Icon nowrite
This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes.
Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Weapon overview page revamp

Overview page revamp overviewEdit

OK, so some of you may have noticed that I've been working on the weapon overview pages in my sandboxes. In a nutshell, here's why: This page: Weapon, in a word, sucks. It's outdated, incomplete and almost useless. We can make this into a useful page with a little bit of work. Here's what I envision doing:

  1. This page mostly links to individual weapon pages that are grouped into different weapons categories, e.g. energy rifles, brass knuckles etc.. I think we should revamp this page so that it ONLY links to these weapon overview pages (see most of them here: Category:Weapons, remove all the individual weapon links from the page and make all the overview pages that it links to consistent in their content. We'll leave (and improve) the content at the top of the page about related skills, but on the bottom of the page list links to all the weapon overview pages.
  2. These weapon overview pages I consider to be more lore pages than pages about stats. They're there to give an overview of the similar weapons found in the universe. Right now, these kinds of pages fall into two categories: pages where weapons are grouped by the type or sub-type of weapon, e.g. Assault rifle; and pages where weapons are grouped by model or manufacturer series or family, e.g. SIG-Sauer or Tommy gun. This to me is too inconsistent. I plan on converting all overview pages to the weapon type or sub-type kind of page and either removing the pages for weapon families or in the case of the Sig page, converting it to a lore page about the manufacturer itself, rather than a weapon overview page.

You can see the scope of this work in progress at User:The Gunny/sandbox, where I'm listing all firearms and what kind of overview page they are linked from or none (orphaned). You can also see a list of these overview pages separated into two categories at the bottom of the page, with my suggestions on what to do with them. At the end of the day, I want every weapon to be linked from an overview for that weapon type, accessible from the main weapon page.

What's happening is I'm running into a bunch of questions related to this work that I'm gonna need answers to or a consensus on before I can go any further. What I will do is list these questions in their own section here to get feedback and create consensus on what we do. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 17:41, January 18, 2015 (UTC)

Questions, comments and suggestions on the overall revamp of weapons overview pages onlyEdit

Pluralizing is for total overview pages, like Fallout 3 holodisks and notes, Fallout 3 weapons etc., not for sections of these pages, like you just did for the Needler pistol. I have my reservations with your plans which will affect important pages on a large scale. I agree that the weapon page needs to be looked at, but with these new overview pages I have serious doubts. I'm rather happy with how are they now, and you are planning large scale renaming, making the pages less recognizable for the common reader. Also the background will be more difficult to implement. I don't like several seperate Gamearticlelists on 1 page, making these very large and confusing. Just one gamearticlelist should be there. This is the view from my end, it needs another look and some more input from the community. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 16:17, January 20, 2015 (UTC)
I've asked for input and gotten little. These pages are an inconsistent mess. While you may be happy with that, I'm not. As I said above about the renaming, I'm on the fence. All I have to go on is the clear policy that overview pages must be named with the item in question in plural. The policy doesn't make any exceptions for what kind of overview page, just says overview pages. If you can give me a reasonable reason to ignore that policy other than that you don't like it, I'd be happy to. It'll make the use of the gamearticle template easier. Same goes for the gamearticlelist template. I can use just one, but it will be huge. But that's not a problem, if you're OK with that. As for the rest of your concerns, I'd like more detail. It's confusing to me the way the pages are now, and I can't see how they'd be less confusing to the "common reader". They're not disambiuation pages, e.g. 10mm pistol page only lists articles named 10mm pistol (some game), they're overview pages. And the way the weapons are grouped make no sense at all to me. Some by the broad type of weapon they are, e.g. assault rifle, some by the narrow type of weapon they are, e.g. 9mm pistol, and some by manufacturer or even a particular make and model. This inconsistency makes no sense to me at all. If we want to have lore based overview pages, that's great by me, but they should be consistent from topic to topic, and all weapon classes should have them, not just a few. If we need a page to disambiguate between 10mm pistols, then we should make a 10mm pistol (disambiguation) page. I'm trying to improve these pages to the point that they are actually usefully coherent, from one page to the other in form and function. If, for some reason, people don't want that, I can stop all this shit and waste my time somewhere else, leaving the wiki full of inconsistent crappy pages. Just say the word. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 21:16, January 20, 2015 (UTC)

I rather like what Gunny is suggesting. Naming the overview pages in the plural form of the weapon type makes perfect sense to me. I find the old overview page format to be confusing at times. One looks for the individual game article on "assault rifle" and ends up on the overview page for assault rifles, and then has to do further seeking to actually locate the page one is looking for. Naming the overview pages in the plural would remedy this ambiguity. Turning the manufacturer/model pages into lore pages outlining the weapon manufacturer or model's history, offshoots etc in the Fallout universe also seems a sound idea to me. --Malebiped (talk) 13:33, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

If it's policy to make them plural, it would be weird to start a project and then ignore the positive law. I mean, I wouldn't mind to have it singular, but then it's better we change that rule so we don't have to start breaking rules while starting off new projects. For the concern of not finding stuff: maybe some extra redirects, disambiguation and sub-oveview-pages can do the trick here? - Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 21:19, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

I will try to clear up what I think the structure of weapons pages should be. I hope I'm concise and clear here:
  • Obviously, every individual weapon will have a game article, e.g. 10mm pistol (Fallout).
  • As they already are, every weapon will be listed on a page listing that game's weapons e.g. Fallout weapons.
  • For every weapon that has the same name, but multiple articles, the names will be disambiguated, e.g. 10mm pistol (Fallout), 10mm pistol (Fallout 3) etc. like they already are, and a disambiguation page will be created. I checked. We do not have one single disambiguation page for any weapons with like names, in spite of the fact that wiki policy states we must have one. This will allow users that search for "10mm pistol" without any other modifiers to be directed to the disambiguation page, where they can quickly find the specific game article they desire. Please note the emphasis. Disambig pages are there to quickly help a user find what they meant to get to without wading through a bunch of sections and text. See: Wanda and notice the difference between that and the page Assault rifle.
  • The Weapons page, which has a fair number of links, will be reworked as an overview page for all weapons in all games, as it's name implies. It will list all weapons skills (like it already does) and have a list of weapon overview pages that cover broad classifications of weapons, e.g. assault rifles. This page will act as a link farm for links to more specific pages of weapon types.
  • Weapon overview pages will no longer be used as a poor substitute for disambiguation pages. There are a number of these pages already on the wiki, e.g. Assault rifle, .44 magnum revolver, etc. These pages work poorly as disambiguation pages because they hold so much background information that it is difficult to quickly find the actual game article of the weapon you want if you end up there. What I envision these pages to be used for is an overview of similar type weapons across the Fallout universe of games. There should be a lore based background description for each weapon that can then be transposed in the background section of individual game articles as appropriate. I personally believe that the best way to structure the organization of these pages is to group these weapons into broad classifications of weapon type, e.g. assault rifles, grenades, laser pistols, swords, etc. At the end of the day, every single weapon in the universe should be listed on an overview page for that specific weapon's type. I believe these pages should be named, per policy for overview pages, in the pural, e.g. Needler pistols, so that they will not contradict with any of the above mentioned mandatory disambiguation pages. Right now we have no clear criteria for how to select a group of weapons to put on an overview page.
  • Each of these overview pages need to be organized and formatted consistently. We have to determine what each broad classification merits it's own page, which weapons fall into that classification, how to structure and format the page, how to utilize the templates we have available for overview pages, how to deal with non-canon, mentioned-only and cut content and how to group each weapon into sections on the pages. Current overview pages an completely inconsistent in how they are organized and formatted.
  • TL:DGAF? A quick example of page distribution:
    • Individual game article: Assault rifle (Fallout)
    • Game specific weapon list: Fallout weapons
    • Disambiguation page (where needed): Assault rifle or Assault rifle (disambiguation)
    • Overview page for lore background of similar weapons: Assault rifles
I hope this makes more sense and informs everyone of the inconsistencies we have and the solutions I propose to correct them. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 01:49, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Richie9999 (talk) 02:04, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
Sounds swell. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 02:17, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
Clear as Crystal. Sounds good Agent c (talk) 09:02, January 22, 2015 (UTC)

( These changes are too drastic for me. Especially the overview pages with several gameplay article boxes like the large caliber semi-automatic pistols page are confusing and you'll lose the oversight in my opinion. I've checked all weapon pages mentioned in the "Existing pages" section and they look ok to me. It needs some work but redirecting for example the Fo3 hunting rifle to semi-automatic rifle halfway the page isn't how I see it. Also note that the table of content is gone, once you're at the hunting rifle gamearticle box. Pages like the hunting rifle should keep its own name. People will recognize it better than seeing it on a semi-automatic rifle page. As an alternative, how about creating disambig pages for Revolver, semi-automatic pistols and semi-automatic rifles and make a small bulleted list of the type of weapons that fit (like the 10mm pistol and 9mm pistol on the Revolver page?). My alternative can be seen here. I also wouldn't do the Needler pistol page as it is now. Add the Fallout Tactics version to behind the Fallout 2 one and not seperate it. All these non-canon templates makes the page less readable. Those can primarily be used on the game page itself. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 18:51, January 23, 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't really understand either what you're proposing we do, nor do I understand your reluctance to get rid of the inconsistency on these pages, and get both them and redirects into compliance with our own policies. Everyone else seems to understand and broadly agree with what I propose, but I'm not gonna argue over it with you. You like things the way they are and don't like change, even if the changes are correct, I get that. But I'm not gonna waste my time any more trying to improve poor content if I have to argue over things just because you don't like it. I've put deletion tags on those pages in my userspace, someone please delete them. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 21:12, January 23, 2015 (UTC)
While Drastic, Jspoel, I'd argue that they are a great step towards improving content on the wiki. Having a overview page for one specific type of weapon is silly, such as the FN FAL page, as is having an overview page for Machine guns. Having it both ways is woefully inconsistent. I'd argue that having an overview page for each type of weapon (Machine gun, assault rifle, battle rifle, revolver, etc.) is a vast improvement over having a page for 10mm pistol that includes the Chinese Pistol simply because it shares that caliber, but not the name. From what I understand there is no proposal here to remove pages, or rename them. Hunting Rifle would not suddenly become Semi-automatic rifle, rather it would be mentioned on an overview page that would link to the proper page. In policy here consistency is key, as is use. Having an overview page for one model of firearm such as the FN FAL and then turning right around and having an overview for Machine Guns and 10mm pistols is absurd, and having an overview page for each type of weapon would be a rather simple solution, especially given the fact that the overview pages don't share names with existing weapon article names. Richie9999 (talk) 22:07, January 23, 2015 (UTC)

( Overview pages with multiple gamearticle boxes aren't improvements, at least not for me. For the FN FAL, that was a mistake in my sandbox, meant to redirect it to battle rifle. We can argue about the machine gun page, to seperate it in light and heavy. I mostly want to let it stay to keep the minigun page intact. As for the 9mm, 10mm and .44 magnum revolver pages, I prefer the recognizability of the names over seeing them on a larger overview page with those multiple boxes (hunting rifle would directed halfway to such a page). If people think I'm in the wrong (I'm a bc, but still only one man with one opinion), put it up for a vote then. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 22:44, January 23, 2015 (UTC)

I archived the topic. There's no point in wasting any more of my time on trying to improve this content. The day I have to bring something to a vote that's clearly defined in our policies just because one editor doesn't like it is the day I find something more productive to do with my time. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 23:00, January 23, 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to see some progress on improving these pages, rather than just have everything remain static. I think the priority should be to get those who are playing the game the info they need in an instant (ie - early on/up the top, either on that first screen they see or with an easy link to it), and then have the lore stuff "below the fold" as lore hunters will go look for it. Plural page names or not I think is a much of a muchness. Agent c (talk) 19:32, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make is not that the Machine Gun Page is wrong. Quite the contrary. I'm saying that's what we should be looking for and striving towards. An FN FAL Page is unnecessary and I have turned it into a disambig page. As for the 10mm, my whole point is that a page called 10mm should be restricted to guns that are called 10mm or renamed, not left as is. If I'm a casual user looking for details on the N99 10mm pistol I just found in FO3 I would search 10mm pistol a page that includes such things as a pipe gun and the chinese pistol would only serve to confuse things, which is one of the things I liked about Gunny's idea.
Additionally the idea of putting this up to a vote is absurd. Why does someone's idea to improve the wiki require a vote? Since when does any large scale editing that doesn't change policy require a vote? The first guideline for better user conduct states: "Be bold: If you find something that can be improved, improve it and encourage others to do the same." Gunny just found something in great need of improvement and was working on improving it. I have yet to really see any opposition to his idea beyond yours, which I still don't quite understand. The lack of standardization and conformity to policy here is ridiculous, just because it has been the status quo doesn't mean it should stay that way. We should all strive to improve the wiki and when one of the users here has found a way to do that, instead of encouraging him you're stifling him. That runs completely contrary to the guidelines here. Embrace the improvement. His suggestions don't interfere with page navigation, or make it more difficult and will improve the wiki as a whole. This should be encouraged. We would be lucky if half our editors had ideas for improvements such as this. Richie9999 (talk) 19:35, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree. I have to wonder if some of our critics are right about things being too bureaucratic and "top heavy" sometimes. Do we "lose" anything with the improvement? Agent c (talk) 20:12, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
Well, several weapon pages lose their own page and I have reservations with that. They are combined on large overview pages with several gamearticle boxes and misplacement of indexes. The content and structure Gunny created for the Firearms is looking good, but the presentation of it will become different on a large scale on important pages and it's my question if it will be for the better in the end. What are your opinions of that then? Jspoel Speech Jspoel 20:32, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
What "weapon pages lose their own page"? I suggested nothing about removing any of the individual weapon gameplay articles. I did suggest removing or changing "overview" pages into proper disambig pages for a few arbitrarily select weapons like Sig Sauer and Bozar. As far as any of the other things you keep mentioning about the specific way the content on overview pages should be displayed, e.g. using the gamearticle or cut-content and non-canon templates, that stuff was a work in progress and all up for debate since policy doesn't dictate how we use them. I even asked about some of that below in a question that the only response was positive to my suggested solution. The whole reason I opened this forum was to get feedback on questions exactly like that. Placement of gamearticlellist template, placement of cut and non-canon weapon in the gamearticle template, in sections with tags, or a separate section are were all up to debate for me, even page naming until I realized we didn't even have disambig pages. Shame I got little of that debate. Even the existence of overview pages for weapons like bozar can be debated, although I think we're better served with disambig pages. Regardless, I've lost any interest in proceeding with this. When I'm told that because one bureaucrat doesn't like the changes I propose that I have to take it to a vote, it's not worth my time. I'm not even slightly interested in getting my edits approved before I make them. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 20:54, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

( There will be no weapon pages being lost. Every weapon will retain its own individual page. However, in addition to that page there will be an additional page covering the type of weapon it is classed as that serves as an overview of that type of weapon, adding a page rather than removing one, such that in addition to there being, say, a Light machine gun page, there is also a Machine gun page that overviews all weapons that are considered Machine Guns. This would mean that in addition to there being a Hunting rifle (Fallout 3) page there is now also a Bolt Action Rifles page that overviews all bolt action rifles and provides helpful links to, and short descriptions of, all bolt action rifles that appear in the Fallout series. All of these overview articles would be grounded in lore and provide additional insight to just what kind of weapon you have. In addition we would be adding even more pages in the form of Disambiguation pages, which are required by the currently existing policy for many weapons. Richie9999 (talk) 21:31, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

It seems I haven't understood it to the letter, then. If current weapon overview pages like hunting rifle and 10mm pistol are keeping their own page (and not redirected) but are added as well to these lore pages then I can agree with the plan. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 23:02, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
If those pages are kept, then two things need to happen:
  1. They need to be renamed. This would have to happen because one of the things that really needs to happen is that proper disambig pages need to be made. Moving an overview page like 10mm pistol to "10mm pistols" allows for that to happen.
  2. Some serious consideration needs to be made about what content goes on those pages. Do we list every pistol that chambers a 10mm cartridge on the 10mm pistols page, or only list the pistols that are named 10mm pistol while placing the other content, i.e. chinese pistol, on a different overview page?
One of the things I was thinking about was how to include weapons that really don't merit their own overview page. Perhaps there's only one or two of a specific type of weapon, e.g. lever-action shotgun. When I did the shotgun page in my sandbox, I realized a decent way to treat this would be to leave the overview page for all shotguns, and then just list the stuff we break out into it's own overview with the usual For:See method. This method would have allowed me to keep overview pages both short enough, and long enough. Let's say I made a page called "Autopistols". On that page needs to be every autopistol in every game, including those of caliber from .22 up to 14mm. But some of those calibers don't merit their own overview page. There's only a couple of .22 caliber pistols and one 14mm pistol entries to be made. Then they could be listed on the autopistols page, while the calibers or models that have enough for their own page could be broken out on their own. Possible example below:
Or something like that. Or we could just give every single caliber it's own overview, in spite of the fact that some would only have one entry like the needler pistols does. That's where I was, at least. As I had already stated, and listed on the working page I had in my sandbox, I was open to discuss the naming conventions. I had my suggestions listed, but I was open to others, too. Don't get me wrong here. There are a few overview pages (I had them listed in the sandbox) that I think should have their content moved to a more appropriate place, but if you had looked at the list I made, most of the overview pages would stay, and a shit ton more would be added. I had intended to take this through all weapon classes, not just firearms. But, meh. I shouldn't have to explain every little detail. I've been around long enough that either I was trusted to make these changes without fucking up the wiki or not.  The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 23:45, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

( I restored the pages to have another look at it. If you move a page like 10mm pistol to the plural 10mm pistols, what happens to the 10mm pistol page then? And what will be the content on the 10mm pistols page? Concerning the 10mm cartridge weapons, I favor them on the 10mm pistol page. It fits well there. Your idea about the weapons not meriting their own page sound ok to me. And if you place for example the .223 pistol and .44 magnum revolver pages on the revolver page, what will happen to the .223 pistol and .44 magnum revolver pages itself? Jspoel Speech Jspoel 18:03, January 25, 2015 (UTC)

As I've stated multiple times now, a page titled "10mm pistol", by policy, has to be created as a disambiguation page to disambiguate 10mm pistol (Fallout), 10mm pistol (Van Buren), 10mm pistol (Fallout 3) and 10mm pistol (Fallout: New Vegas). It should be a proper disambiguation page, structured like FN FAL, and not an overview page like it is now. The overview page should be moved, per policy to the plural: 10mm pistols to clear the way for the disambig page. Perhaps I need to completely describe the intended use of these pages and how they relate to navigating a wiki:
Let's say your average 13 year old just got Fallout 3 on the most recent Steam sale. His name is Jose. He lives in a lovely little hamlet in the south of Spain. His mother, let's call her Gisele, makes him eat his vegetables and only allows him to play his XBox on weekends after his homework is done. She's a good mom. Jose has never played a Fallout game before and he has never used a wiki to learn more about a game. Jose picks up the 10mm pistol in Vault 101. He yearns to learn more about this pistol. Is it good? Should I keep it? Are there better weapons I'll soon see? How much is it worth? Should I sell it for caps or keep it? His friend, Albert, who, completely coincidentally, happens to be corpulent, tells him about this wiki. Jose's world is much brighter as unicorns and rainbows and shit hover around his room.
Jose googles "Fallout wiki". For the love of all Wikia, we are the first 10,000 suggested links. He clicks the link to our wiki and sees the search function. See, Jose is computer literate, so he knows what a search function does. He has no idea that there is more than one 10mm pistol, so he searches for 10mm pistol. What he wants, what he needs, you gotcha, you gotcha, is to find the page for 10mm pistol (Fallout 3). He is impatient, though, as he's cramping a bit from all the sweets his mother allows him in an attempt to overcompensate for her strict home work rule, so he ignores the fact that 10mm pistol (Fallout 3) pops up in search suggest. He sees the list of articles that the search engine returns and clicks the 10mm pistol page. It's OK. Jose is not stupid, he is just ignorant of the fact there is more than one. This link takes him to a properly formatted disambiguation page that has, in a pithy list, all of the pages titled 10mm pistol (something). "Oh," he says in his inner-head voice (why his inner head speaks in English, I have no idea), "there's more than one of these. I shall pick the one for the game I desire." Jose is now content. He is loved and full of wonderful 10mm pistol goodness.
But it doesn't stop there. Jose is now a voracious gamer. He realized that there are other Fallout games and now has saved his pesos/euros/whateverthecurrencyinSpainis and has purchased more of them. As often happens, he now is interested in the lore of the Fallout Universe®. His appetite is whetted for more 10mm pistol goodness. So he navigates to the dog-eared 10mm pistol (Fallout 3) page and finally takes the plunge. He dares click the For:See hatnote template at the top of the page teasing him with other, undiscovered 10mm pistols. He finds himself on the 10mm pistols page with an overview of all similar pistols in all of the Fallout Universe®. It has all the lore he ever wished for, and marshmallows. And not those crappy little ones, we're talking the real deal here. Jose's life is now complete. His bucket list bucketed. His fondest dreams fondly dreamed. He can now die a happy boy. He had cancer. Did I forget to mention that? Yeah. It sucks, but I'm only the messenger, shoot someone else.
That's how these kinds of pages should fit together, at least in my demented head. It's also how the policies say they should be. Extrapolated: If it's demented in my head, then the policies are....nah. As far as your other question, I've answered that also. Were a page called "Revolvers" created, all models of revolvers that don't merit their own overview page would be listed there. All that do would have a section with the For:See link. At least that's what I had evolved to as I was working on things testing/trying them out. The only question then is: Do the .223 and .44 magnum pistols have enough distinct models to merit their own page? That would be something that can certainly be debated until a consensus is reached. That is assuming a consensus can ever be reached on this wiki. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 20:00, January 25, 2015 (UTC)

I think this is good. Wondering if this might be a good opportunity to look at disambig in general too, see if we can Jazz them up? Any ideas? Agent c (talk) 20:26, January 25, 2015 (UTC)

Already one step ahead of you. I checked the list of disambiguation pages and really only found that weapons are the only ones not represented well. Characters? Yup. Clothing? Check. Locations? Roger. Weapons? Weapons? BUELLER?!? I'm sure there's one or two someplace that probably need it, but I only really noticed weapons. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 20:43, January 25, 2015 (UTC)

Question #1: Treatment of cut, non-canon and mentioned-only contentEdit

The treatment of this kind of content is wildly inconsistent, even on a single page. Take for instance the Assault rifle page. It has a section for cut and mentioned only content at the bottom of the page, yet Wanda is listed in the canon section along with the Assault rifle (Fallout 3). We can either list cut, non-canon and mentioned-only content up with the others, which would make the pages more concise, or we can create sections like this for all overview pages and place all non-canon content at the bottom.

The problem with placing non-canon content with canon content is that the {{Gamearticle}} template can not parse any of the cut content, mentioned-only or non-canon content templates. It can parse the cut content icon, but that's it. The problem with placing all this kinds of content in a separate section at the bottom of the page is that the info in that section will be almost a repeat of the info in the base weapon section, e.g. see Wanda. We'll have just about the same info there as we will in the FO3 assault rifle section.

So, how should I progress? I want to get this nailed down before I create or alter any more overview pages. Please leave comments about this question below:

Questions, comments and suggestions on Question #1 onlyEdit

I believe I've found a reasonable workaround for this. If you look at [[User:The Gunny/Shotgun]], you'll see the cut or non-canon content placed in a bullet in the list with the base weapon. This keeps the page length manageable, but allows us to clearly mark this kind of content. I'll format the pages like so: All models will be listed first in canonicity order, then alphabetically, using game lore names where possible. All models that are cut, mentioned-only or non-canon that fall under the same model that is canon will be placed in the list with the canon model, but will be tagged with the appropriate source template and only linked in the list, not in the gamearticle template. Sound good? The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 21:27, January 18, 2015 (UTC)

Seems the best solution to me. - Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 22:58, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
I like everything except the last part. Moving page links from the gamearticle template to a bullet, like on the Needler pistols page, seems to do nothing besides make the page cluttered and unappealing. Paladin117>>iff bored; 23:17, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
Our other alternatives to this would be: Listing all games in the gamearticle template, which would remove the ability to denote that certain content is non-canon, cut, etc.. as it is done on some pages, OR listing non-canon content, even if it is of the same model weapon, under a separate heading, either by itself or in a "non-canon/cut-content" section, which is also done on some pages. Which would you prefer? The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 23:45, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
For the record, Paladin177 has intimated to me in a private moment alone in chat, seriously, there were like candles and rose pedals for crying out loud, that he prefers listing cut and non-canon weapons directly in the gamearticle template, rather then in a separate section or sub-section of a base weapon. I'm glad we finally got this last loose end tied up. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 21:56, January 25, 2015 (UTC)

Question #2: Page name conventionsEdit

This one is simple. Currently we have all the weapon-type overview pages named in the singular. Should it stay that way? For some reason, plural sounds much better to me when I read the page title. I understand that an overview page like Assault rifle sorta serves as a disambiguation page for the term "assault rifle", but it just sounds odd to me since the page lists assault rifles, not just pages named some version of "assault rifle (<insert game>)".

Questions, comments and suggestions on Question #2 onlyEdit

Actually just answered my own question:

Overview articles should be named "<full game name> <subject in plural>" (e.g. "Fallout 2 organizations").— Our fine policies

The policies make a clear distinction between overview pages (which these are, they say so right at the top) and disambiguation pages (which these ain't, it don't say so at the top). Looks like even the page names are screwed up. We'll be moving all exsisting weapon overview pages to titles that are plural and leaving redirects behind. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 21:32, January 19, 2015 (UTC)

Pluralizing is for total overview pages, like Fallout 3 holodisks and notes, Fallout 3 weapons etc., not for sections of these pages, like you just did for the Needler pistol. I have my reservations with your plans which will affect important pages on a large scale. I agree that the weapon page needs to be looked at, but with these new overview pages I have serious doubts. I'm rather happy with how are they now, and you are planning large scale renaming, making the pages less recognizable for the common reader. Also the background will be more difficult to implement. I don't like several seperate Gamearticlelists on 1 page, making these very large and confusing. Just one gamearticlelist should be there. This is the view from my end, it needs another look and some more input from the community. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 16:17, January 20, 2015 (UTC)
I will only address your comment about page naming here, all other comments I hope I have addressed above. As you can see in my above comments, since we lack disambiguation pages for like named weapon articles, e.g. Assault rifle (Fallout) and Assault rifle (Fallout 3), proper disambiguation pages should be created, per this content policy:
If a given term can refer to multiple articles (i.e. if it is "ambiguous"), the articles should be moved to non-ambiguous (or "disambiguated") titles. A disambiguation page, i.e. a page which links to all possible articles this term may refer to, should then be placed at the ambiguous title.— Content organization policy
Since there should be a disambiguation page titled "Assault rifle", and in concert with the overview page policy requiring that the item in question be plural, these overview pages should really be named in the plural so as not to conflict with the disambig pages that should be created. The plural, in this case, "Assault rifles" accurately describes the content on the page: Here you will find all the assault rifles (generic term). Does anyone continue to disagree with this? The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 21:22, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.