Forum:Organization of Enclave articles

This article, and others connected to it, seem to repeat themselves parallel to each other, and should likely be condensed down into one, simplified article, with any extraneous lists available from them. I will begin conversion. Jwguy 20:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think making them continuous text rather than bullet points would read better. Ausir 21:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I do agree, for the most part. My point was that much of the information on this page and the child page contain information that is either already stated, is unnecessary, or should be stated elsewhere. For examples, the information about the Oil Rig's defenses and stationed Guards should be present on the article for the oil rig, not here, whereas Enclave Ranks and Hierarchy can be mentioned, but there is hardly any need to make a gigantic article about who belongs to which one, when they can simply be composed in a separate list. Jwguy 21:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I is not a novel and it is very really hard to make proper article with continous text (like in real encyclopedia), however I can try to delete paralels. The information on this page and the child page contain information that is either already stated, is unnecessary, or should be stated elsewhere - original title of this page contained Organization word. You can move content you like to side articles, however I surendered to edit Enclave or oil rig like articles becouse of it poor quality and continous text, and - last, but not least - derrick was not an Enclve military unit - and guard unit was very part of Armed Forces. Let's say I can try to make it shorter here, but it is necessary part of this article. who belongs to which one means just organization, however I can consider more detailous propositions to make some additional lists in separate articles. I hope you don't want to amputate some stuff and left this article crippled?--dotz 22:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The number of Enclave organization articles is far too big, and most of the information there is pointless (sorry dotz). We don't need the exact amount of NPCs on Fallout 2 maps, a description suffices ("Among the soldiers stationed at the Oil Rig, there were many who still wore T-51b Power Armor. They usually were either workers or lower ranking soldiers (some still in training) that weren't deployed to the mainland.". It's all a matter of maintaining coherence and readability - in their current form, I highly doubt anyone bothers reading them. Shaur M. S. Grizlin 23:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, for detaled articles about the various aspects of the Enclave's Armed Forces to make sense, there should first and foremost be a condensed article with a summary of all the general info about them, which can then link to various sub-articles. Furthermore, the number of NPCs on each map in the games is often symbolic and not indicative of the canon number of people in that area. Ausir 23:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me make it shorter with necessary side articles. That will take me a few days. And why mainland camps article can't indicate that EAF is its main artilce?--dotz 23:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The template is more for linking the other way around - to the main article about a topic summarized in a paragraph. Here it's simply better to link to the Enclave and the Enclave Armed Forces in an introductory paragraph. And I think it's better to simply rename it to Enclave bases, so that it will cover all of them, including the Oil Rig. Ausir 23:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "Among the soldiers stationed at the Oil Rig, there were many who still wore T-51b Power Armor. They usually were either workers or lower ranking soldiers (some still in training) that weren't deployed to the mainland." - for organizational purposes presence of lower HP worse armored unit, armed with small arms is quite interesting thing (reedit still in process). BTW - you can spare "" marks, it is your description with some speculations, not a quotation.--dotz 23:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for returning to this discussion late, as I understand that I did start it.

I agree that the number of articles is too many, and that, while the site is more of an encyclopedia, not a novel, even an encyclopedia doesn't have the scattered bits of repeating information as these do. I can appreciate the effort taken in the creation of these articles, and I am all for preserving the data, as one can see I have been trying to do, albeit in other pages like the Oil Rig.

The main problem that I'm seeing is new pages are being made for subjects that have little to no actual need for an entire encyclopedic article, and therefore, they are being "Bulked up" with many unnecessary parallel information bits. Just on an example basis, I'll try to illustrate a brief site map.

(Main Article: Enclave) }-- (Other scattered topics)
 * 0000000000000000000000
 * 000000(Child Article: Enclave Armed Forces)
 * 0000000000000000000000000000000000|000000000000
 * 0000000000000000000000000000000000}-
 * 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000(Child Article:Enclave Ranks...)

While the last one, Enclave ranks (Paraphrased title), at this time, seems to have been moved to U.S. Armed Forces, now to Military ranks, the problem is that the child article "Enclave Armed Forces" has almost no new information from that of the actual Enclave article, save for defenses and unit types that were deployed. These, however, can simply be added to the Enclave article in a section about their troops, if there's not one already. The ranks can be added to the same section, but in a list format (eg. Private, Sergeant, Colonel etc.). In the same fashion any miss data can be transferred to respective articles, like the Oil rigs defenses, to the Oil rig, and Navarro's Garrison to Navarro. This would make the site map look much more clean, like so:

(Main Article:Enclave) }(List: Enclave Bases)(List: Enclave Personnel)
 * 000000000000000000000

The Articles, in this way, have their own respective information. The Oil rig contains data about the oil rig, Navarro about Navarro, Any specific troops about themselves, and the Main article, Enclave, references these. There is no need to have large, cluttered trees like the first sitemap, when all of them hover around a single subject. I do hope this made sense. Jwguy 18:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The organization of Enclave articles actually bothered me today. I wanted to find out which bases in the Capital Wasteland the Enclave had (especially early in the storyline), but I couldn't find it anywhere. I'm sure it's in here, somewhere, but... Mirar 19:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Check at the end of Enclave Armed Forces, however I am not a right person with Fallout 3.--dotz 19:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems (unfortunately) side articles cleanup will be more persistent. IMO the problem is sharing of the necessary information with mainstream articles. I can understand Jwguy's poin of view (it is very practical, but to much "binumerical" also), but I can't fully agree with it (the same information can be necessary in more than one place). It seems also, that not all repetitions are mine. Well, my first step will be KIS work and than I'll try to recreate side articles as new sections for mainstream articles (including my opus magnum). Remember, I still need that content for Enclave Armed Forces article as minor information.--dotz 19:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Enclave Armed Forces massive cleanup ended I hope (dotz' phase)
Dear professors. I courteusly invite you to asses improved content. Yours sincerely--dotz 19:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No feedback comment
Much ado on initial phase and no merit disscussion, when it was asked. Is it Polish disease only? It is a shame I had to force merit explanations after agressive reedition. God save President Eden and his Raven Rock base, controlled by Enclave since 2077.--dotz 22:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)