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).

Restart

What are we voting on?

A point was raised during the process that counter to our general policy of "All articles must stand on their own" we have a more specific rule that says "All named characters shall have their own page".

Correct interpretation of these rules together is that the general rule gives way to the specific rule. As such, current policy would dictate that these pages fall within policy.

However, that isn't the end of the matter I am sure. I know some users do want these pages gone, and a valid interpretation of this vote, should it pass, is that this would be an even more specific rule. Although "All articles stand on their own" gives way to "Named characters must have their page", this would in addition give way to "Characters named only on a memorial should not have pages"

However, I know the argument from the other side will be "Well, some people who voted didn't know we were voting on that" which is also valid.

As such, I think the only fair outcome is a full restart of the vote. All previous voters will be alerted to the restart. Agent c (talk) 18:20, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

Why the wipe of the comments?

Given how insane the comments section was getting, with a lot of insults, counter insults, and accuations of bad faith.

So why have I wiped the lot? It doesn't matter who started what. What matters is its ended.

You're free to express opinions, ask questions, and debate - this includes asking people in good faith about their voting rationale to try to understand it. However, we all need to remember that assume good faith is one of the cardinal rules on this wiki. If you aren't sure if something is a legitimate question or an attempt to engage, assume it is.

Any further insults or clear evidence of bad faith will be met with bans, and I may also have to consider removing votes, which I don't want to do. Agent c (talk) 18:20, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

Poll

Should Characters on memorials such as the Boulder City Memorial be an exception to the "All named characters must have a page rule" and thus be deleted if they cannot "stand on their own"?

Poll finished on 5:58 pm August 18, 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. When people are using some of the names on this memorial to claim certain endings to be canon, as if such a thing is any sort of logical... I say these little mini-articles are both pointless and needless. Guess I was the only one who didn't waste my time reading through every single name on that thing. 18:24, August 11, 2015 (UTC)
2. Articles without meaningful and relevant content have no place in a wiki. If we had personal histories to put to each of these memorial names, then these pages could stand, but the writers did not deign to give us those. Memorial names are a strong case for limiting the overly-broad scope of the exceptions rule, and hopefully other reasonable limitations will follow that restore the primacy of the rule requiring that articles stand on their own. Quality before quantity, always. Clockpuncher (talk) 18:53, August 11, 2015 (UTC)
3. I wrote a long vote and the it got too long for the votes section so look in the comments instead. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 19:19, August 11, 2015 (UTC)
4. As per the others. -- ^{Watch in awe!} 21:29, August 11, 2015 (UTC)
5. These pages serve little purpose. I concur with Jasper that having the names in one place is better than each name having its own page. -- Bigsamcrew 23:28, August 11, 2015 (UTC)
6. Quality > Quantity. 1 condensed page > 900 individual pages. Shining-Armor ^(talk) 01:44, August 12, 2015 (UTC)
7. Not sure if my vote counts since i don't edit here much, but as someone who comes here alot for info, I find these articles rather pointless. Ser Pouce-a-lot (talk) 02:53, August 12, 2015 (UTC)
8. For once, I'm in agreement with Eden that we should kill these NCR Soldiers(' pages). ^{BOLTMAN FOREVER} 03:09, August 12, 2015 (UTC)
9. There's no point in having them so scrap 'em. KernHallowed are the Ori 23:21, August 13, 2015 (UTC)

No

1. I admit they don't add much to the wiki, but in the light of competition we didn't have 5 years ago, in my opinion we can't afford anymore to delete them. They're not really in the way. Jspoel 18:10, August 11, 2015 (UTC)
2. Of course not, these pages should NOT be deleted. They're not hurting anyone. Also, we need to bring back the country pages. Gee, I should really set a custom signature. (talk) 18:21, August 11, 2015 (UTC)The-Artist-64
3. I have given some more thought and I still vote no. It is because I don't prefer much lists on articles, makes the entire section look big. Besides, if you are focused so much on making lists, have you ever thought the categories fit that stage? ☢ Energy X ☣ 20:26, August 11, 2015 (UTC)
4. Completeness, policy, logics etc. - ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 22:19, August 11, 2015 (UTC)
5. per policy. if we have a discussion about amending the policy about exceptions, I will totally be for removing these articles. ^{Hawk da Barber 2013 - BSHU Graduate} 00:36, August 12, 2015 (UTC)
6. While I still maintain that these pages should be removed, this is not the way to do it. The policy that all named characters must have their own article is already an exception to the policy that all subjects must have enough content about them to justify their own article. If we don't like that, then we need to actually change the policy itself, not just make a one-time exception to the already existing exception. What if there's a memorial in Fallout 4 that has a bunch of readable names on it? All in all, in light of the new information, supporting this proposal seems somewhat myopic. --Skire (talk) 00:39, August 12, 2015 (UTC)
7. ------Cassie Ultimate Anime Loving Weeaboo.✿ 02:03, August 12, 2015 (UTC)
8. --WastelanDrifter (talk) 21:37, August 12, 2015 (UTC)
9. I changed my mind, we should remove the specific rule validating the existence of these pages instead of making an exception to it. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 19:35, August 13, 2015 (UTC)
10. Think you all know by now my stance and reasoning behind this subject, the way the wiki's been since its creation should stay the way it is.   OfficialLolGuy  Talk  Blog  22:58, August 13, 2015 (UTC)
11. Against our policies to remove these articles, and against the very nature of this wiki itself. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 14:12, August 14, 2015 (UTC)
12. While I do not support the pages themselves, the proper way to deal with this is by discussing and changing the applicable policy, THEN removing the articles. Once the policy has been changed to address this, I will gladly support the removal of these articles. Richie9999 (talk) 16:18, August 17, 2015 (UTC)

Neutral

1.   I think the question of what the standard should be for a character to have a page is better addressed in a more general policy, and not as a single case exception to the rule. Agent c (talk) 18:25, August 11, 2015 (UTC)
2. If the policy gets changed about these articles, where even the tiniest characters get a page, so long as they are named, I'd vote positive. I can't vote negative right now though because to be honest these pages are worthless, and the only thing keeping them here is the policy. If the policy gets changed I'll vote positive, but until then I'm a neutral boy-o. Sigmund Fraud _{Talk to me} 15:58, August 15, 2015 (UTC)
3. As Agent C has said, and we also need to establish what defines a unique npc. I hardly see names on a wall as an npc considering that npc implies a level of interaction. You cannot interact with a wall. There is a lot more to consider than one monument. <br\> Lord Onions: Dat Onion Ring Luvin Fox! (Talk) 14:52, August 17, 2015 (UTC)

Excluded votes

1. I am all about quality articles that accurately depict the scope and depth of Fallout and these ones are redundant fluff that sets an absurdly small criterion that only serves to disinterest readers in the long run by providing them with material that is periodically repetitive. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 19:46, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Tweaked slightly to "Memorials such as the Boulder Memorial" Rather than just the boulder memorial itself. Given the previous (now removed) comments, Cemetaries are not memorials, as people were concerned about those being next. Agent c (talk) 18:57, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

Complaints about a Bureaucrat mad with power acting like a dictator

You're still good in my book :) Jspoel 18:10, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

I like Chad as well. However, this should be a new forum. Erasing an entire forum discussion (for whatever reason) is not something we do at Nukapedia. If there are unsavoury comments, then we have a system of discipline. If there is a change in the vote wording, then we have enough space to start a new forum page. I don't think the entire previous version of this forum should be expunged (I know it's not truly erased). I suggest either of two solutions: one, to move this to a new forum page and restore the previous version in its final state (keeping it locked); two, we keep a copy of the previous version wherever and provide a link to it on this new page. --Skire (talk) 19:04, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone gains with that stain there, it invites further argument and resentment. We do remove abuse, and thats the level some of those comments got at. Rather than go through it line by line and be accused of playing favourites, scorched earth seemed the best solution

It being on a history page isn't that different to it being in a forgotten locked forum.

But if thats what people want, do what you want. Agent c (talk) 19:20, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

I think Chad has a point. I would have not done this myself personally, but it was an effective way to get rid of all the bad faith and name calling at once while making sure we don't play favourites. Many forums here get off topic and hostile, so it is important that we avoid that when we can, even if that means starting over sometimes. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 19:26, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

I believe a link to the erased version is warranted but overall I welcome our newly mad-with-power Bureaucrat's maneuver :p

Forum:Memorial vote --The Ever Ruler (talk) 20:10, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

My Vote: JASPER42

I have given it much consideration. When Paladin first mentioned this exception rule, I immediately thought "Well I need to change my vote then" since policy now supported the opposite of I had voted for, however after a little while I went back to my original beliefs. These pages are empty, and there is nothing we can do to make them longer. Having all these characters be on a list instead of individual pages just means all the info is in one place. We do not lose any information. You can ask "what's the harm?" and yes, that is a good question and one that is hard to answer and I will counter with "what's the gain?". While it is true that these pages do not really damage the wiki in any way, they themselves look weak and we are surly only as strong as our weakest page, right? As The Ever Ruler would say "efficiency is important" and it is much more efficient for us to have a list, instead of multiple pages. People will only find these names on the memorial (or memorial pages) and if they click the name that means that they want to know more about the character, however there IS nothing more to know about the character. Another valid comment is "but brah, what about other small pages like characters found on gravestones" and again, this is a hard one to answer. Personally, the way I see it that is a whole different type of character. The reason I think that we should use a list over individual pages for these characters is because they are basically the same character. They did the same thing, in the same place, at the same time. Gravestone characters, however, are pretty unrelated from each other. Now, I would also not object to having (for example) a list of characters buried in Goodsprings Graveyard, but equally I do not think it is as needed as I feel this is.

TL;DR? - I thought about it and feel these pages are of no aid to the wiki. I feel that gravestone characters are a different situation, although understand the comparison. My main reason for voting yes is because all these characters are fundamentally the same, except for name and rank. And let's be honest, what's in a name?

JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 19:23, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

“As The Ever Ruler would say "efficiency is important"”

In the interest of indulging this inside joke, he is correct. I would say the removal of these redundant pages would be a more efficient use of readers' time as well as our time when creating similar pages in the future, such as when Fallout 4 comes out. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 19:50, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

Forget further specifying, why not target the specific policy itself?

My only complaint to this ad hoc maneuver by Agent c is that I believed Paladin117 was interested in redoing the vote and discussion process towards removing the recently unearthed specific rule. I believe with the slough of forums being created and supported towards the removal of redundant content as well as our up-until-recent ignorance of the policy tells us that we not only don't follow it but we don't -want- to follow it, and therefore it should be removed.

Depending on Paladin's input, I believe this only drags out his intent. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 19:46, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

I do have to say, that a exception to and exception to a policy is not a great way for us to work. Just remove the first exception, or make it more specific. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 20:10, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

Possible New Policy

Since the previous vote closed, I've been debating about this exception I discovered. My main problem with these pages are they are literally taking a list of names and creating copy-and-paste pages for them. Not a list that *we*, the wiki, made, but a list found in-game. For this reason, I was thinking of a possible, new addition to the Exceptions section that would fix this:

“Pages should never be made based off of in-game lists, such as the Boulder City memorial, unless the page would have additional, independent content that differs it from the majority of the list.”

Or something like that. Any thoughts? Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 01:40, August 12, 2015 (UTC)

I'd support that new policy, quite honestly. 01:43, August 12, 2015 (UTC)

I'm also in favor. It's a simple change that would pull policy back into line with what we thought it was before the exception rule was rediscovered. In fact, it might be more expedient to scrap this vote and start a new vote on the policy change. If the change passes, then these memorial name pages will be deleted anyway since they would be in violation of the new policy. If not, then the pages would be allowed to stay or have to be re-created regardless of how this vote turns out. Clockpuncher (talk) 02:14, August 12, 2015 (UTC)

With some polished wording, I would support it. Then we have an actual policy in place that we can reference in the future (providing that it passes). --Skire (talk) 02:23, August 12, 2015 (UTC)

You're right. The use of "never" is too strict, that second part could be reworded... there's a reason I never claimed writing was my forte. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 03:12, August 12, 2015 (UTC)

Things should never change

“the way the wiki's been since its creation should stay the way it is.”

In that case, these memorial pages must be deleted immediately as they weren't created for five years after creation and the only thing defending them, the exception, wasn't made until four years after creation. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 23:22, August 13, 2015 (UTC)

Nah, don't be a smart-arse, you know what I mean. My statement was regarding how we've allowed pages like this since the wiki's creation.   OfficialLolGuy  Talk  Blog  12:26, August 14, 2015 (UTC)

No, it really didn't. This wiki predates Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas where this became an issue. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 12:46, August 14, 2015 (UTC)

ZiGenGrv.msg   OfficialLolGuy  Talk  Blog  13:17, August 14, 2015 (UTC)

Most, if not all, of those pages have more content than these memorial pages. Also, those pages were made literally this year, making them far newer than the memorials. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 13:34, August 14, 2015 (UTC)

The only person that ever had a unilateral say in what this wiki represents, was Ausir, and he specifically created The Vault (here, now it is Nukapedia) as a depository for any and all Fallout knowledge. This wiki is not some action-packed guide where users come to entertain themselves for hours on end. This wiki is, however, meant to act as an encyclopedia of facts - regardless of whether those facts are bare-boned, boring, or are of no particular interest to most, if not all of our readers.

It strikes me as exceptionally arrogant, whenever any user, or users, decide(s) that any particular Fallout knowledge, does not belong on this wiki, simply because it does not cater to their personal tastes. This is a wiki for the millions upon millions of readers, who all have unique tastes and desires when looking up Fallout resources such as this one. This is not a wiki for just a dozen or so active/semi-active users.

Anyways, I just wanted to share my opinion. I see an agenda to remove hundreds of articles on this wiki, and it strikes me as absolutely bizarre, as this will do nothing except harm the very nature of this wiki. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 13:59, August 14, 2015 (UTC)

Removing pages that just copy-and-paste each other harms the wiki *how* exactly? If anything, I think the pages being there harms the wiki, as no one is going to go through those hundreds of pages to get to the minority of them with actual information. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 14:13, August 14, 2015 (UTC)

1. Do you know what it is like being Asian?
2. Do you know what is is like being born in Africa, and living there your entire life?
3. Do you know what it is like having H.I.V.?
4. Do you know what it is like enjoying alfredo, but hating spaghetti?

The point I am trying to make, is that until you can prove that you have the unique ability to emphasize with every other person on this planet, in our case the Fallout-loving portion of the world's populace, please do not presume to speak for anyone besides yourself.

You have absolutely no idea as to what kind of articles appeal to every type of reader that comes to this wiki. And because of that, you need to stop projecting your personal opinions onto the millions of other readers that come here. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 14:18, August 14, 2015 (UTC)

I don't, that's why I held a vote to talk about this before they were deleted. Technically, before I discovered the exception rule, I could've just deleted them without a vote as they were totally against the other policies. Instead, I started a vote to see what others thought of it and guess what, the majority of people agreed with me before the vote was shut down. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 14:22, August 14, 2015 (UTC)

Argumentum ad populum is not a good justification for the removal of factual content. Especially when such an argument can be reached by talking to a bunch of semi/non-active users that hang around chat and have a miniscule understanding of what a wiki is, and their purpose.

Anyways, you are getting defensive, instead of comprehending and addressing what I am telling you. So I will go ahead and end this discussion, before we start going in circles. Maybe we can just agree to disagree, since I have known for years that it takes forever to change certain users' mind around here.

Remember the fact that it took me over a year to create the Etymology of pure and prime humans article? I never forgot how much I had to argue and beat people over the head, in order to get factual and sourced information onto this wiki. That is all I have to say, for now. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 14:28, August 14, 2015 (UTC)

I guess then we're going to have to delete the wiki's policies. We're never going to get even close to millions of people to vote on layouts, speculation, or any other policy. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 17:50, August 14, 2015 (UTC)

This is all completely irrelevant and off track. No knowledge is being removed. Can we please continue this vote in some order so I don't have to shut it down or restart it again? Thanks. Agent c (talk) 17:53, August 14, 2015 (UTC)

Agent is right, this vote has nothing to do with the removal of information; only how it's presented. Deleting the memorial character pages would not remove any information from the wiki since everything within them can be found elsewhere. ^{BOLTMAN FOREVER} 19:00, August 14, 2015 (UTC)

I would argue this further, as these removals are neither the beginning, nor the end of the mass removal of articles that has been proposed again and again lately, starting with the country articles, and real-world articles being alluded to as next on the agenda.

But I will digress, since this point has already been stressed, and in general, it is true that this discussion does not have too much to do with the current vote. The main thing I wanted to address, though, were comments such as these: "...where this became an issue." & "...as no one is going to go through those hundreds of pages to get to the minority of them with actual information."

Stuff like that does need to be addressed, in my opinion, as it feeds into other users' confirmation bias, and gives a false sense of omniscience that does not actually exist. Outright saying something is an issue, and outright generalizing the entire community into a single opinion, is something that should be avoided, I feel - at least, from the person that brought this vote to us, and should be portraying the options fairly to voters.

I just wanted to clarify upon my position some more - I am not really looking to further the original conversation that I started anymore - I do not really have much more to say anyways, at this point. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 19:13, August 14, 2015 (UTC)

I really don't think basic questions of "usability" is in any way, shape or form a claim to "omniscience". Let us presume for a moment that one or two of those names have a well developed, known backstory. Lets even presume for a moment that another character talks about them, or maybe we met them as a child in Fallout 2.

Answer just as yourself, not as anyone else. Are you more likely to end up learning from this wiki if you find that just a small number of names are linked, or you find that they all are?

Now again, answer just as yourself... Let us presume that all the names are linked, and that you are curious. All but maybe 3 have the simple stub page, and they're buried somewhere in the middle of the list. How many names are you likely to click when the overwelming chance on each click is that you get basically the same page with no new information on it? 3? 4? 5?

Sure, not everyone is going is going to give up early on. Some people will click them all. But I don't think its controversial, or a claim to omniscience, and nor do I think I need to do a study, or anything else, to be safe in the assumption that if people are going to click names, they'll do a sample at best, and the less "interesting" the pages in that sample are, the less likley they are to click another.

The easier you make it for the reader, the better. Agent c (talk) 22:28, August 14, 2015 (UTC)

Actually, my argument is made from my personal perspective. I am a lore junkie. And when I say junkie, I am being literal - I have spent hours upon hours, combing through the deepest articles that can be found on wikis such as this one, or others such as the Starcraft wiki and WoWPedia.

Sometimes, the most interesting part of established lore, are the tiny mentions that, when alone, do not amount to much, but when delved into, begin to make up a story, of sorts. A perfect example is the Canterbury group that died off helping their friend find his sister. Completely miss-able in-game, and each character by themselves, are pretty uninteresting. But read into all of them, and a story begins to unfold in the mind, where the game did not finish one personally.

The memorial characters are also not terribly interesting by themselves. But as one looks into the characters intimately, a story begins to unfold. Names reveal which areas were highly conscripted from, in order to keep the war-efforts going in the Mojave. There is even a Gorobets on the memorial, showing that the main Gorobets that we know, has a personal stake in this war, even though it is never touched upon in-game. They might not even be related - but there is still a story to be told.

Never underestimate the value of even the most seemingly mind-numbing articles. For us lore junkies, we will find interest in them. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 23:35, August 14, 2015 (UTC)

First, I never noticed Gorobets. This is probably because it's not mentioned on his page, but, more importantly, also because he is one of the few notable names on a list of a hundred of them. This makes him not stand out whatsoever, making people less likely to find this story. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 23:46, August 14, 2015 (UTC)

Would everyone be satisfied if we put the unique ones between ''' so they are in bold? The unique ones will jump out, and we still have the other ones so we'll stick to policy and people that feel like they make the wikia more complete also get what they want. - ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 23:55, August 14, 2015 (UTC)

(←)  What woud we put on the page? "Links not in bold contain no information"? And what about the categories? Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 00:43, August 15, 2015 (UTC)

The bold makes them jump out, while the concern raised was that the special ones wouldn't jump out. They don't really need extra explanation. And as the categories are now after the project, it's not really handy to navigate in them anymore anyway; but if you'd really want, you can still make them a "Boulder city memorial characters" subcategory to relieve other categories. - ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 00:46, August 15, 2015 (UTC)

The "names" aren't being removed. For lore junkies like you though, we are making it easier for you to determine which (if any) of those names have more lore tidbitds that aren't on the memorial. Agent c (talk) 14:57, August 15, 2015 (UTC)

That really depends. If this were to succeed, would the names remain as redirects back to the memorial article? Or would they outright be deleted, with no additional thought, as this vote alludes to without further clarification? Because if the names were not converted into redirects, then I would argue that looking up the names on the monument, would be far less convenient. If I want to learn more about a specific name, I do not think to look up the rock that their name is scrawled upon, first - I am going to look up the actual name.

And then, I am also concerned about the fact that a lot of info-box technical information would no longer be listed. Believe it or not, but not knowing if the memorial soldiers died as human or ghoul, by having their race classified as unknown in the info-boxes, is also very interesting information. Ambiguity is pretty important, especially in regards to theFallout universe. We already have a precedent established that shows the NCR conscripts ghouls at times, so who knows how many ghoulish soldiers died defending Hoover Dam?

I just do not see the point in throwing these mentioned characters onto a single article, where small details will be missed. These articles do not, and cannot harm this wiki. There will be users interested in all of our articles, regardless of whether users here believe that. Maybe if we had limited space, I would understand the condensing of articles. But we do not have limited space. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 15:14, August 15, 2015 (UTC)

What small details will be missed? The vast majority of them only have a name and a rank, which is already on a single article. The infobox doesn't give anymore information than that because, not surprisingly, things like race are 100% unknown. How does something like the NCR conscripting ghouls affect these pages in the least when race isn't even mentioned on them? Plus, unless you count disambigs and talk pages, ~95% of the Boulder City memorial pages are only linked from the Boulder City page, which already states everything those 95% state. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 15:54, August 15, 2015 (UTC)

I am not really expecting you to get it - especially with how gung-ho you are about these removals. And that is fine with me - I would be driven mad, if I expected everyone I met to understand my perspective. My opinion has been stated, and that will have to be enouh.

Honestly, I also do not feel like reiterating upon my own words. I already explained what I would consider missing, and how I feel that these changes would be more inconvenient, than convenient.

Before finishing this comment, I looked up a few of the articles, and saw that not all of them have their unknown race listed (anymore). Interestingly enough, I see that they were gone through systematically, and had this designation removed from the articles. I consider that a fault that should be corrected - not as proof that small details will not be missed should they be deleted. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 16:05, August 15, 2015 (UTC)

And stating we don't know something adds what to the article exactly? What do these articles have that isn't already stated on the Boulder City or Yangtze Memorial pages? What do they add to the wiki? Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 22:22, August 15, 2015 (UTC)

(←)  Just how far do we take this logic?

“Thor is an entity that existed at some point in the Fallout Universe.

Not much is known of Thor, but we can be assured he existed at least as a legend, through the presence of Thursday being present in all Canonical fallout games. Due to the Divergence it is not known if Thor actually existed as a real being, or only as a mythological creature. It is also unknown whether knowledge of Thor, or indeed his entire existence survived the great war, nor is it known if he mutated into either a supermutant, ghoul, or giant ant. However, the presence of Thunder in some games suggests he may have some true existence in the Fallout universe.

Thor Is a mentioned character in all Fallout games”— The Near future?

No thanks. Agent c (talk) 00:11, August 16, 2015 (UTC)

The fact that you re-hashed the same argument against Artist, to use against me as well, shows that not only are you not understanding what I am saying, either (in no world am I suggesting that we use speculation in order to create articles), but that you are also not willing to construct an original argument against me. That you would even bring up using my logic to suggest that the same could be used to construct articles primarily using wording such as: "...nor is it known," "...suggests," & "...may," shows that you do not really understand me as an editor and content creator, at all.

I already told you that if you do not get it, Paladin, then you likely never will. I really have no interests in going around and around in circles with you. To me, personally, I feel as if independent articles contribute more worth, and along with info-boxes, gives motivation to write as much content as can be discerned. If you do not understand that, then fine - you do not have to understand it. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 00:44, August 16, 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a need to create a "new argument" when I've been refining this one for some time. You indicated that you felt there was some "value" in listing these never observed character's race/mututation as "unknown", and that was the primary part of that argument - nor is it known is the same as putting "unknown", so it falls in the same logic path.

The only "speculative"/"Suggests" part is the bit about thunder.

This example isn't far fetched, it was on a similar basis we had a page on Greece.

I think we have a very different definition of "content". A holder page that tells us nothing, and lists vital information as "unknown" isn't new content, its 90%+ wikicode. The "content" is repeated and more meaningful on the memorial page. The former never replaces the latter, and doesn't enhance it in any way - it only detracts from those pages that break that mold. Agent c (talk) 01:01, August 16, 2015 (UTC)

Result

The majority is not in the favor of deleting articles. However, the the topic can be re-vised later on, since it is suggested to change the policy first before deleting the pages. ☢ Energy X ☣ 19:49, August 19, 2015 (UTC)