 |
This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes. |
|---|
Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Article speculation and content discussion
Here is the current content guidelines. In my opinion these are proper guidelines and do not need to be modified. If you feel there could be some changes, make the suggestions below. Thanks.
Content criteria[]
- All content should relate to the Fallout series of games, its setting or the SPECIAL character system.
- All content needs to be accurate. Fallout Wiki aims to provide reliable information. In particular, adding speculation and own inventions (fan fiction, fan art etc.) to articles should be avoided.
- All content needs to be verifiable. Other editors need to be able to check and verify it.
- All content needs to be informative. Information which is only of interest to the writer or to other editors (as opposed to readers) should not be included in articles.
- All content needs to be objective. Opinions, gameplay strategy, and "my favorite"-style passages should not be added to articles. Accordingly, guides may only be posted as subpages of one's user page or as a blog.
- All content needs to relate to the games as delivered by the developers; user modifications are not covered by this wiki.
- All content needs to abide by copyright regulations. Generally, content from other sites should not be copied unless permission has been granted. For example, do not upload magazine scans or add illegally obtained information, so as to avoid potential legal problems.
Criteria for specific content[]
Behind the scenes[]
- "Behind the scenes" information in the form of cultural references is acceptable page content only when there are direct visual or textual correlations.
Comments[]
It is my opinion that speculation should never be allowed in articles. We are a wikia and we use facts in our articles. Speculation is not fact.--Kingclyde 20:06, February 28, 2012 (UTC)
- I fully support the idea of no changes being made here. Speculation is very unprofessional and we didn't make it to be one of the top Wikia wikis by not being professional.
Skål! 20:10, February 28, 2012 (UTC)
I know we are not fond of strategies, but what if we put them in the talk pages? MysteryStranger: Trust in the power of Infinity! 20:14, February 28, 2012 (UTC)
- Talk pages are fine as that is kinda why they are there. --Kingclyde 20:17, February 28, 2012 (UTC)
I think there's call for speculation in highly limited circumstances. Such as a game in development, but the speculation should be based on *something* (preview, dev statement, etc), but these should be the exception, not the rule. Agent c 20:20, February 28, 2012 (UTC)
- But when you have facts behind it it is no longer speculation.--Kingclyde 20:22, February 28, 2012 (UTC)
- Mmm, when I read those speculation guidelines, they are more or less one-way explainable, which is good in itself. But I'd like to see them enforced a little less strict. I would lean more towards very likely is acceptable, like Evelyn Sainz being that skeleton at The Tampico. That's more or less visual confirmation. Anyway, I don't think it should become a purpose to go haunt for it and remove everything that resembles just even a bit of speculation. It's not that high of a priority. In the recent two months I've seen too much content removed to my liking. We should direct our focus more on the hundreds of pages that are in the attention needed category. About the behind the scenes, I wouldn't consider that guideline even that one-way explainable as it is right now. Mentioned only Burke has the same name as Aliens' Burke which is a textual correlation and has same circumstances. Even without dev's confirmation we could word it without reference like: "In the Aliens movie a Burke sends colonists in a similar way to their doom". So in general I would say loosen the rope a bit around the rules. And as far as I'm concerned (interesting) translation notes can stay, like the spanish dogs or shop names. Jspoel
22:40, February 28, 2012 (UTC)
- I'm in agreement with J on this one. The guidelines don't exactly elaborate on speculation and such - it is mostly up for the interpretation of users. With so many more things to add and fix here, hunting down speculation or removing anything that marginally resembles it should not be high up on our agenda. Many examples of "speculation" involves reasoning and arriving at conclusion some readers may not notice. I also think translations should stay, since they are a form of cultural references. That may be the one thing the policies do cover about behind the scenes. -ΣΔLet's talk! 22:44, February 28, 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure why certain editors here feel as if we need to become more lax in our guidelines considering speculation. As I said in my comment above, we are a professional wiki and we must ensure that we stay that way and only keep the facts available for viewing. Now, I'm up for a little extra flavour and all, but the second we condone the acts of adding in opinionated views and far-fetched theories, we'll become swamped with false and/or unnecessary speculation. We have to be strict with our rules regarding this matter or you'll learn to regret it later. Want an example? Just look at the Skyrim wiki's Easter Eggs page and all of the speculation that's added to nearly every page. It's absolutely out of control and seemingly unregulated. I think the problem is that some of you think this isn't a big deal. Well, it is and once we start becoming lax on one rule, we'll start becoming more lax in other rules as well. Domino effect.
Skål! 23:35, February 28, 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure why certain editors here feel as if we need to become more lax in our guidelines considering speculation. As I said in my comment above, we are a professional wiki and we must ensure that we stay that way and only keep the facts available for viewing. Now, I'm up for a little extra flavour and all, but the second we condone the acts of adding in opinionated views and far-fetched theories, we'll become swamped with false and/or unnecessary speculation. We have to be strict with our rules regarding this matter or you'll learn to regret it later. Want an example? Just look at the Skyrim wiki's Easter Eggs page and all of the speculation that's added to nearly every page. It's absolutely out of control and seemingly unregulated. I think the problem is that some of you think this isn't a big deal. Well, it is and once we start becoming lax on one rule, we'll start becoming more lax in other rules as well. Domino effect.
- Regarding translations, I agree they should stay. Maybe there will be some mistranslations, but those are bound to fix themselves up sooner or later. Limmiegirl Talk! ♪ 14:34, March 2, 2012 (UTC)
- With Translations. I think these should be acceptable but only from certain folk - ie you need to show that you've got something that shows you really do understand the language. Where you're a native speaker of the other tounge then I think thats enough to show that you know the other language, and your other contributions will show that you've enough in English... But for other folk maybe we should be looking for some sort of certificate that shows that you've learned the language? Agent c 15:41, March 2, 2012 (UTC)
- IMO that would only be necessary in case of disputes. Otherwise there's no damage in accepting translations at their face value.
- I'm in agreement with J on this one. The guidelines don't exactly elaborate on speculation and such - it is mostly up for the interpretation of users. With so many more things to add and fix here, hunting down speculation or removing anything that marginally resembles it should not be high up on our agenda. Many examples of "speculation" involves reasoning and arriving at conclusion some readers may not notice. I also think translations should stay, since they are a form of cultural references. That may be the one thing the policies do cover about behind the scenes. -ΣΔLet's talk! 22:44, February 28, 2012 (UTC)
- Mmm, when I read those speculation guidelines, they are more or less one-way explainable, which is good in itself. But I'd like to see them enforced a little less strict. I would lean more towards very likely is acceptable, like Evelyn Sainz being that skeleton at The Tampico. That's more or less visual confirmation. Anyway, I don't think it should become a purpose to go haunt for it and remove everything that resembles just even a bit of speculation. It's not that high of a priority. In the recent two months I've seen too much content removed to my liking. We should direct our focus more on the hundreds of pages that are in the attention needed category. About the behind the scenes, I wouldn't consider that guideline even that one-way explainable as it is right now. Mentioned only Burke has the same name as Aliens' Burke which is a textual correlation and has same circumstances. Even without dev's confirmation we could word it without reference like: "In the Aliens movie a Burke sends colonists in a similar way to their doom". So in general I would say loosen the rope a bit around the rules. And as far as I'm concerned (interesting) translation notes can stay, like the spanish dogs or shop names. Jspoel
Limmiegirl 
Talk! ♪ 15:48, March 2, 2012 (UTC)