memorial itself exists only as a subheader. I'd find it funny if I believed it was done with a sense of humor. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 00:45, August 2, 2015 (UTC)
- I'm only commenting because Pally angrily told me to. I agree with everything that's been said, these articles are about as useful as a chocolate teapot. So scrap em or put them on a page that has them all listed out but either way they don't need their own articles. Are you happy now Paladin? Are you happy I commented? Kern
Hallowed are the Ori 01:08, August 2, 2015 (UTC)
- No Paladin117>>iff bored; 01:09, August 2, 2015 (UTC)
Wikis are a collaborative nature. I am not interested in arguing my point for this topic. But I do know that Ryan (Two-Bears) was the one to create these articles, and he may have had a very good reason for doing so that has not been taken into account on this forum.
My suggestion is to send him a message, and get him to argue in their defense, or to agree with your assessment. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 01:14, August 2, 2015 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of giving some mentioned-only characters a page and others not. I think it's fine the way it is right now. - Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 01:21, August 2, 2015 (UTC)
- But they already have a page, Yangtze Memorial and Boulder City Memorial. That literally covers everything. Paladin117>>iff bored; 01:27, August 2, 2015 (UTC)
FW:ORG seems to say it all. These are definitely not strong enough to stand on their own, even by the standards we set. This is because the individuals listed have absolutely no background information on them. All we know is that they died and are commemorated on a memorial. Besides the difference in names, each individual is not any different from any other (as far as we know). I am usually very hesitant to remove content, but this is one case I feel it is warranted. --Skire (talk) 01:45, August 2, 2015 (UTC)
I almost forgot, there could (and should) be one or two exemptions to the deletion. Main example I just remember being Donald Kowalski, who has far more history than the rest of them. Also, I believe one person on the Memorial has the same name as a character from Fallout 2. Paladin117>>iff bored; 03:40, August 2, 2015 (UTC)
- I think that character is Roger Westin III. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 04:57, August 2, 2015 (UTC)
- I'm with Danny on this. The only pertinent yardstick here is FW:ORG. Do they meet that threshold? Taking into account things like the original author's concerns, commonality with other pages, age of the pages, etc. is not paramount. 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
14:52, August 2, 2015 (UTC)
- I'm with Danny on this. The only pertinent yardstick here is FW:ORG. Do they meet that threshold? Taking into account things like the original author's concerns, commonality with other pages, age of the pages, etc. is not paramount. 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
- As I have believed for a long time now, if a page is just "Dave was an X in Y" then it is not a page, it is a sentence. A page listing all soldiers and their rank gives just as much information as giving them each their own page, but does it in a much more efficient manner. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 14:55, August 2, 2015 (UTC)
- As I have believed for a long time now, if a page is just "Dave was an X in Y" then it is not a page, it is a sentence. A page listing all soldiers and their rank gives just as much information as giving them each their own page, but does it in a much more efficient manner. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"
Redundant and pointless articles. Should be removed right away. If an anon or new user made pages like these they'd probably get a pretty hefty slap on the wrist. Lets keep the articles that have a little further info and scrap the rest in favour of a article on the memorial itself or something. - Chris 
22:51, August 2, 2015 (UTC)
- More or less what Chris said, individual pages that state nothing more than the information found on the pages detailing the memorials are not needed. -- Watch in awe! 02:50, August 4, 2015 (UTC)
Bring all the hate for this argument, I know it will come, and I know it isn't a great argument, but we'll look less professional when we remove these pages, as we'll have less pages than the Vault (that still has these pages). People tend to consider more pages to be a better wiki. Apart from that, I thought i once read that Wikia makes some distinction themselves between wikias, based on the amount of pages.
TL;DR: I think we'll only have downsides of removing this, while we don't really have any advantages of it. (I don't think these pages are hurting anyone, only making us more complete than we should be) - Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 00:27, August 7, 2015 (UTC)
- First, I consider having these pages to be the opposite of professional. Second, even if people remove these 177 pages and for some reason people compare our page count to the Vault's (people do that?), we would still have more pages than they do. These pages are less than 1% of our wiki, so I doubt they would have any impact on anything Wikia does for comparison. Paladin117>>iff bored; 00:56, August 8, 2015 (UTC)