Forum:Memorial vote

Forums: Index > Wiki proposals and applications > Memorial vote

Hello, after the discussion on this forum, I would like to do one final vote to give people a final chance to voice their opinion on this matter. The ultimate question is: do these pages based off memorials, such as Sandra Abbot on the Boulder City memorial, have enough content to constitute their own page, based off the content organization policy? If not, the majority of them should be deleted, with certain exceptions such as Donald Kowalski. I should point out that this is not an official vote to change policy or the like, so it may or may not need a bureaucrat to make the final decision. Thank you, Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 00:25, August 10, 2015 (UTC).

Should these memorial characters be deleted?

Poll finished on 12:25 am August 17, 2015 (UTC).

• 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 user's votes.

Yes

1. I do not believe these characters have enough content, as the majority of them are copying the same content from both each other and the memorial page itself. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 00:25, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
2. Much like the mighty gazelle, we are only as strong as our weakest page. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 00:28, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
3. "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." --The Ever Ruler (talk) 00:28, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
4. I'm voting both because I support this and to shut up Pally, but mostly the latter. KernHallowed are the Ori 00:46, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
5. Shining-Armor ^(talk) 01:19, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
6. Per Paladin. Not much else to be said... Sigmund Fraud _{Talk to me} 01:28, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
7. As Jasper said in the comments below, We cannot ignore policy because the pages conveniently buff our page count. Policies are there to be followed, not ignored when some members find it inconvenient. I also feel that a bunch of incomplete pages makes our wiki look incomplete and unprofessional, as opposed to it 'looking more complete and professional' as I have seen being claimed. There is really no reason why this should be even up to a vote. Either we follow policy or we don't, and the latter isn't really an option. Lord Onions: Dat Onion Ring Luvin Fox! (Talk) 01:41, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
8. MUH ARTICLE COUNT, what a load of shit. these pages are not needed at all, shouldn't have been created in the first place. ^{Hawk da Barber 2013 - BSHU Graduate} 19:18, August 10, 2015 (UTC)

No

1. ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog)
2. As I've said several times before, we're slowly going down the path of this wiki going to shit, take this thread for example.   OfficialLolGuy  Talk  Blog  00:52, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
3. If we do this, the same would go then for Vault 87, Yangtze Memorial and Gologtha characters I presume? Better not. We lose too many pages, and our article count is prominent on the front page. If we didn't have competition I'd have less problems with it, but this isn't a wise move I think. Jspoel 01:04, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
4. Pretty much the same reasons stated above. Plus, I need at least one victory here. First we lost the Countries, then I failed at fixing D.C. and the Columbia Commonwealth. No more. I won't stand for it. Deleting the countries was the beginning of a slippery slope. "Space. The final frontier." ~The-Artist-64 (talk) 01:07, August 10, 2015 (UTC)The-Artist-64
5. Just because it is that minor does not mean they should be deleted. Period. It is not like it is hurting anyone that they are present. Plus, by such logic, why would we have, say, mentioned characters, whose names are written on gravestones? ☢ Energy X ☣ 20:35, August 10, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

To Jspoel, I forgot to put Yangtze in, but it was in the discussion forum. Golgotha I forgot about, but it would probably stay as the graves are references to developers. Vault 87, I will have to look into. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 01:10, August 10, 2015 (UTC)

Vault 87 character files appear to hold the same amount of merit as these pages. There isn't much point to them, aside from wiki paddding, which makes us look unprofessional. We can put a list of these guys on the Memorial and Vault pages, and that would be just fine. Sigmund Fraud _{Talk to me} 01:30, August 10, 2015 (UTC)

Article count

Why does article count matter more than this policy;

“Every article should be "strong" enough to stand on its own. This means the subject provides enough content to write an article of decent length about it.”

I don't think anyone can make the argument that these pages are "strong" or "of decent length", so why do we ignore this policy in favour of a pretty meaningless number? People want quality, not quantity. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 01:22, August 10, 2015 (UTC)

Slippery Slope

To Artist, could you please explain to me what the slippery slope you're refering to is here? We have a bunch of articles with basically no information on them, what will we lose is removing them, and what effects are you worried about us running into on the slippery slope?

Is there perhaps a counter argument that the existence of these articles is a slippery slope towards a ridiculous sitaution where we have to have a page on Thor because Thursday exists in the Fallout Universe? Agent c (talk) 17:17, August 10, 2015 (UTC)

Veeeery mature, thanks. I've said what I need to say, and I'm not about to let myself get bullied in full view of the entire wiki. Like I said, once the countries were gone everything else is free game. What's next? How about we consolidate everything onto one central page, because 'KWALLITY IS EVVERYTHING WE RRR BETTUR DEN DA VAULT'? Absolutely ridiculous. But you know what? It'll all happen anyways, so I see no point anymore in trying to prevent these things. You're an intelligent admin, I firmly believe that, and I'll let you and the others run this wiki the way you want to run it. I respect you. But, I think you're letting the website go down a very bad road. End of discussion, for me at least. "Space. The final frontier." ~The-Artist-64 (talk) 19:30, August 10, 2015 (UTC)The-Artist-64

I'm disapointed in your response. As you can see, I have yet to vote and was staying my vote based on what you would say, I wondered perhaps if there was some issue we were all missing. But if you can't articulate what this "bad road" is without resorting to ad-hominem attacts and ultimately avoiding what the root of your concern is, then I'm afraid I'll have to vote opposite to you. I'll give you another opportunity to choose another path before I vote. Agent c (talk) 19:46, August 10, 2015 (UTC)

Eh. Pity. I worked so hard on that to try and make it a strong message. XD Well, in that case, I guess I'll go to the roots of my concerns.

See, wikipedia has short pages like that. So does every other database. Why shouldn't we? They were people, lived and died, NCR citizens. It's important to have that there, and keeping it all on one page makes in far less...accessible, if you get what I'm saying here.

I'm afraid I can't offer you much else in terms of my concerns. It's the same as before: once the wiki is trimmed, editors will have a desire to consolidate more. Then, think- no Commonwealth pages, no Vault pages, it's all put together. Putting everything on one page just makes said page cluttered and messy and way too long, and plus it limits the information we can put on a page. Having an individual page allows for more specific information, and if we're a database we need to be specific.

Is that a good enough argument? Crossing my fingers. Gee, I should really set a custom signature. (talk) 19:56, August 10, 2015 (UTC)The-Artist-64

Merging all of the Vault pages and merging all of the memorial characters are two very different things. The Vault pages are giant and full of content and merging them would result in a massive mess. The memorial characters on the other hand are all almost exactly the same thing and everything stated on the individual pages is already stated on the memorial page itself. With few exceptions, there is no "more specific information" with these characters, they're literally just copies of each other. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 20:06, August 10, 2015 (UTC)

Why? Once these pages are gone, what's stopping the next series of pages from being clumped together? I'll bet many would love to argue the same for the vaults. Gee, I should really set a custom signature. (talk) 20:10, August 10, 2015 (UTC)The-Artist-64

Because anyone that sees a similarity between this and this are blind or really fooling themselves. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 20:15, August 10, 2015 (UTC)

Again, why not? What's stopping it? Consolidation is easy to do. All that informatipn isn't really necessary anyways. That's the logic behind it. Gee, I should really set a custom signature. (talk) 20:19, August 10, 2015 (UTC)The-Artist-64

(←)  A former sparring partner of mine used to take great joy in pointing out falacical arguments... You appear to be making a classic reductio ad absurdum argument.

These are pages that don't say anything. X Existed and died at Y. You probably only knew he existed because you looked at the boulder page and clicked the name hoping to find more, instead you're just seeing the exact same memorial page you were already looking at... Did you learn anything new from clicking on the link?

People look for Vault 13, Vault 101, etc. Do they actively go looking for Lance Han, Tina Chan, Bradley Garret or Paul Quon?

I understand where you're coming from, but we're definately not going to go down the route of consolidating vault pages, or commonwealth pages.

Oh, and Pally, can you cut the condesention? Ta.

(Actually, they'll go looking for one of those names, I did a John Oliver and slipped a name in that isn't on the memorial to see if anyone noticed. Why? Its an example about how you can hide good information by burying it in content, and thats why we wont got o ridiculous extremes in consolidation). Agent c (talk) 20:23, August 10, 2015 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for sticking up for me. I don't appreciate the condescending comments. Anyways, I'll try and shift gears here. No, without these pages we lack the information. What's a list when compared to an individual page? Besides, these are mentioned characters who deserve a page. By that logic, what's the point in having grave markers? They don't offer much information. Gee, I should really set a custom signature. (talk) 20:31, August 10, 2015 (UTC)The-Artist-64