FANDOM


Forums: Index > Wiki proposals and applications > Nukapedia The Vault merge formal vote
 
Gametitle-Wiki
Gametitle-Wiki


I've used both for a while as a lurker, with the occasional edit. I've already made my stance heard in TV's discord server. I am 100% behind the merge. There is no reason why we should have a split community. From a casual user's perspective (something i think could be overlooked); not only does this provide a better service to the end user but it also means the content would be of a much higher quality. I believe a merged site would also promote more active participation in editing. It is a lot easier to get involved if it is all in one place. The positives outweigh any negatives that might arise.— Zealous Champion, one of several users who commented on the blog post

It's been two weeks since the merge between our great Fallout Wikis began, following the enthusiastic response to Tagaziel's proposal presented by Jspoel in his blog post, announced on the front page and a site-wide alert notification. While we originally planned to vote once Wastelanders is released, we have been asked to expedite the vote to give the merge a sounder basis. We believe enough time has passed to formalize this step through a vote.

Summary of the merge thus far

  • The Vault editors have crossed over with minimal issues and have seamlessly integrated into our wiki
  • Numerous articles covering Fallout 76 and franchise-wide lore have been merged. Apart from enhancing our coverage, this unification also allowed an opportunity to review, source, and overhaul certain articles, including the removal of long-standing misconceptions and fanon inserted over eleven years ago; the Mister Handy article was the culprit and the issues have since been rectified.
  • Several thousand files depicting Fallout 76 locations and Atomic Shop assets have been already uploaded and are in the process of being placed in the appropriate articles on the wiki. Other assets include high resolution logotypes and faction insignia provided by Vault's users. Raw assets for Wastelad and other internal data have also been accessed and presented.
  • Templates are in the early stages of importation. One major example is Template:Interactions univ, which replaces the old system with an instantly readable list of character interactions. Feedback from other editors will help refine these templates even further.
  • Several hundred plan articles have been imported, with slight issues. These have been since rectified.
  • Overall, the merge has gone over smoothly, with only minute issues and a handful of disagreements.

Bureaucrat stance

Jspoel

Since the merge made a start three weeks ago, things have been gone as well as could be hoped for I think. Many, especially important faction/lore pages, have been revisited, and updated content has been implemented, with excellent referencing. What could have become a feared issue, as noted in the blog, is that we would face challenges/arguments between users from the Vault and Nukapedia, and to my welcome surprise, I've personally not experienced/seen much of it (I may have missed some from Discord). From hundreds of pages, notably also location pages, The Vault content has been combined with Nukapedia content, with little issue. Of almost all those pages, the content grew with referencing and great images. I understand that in Discord, there may be still some lingering concerns/personal issues. I even myself had a small issue earlier this week, but I feel it easily outweighs the greater good that's at stake here, namely a combined and strong as can be Fallout wiki, with a return to our roots. With Tagaziel as a professional stronghold with template/css/programming/asset expertise we will have a continued solid base to make content better and can also improve various layouts on the wiki. As I said during the split end of 2011, there's really no point in separating (again), we must settle possible differences and make the best of it, think positive, grab a hold of this unique opportunity and continue with the merge.

DistustingWastelander

I think a merge seems very good. I have never been a fan of two wikis existing alongside each other with the same content, competing, when really joining forces would be the best outcome for both. Of course I have worries, for example whether simply giving someone rights may feel weird for some regular users, or that conflicts will arise regarding the content of articles, but generally, I think the net positives of a merge greatly outweigh the negative. It will not be an easy task, but I urge everyone to take part and help out in the process.

Richie9999

Richie will keep a neutral stance.

Votes

Please note that to prevent vote brigading, the decision will be made by the bureaucrats once a consensus is reached, taking into account the best interests of the broader Fallout community, active contributors, and other factors. As such, we also kindly ask for users to provide a rationale with each vote, to understand their stance in-depth.
Poll finished on 2:30 pm October 9, 2019 (UTC).
Poll
  • A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken.
  • You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section:
    • Use # {{yes}} ~~~ if you support the proposal.
    • Use # {{no}} ~~~ if you are against the proposal.
    • Use # {{neutral}} ~~~ if you wish to abstain.
  • Please do not edit other people's votes.

Yes

  1. Icon check I think my vote in this matter is obvious. I was one of the people who followed Ausir over to Gamepedia and helped keep The Vault alive over the past eight years, but after Curse became a part of the Fandom family, the only reason to stay apart disappeared into thin air. Rather than continue this artificial division and distribute the talent, unification allows us to tap into two pools of immense talent and create the definitive guide to Fallout and its lore. The merge thus far demonstrated the potential behind unification, combining major overhauls with much needed critical appraisals - from both Nukapedia and Vault editors. The content is better, the reliability is improved, and the discussions help create consensus that works and allows us to address contentious issues. Sometimes it means rewording, at other times cutting, and in the end, we all achieve our common goal: Making the ultimate resource for Fallout lore and gameplay data. On a personal note, it's also good to reconnect with people after growing and maturing. Now I know what I've been missing. Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 12:18, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
  2. Icon check See stance. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 14:33, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
  3. Icon check Despite some constant criticism in the discord, I'm in full favor of the merger. Nothing but good can happen for the Fallout fan community and importantly the end-user of either wiki. Combining each wiki's greatest strengths into one place is the best course of action in my opinion, and the quality of the articles that can now stand on either its gameplay content or lore content. Devastating DaveZIP ZAP RAP 16:09, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
  4. Icon check I made my point on the Discussion about the merge blog (linked in article) and stand by my silly name suggestion.LBraden (talk)
  5. Icon check Although there have been some rocky patches in the advent of the merger, for all things considered, it's gone very well. Like other votes here, I'm fully in favor of the merger, and hope it will bring new opportunities to everyone, old and new. As Tagaziel said, the goal of the wiki is to make the ultimate resource for Fallout lore and gameplay data. And with this merger and how things have gone thus far, I wouldn't have it any other way. JCB2077 (talk) 16:25, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
  6. Icon check I am fully in favor of the merger continuing forward. {{SUBST:User:Legofan/Signature}}
  7. Icon check I believe it is the smartest decision we can make at the moment. Id say we have reached the point where dividing and conquering is redundant, and for the betterment of all Fallout knowledge, we should unite. As Abraham Lincoln once said: A house divided against itself cannot stand. --Dankalor😳 16:28, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
  8. Icon check If I may, I found the Vault wiki to be a nice place as I found some information from that place rather intriguing, and I do agree more with what they have in store for the lore in comparison to Nukapedia which specializes more with gameplay. I think if they merged, we'd get a massive combination of both lore information to make people invested, while also having the elements from Nukapedia to know any tips and tricks that can help out if need be. So yes, I do think this merge would help out with the upcoming years. User: Scout Trooper 164 13:29, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
  9. Icon check this change will lead to the betterment of the wiki at the end of the day, with badmin rule being overruled and goodmins being pushed in to allow change after years of badmin abuse. Go team With love; Silent (˶◡‿◡)(´ ❥ `) (talk) 17:33, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
  10. Icon check I believe that a merge is in due order now. In the past, there have indeed been things keeping us apart, but a merge is better now to be sure. For one, this merger may very well be needed to salvage the complete wreck that has come about to the Nukapedia community. So far, this merger has already helped in my eyes, even if it has led to some internal distrusts; I believe the ends will justify the means. Nukapedia's community notwithstanding, the Vault also has plenty of its own community to offer, and I believe that the particulars of community dealings will be worked out in due time as well. As for the wiki space itself, there are obviously going to be disagreements on which wiki's policies are better, but that is why we have staff to decide. Combining both sources of information together again shall give us the best of both worlds if done properly. I, for one, have no problem with nice and long articles combining our full knowledge. Finally, I believe that much of the criticism of this merge has been highly on the technical side; "no real discussion," for example, despite the fact that most of those complaining about no discussion themselves did not comment on the blog post announcing this in the first place.... And as I have already addressed, I believe the discrepancies between wikis can be worked out in due course. I hope this goes as planned. |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 17:40, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
  11. Icon check lol at people pretending discussion wasn't happening when they chose to ignore the discussions that were happening. - Chris 4 Star Dragon Ball Edit 18:58, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
  12. Icon check The merge has been going very smoothly so far and is a great boon the the entire Fallout community. I see absolutely no reason why the merge should be canceled, stalled or otherwise. The content already added to this wiki by Vault members has been superb, with much more on the way. While there have been a few minor challenges, as brought up by many "no" voters, these are certainly no reason to put this on ice. As a very casual editor I've already seen and even participated in many of the discussions that brought us to this point. As Chris said, these users had ample chance to participate and did not. A lot of them are also support the merger but are voting "no" for reasons that you can read below. I understand their issues, but i feel that if you truely support this merger, you should be voting "yes" and writing your grievances here, as opposed to risking this entire endeavour upon misunderstandings and laziness. I vote "yes" and i would urge all others to do the same. Zealous Champion (talk)
  13. Icon check There's no question that the merge should take place. Fandom and Gamepedia are no longer entirely separate, and it's not efficient to build up two near-identical wikis about the same thing instead of focusing on just one. My personal involvement with the merge is minimal, but it's inaccurate to suggest that there has been "little discussion" about it already. There has been a dedicated channel about it on the Nukapedia Discord for three weeks, and it's been under discussion on the wiki as a whole for a month. The obsession many people here have with strict "adherence to policy" is misaligned and insignificant in the greater scheme of things. No amount of "prior discussion" is possibly going to change the fact that merging is messy—indeed, my home wiki of Elder Scrolls is the product of three major merges—but this is a transient issue. I think there have been plenty of opportunities for discussion already, and there is nothing stopping anyone from continuing to discuss it right now and in the future. —Atvelonis (talk) 20:17, September 29, 2019 (UTC)

No

  1. Icon cross Since this vote was started without any formal discussions, as required for an official vote, I'm going to have vote no. Maybe if there were actual discussions, things wouldn't seem so seemless to those ignoring others' issues. Paladin117>>iff bored; 16:02, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
  2. Icon cross No real discussion among the users of the wiki was made prior to this vote, if that happens I might change my vote, otherwise I'll have to simply say no. Dragão Carmesim Red hammer and sickle 16:13, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
  3. Icon cross I don't really oppose the merge, but in terms of this vote, Pally is correct. More discussions are needed before anything else happens, and they're discussions that should have happened earlier. AllYourFavorites! (talk) 16:17, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
  4. Icon cross I'm with Pally here. --Cassie The Rodio Girl I see you. 16:21, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
  5. Icon cross As others stated, little discussion. And the merge is not going over as smoothly as this forum is trying to suggest. I would like for their to be a merger between our communities, but let's actually discuss these things first and not jump ship without a life-vest. Try a merger later, actually discuss and plan for any issues that can occur (not just worry about things later), have mutual respect, take the best of both sites. Those'r my requirements for a "Yes" vote. Is that too much to ask for? Saxhleel12 (talk) 16:29, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
  6. Icon cross As others have stated, there was an obvious lack of planning and discussion with the people about this. I’m also not a fan of this vote not going through the proper channels before being voted on. This whole ordeal seems much messier than implied here. The rest of my opinion is per Sax. Laat the Survivor RangerSequoia (talk) 16:45, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
  7. Icon cross Like the others, I'm of the opinion that the merge is a great idea - but jumping into this immediately with little-to-no discussion prior to the vote, especially given the significant hiccups in the merging process that the Yes voters seem either unaware of or unconcerned about, is not something I can give a "yes" to. Mara and Paladin's concerns in the "comments" of this vote are my biggest issues. --DirtyBlue929 (talk) 17:00, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
  8. Icon cross If I may have the audacity to come back from the dead and harp my opinion on matters I've been completely ignorant of up until two weeks ago, Pally is absolutely right. Nobody can assume that there is nothing to discuss and go straight to a vote according to the regulations here. That a matter of this magnitude has gone to a vote without a proper discussion is beyond peculiar to me and is not the Nukapedia I remember. For what it's worth, I believe a merger is the right course of action, but I believe that deviating from protocol to do it disrespects all those who voted for, continuously adhere to, and agree with the many regulations that guide the content that all readers use. But if that is how the community wants to start off this merger, then they certainly can by voting yes here. I am voting no because I do not believe that to be the case based on my renewed two weeks of contact with wiki affairs. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 17:05, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
  9. Icon cross As many other people on this forum, I think the merge is a good idea, but due to a lack of a formal vote before the decision was made, I vote no. As for the people that are saying that the merge isn't going smoothly, they're not wrong. I've seen many an argument on discord about policies being ignored. Following these policies gives us credibility and thus it is of maximum importance to follow them. This lack of communication reminds of the time Laat was unbanned. Only one person was consulted about that action leaving the rest with a surprise without knowing what was going on. Many of us staff members were not against unbanning Laat but we were against not being consulted on the decision. It is clear that the higher-ups of this community need to consult with staff and the wider community on important decisions. I hope this issue will be left in the past soon. Jgrsoto Coat of arms of Puerto Rico 17:58, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
  10. Icon cross We need more discussion and community input. User:ThatRaidingRaider

Neutral

Icon neutral --ExplorerSmaily (talk) 22:17, September 29, 2019 (UTC)

Comments

The merging so far has not been entirely seamless. There are some instances of articles being entirely overwritten (Vault). As well as other issues I see being introduced with imports:

  • Capitalization: Discussed with Tag earlier about Vault, which I still find to be up in the air. But things like professional titles or military ranks being capitalized when they shouldn't be is apparent. (Colonel, captain, president, overseer in the middle of a sentence without the name following to make it a proper noun.)
  • "Weasel words" conveying an opinion to readers instead of letting the reader form their own. (Curiously, strangely, obviously.)
  • Some grammar is being changed to British English over American English.
  • There have also been some speculatory statements being introduced (One can surmise...)

This seems more like the time isn't being being taken to proofread the edit and there's just copy and pasting going on. It's also snowballing into a larger workload of things that need to be corrected with each article receiving imported content. Great Mara (talk) 16:26, September 29, 2019 (UTC)

There's also many, many cases of the people behind the importing downplaying and ignoring other editors' concerns, with one editor saying that it's up to the "janitors" to find and fix the numerous errors in their imports. Heck, my first interaction with an importer was telling them that the hundreds of stubs they were creating was against policy, at which point he continued to make them anyway because he preferred them over policy. Paladin117>>iff bored; 16:47, September 29, 2019 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what are some of the people in here referring to as plentiful discussion? The single user blog with some 20 commenters? My adminship request had more time and participants than that did. Heck, basically all of our previous policy and user right forums have had more discussion than this merger has. That may be okay for some, but that's extremely odd for others. Especially given the very divided views on how this merger is going. And I'm questioning if some of the people voting are even aware of the seemingly constant arguments on discord over this divided views. Why can't this merger get a proper discussion and vote like literally every policy change since I've been a member here? Paladin117>>iff bored; 21:23, September 29, 2019 (UTC)

Declaring how to merge wikis and then merging =/= discussion on if to merge wikis

As linked by Atvelonis as an example of proper discussion of this matter (along with others saying enough discussion has occurred), I thought it prudent to point out my interpration that Jspeolstra's merging blog is:

  1. A user blog, not a proper discussion forum, and, more importantly and italicized for emphasis,
  2. An edict on what is going to happen and is currently happening, running in the face of and contrary to any semblance of a discussion or voting process.

If someone could explain to me how this process is remotely formal that would be immensely appreciated. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 22:05, September 29, 2019 (UTC)

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