Forum:New Vegas info

I'm starting to think that all FNV info should be confined to a few overview pages until the game is actually released.

The reasons why I'm suggesting this are the following:
 * For readers, it's more convenient to have the info concentrated rather than hopping from page to page looking for little tidbits.
 * If we concentrate the FNV info on a few pages, we can hopefully enforce proper sourcing of info better (you can reuse references etc). Currently the sourcing is unsatisfactory at best.
 * Previews are at best semi-reliable sources. The info is mostly second-hand, based on the understanding of the journalists, and is bound to contain inaccuracies. In addition, things which might be true at the time of a preview have a chance of not being true for the finished game.
 * It'll take ages to get all the pre-release info back out of the wiki. I kept running across FO3 pages written from pre-release perspective (with the corresponding level of inaccuracy compared to the released game) well over a year after the game was released; we probably still have a few.
 * In particular, it'll cost considerable effort to match the made-up item names to the real ones later on.
 * As it is, category structures are being built around the info (character by location categories, location categories etc). This will also cause unnecessary verification/deletion work.
 * The detail pages cause quite a bit of maintenance workload for little gain. The detail articles about FNV content invite speculation, edit warring over opinions and generally poor quality additions. Quite a few of them have already been sysop-protected due to admins running out of patience.
 * Infoboxes will likely need modifications once we know more about the actual mechanics. I can already foresee that the weapon and armor infoboxes will need to be adapted; inserting the FO3 templates now just means I have to change all of them later. Having the mostly empty infoboxes around is also problematic in combination with the RTE; once an anon or new users edits such a template, all the empty fields are gone - which kind of defeats the purpose of having them there in the first place.
 * For most particular subjects, there is really too little info to justify an own article.
 * In addition, we can't really judge how pages will need to be merged so it makes sense. This especially applies to location and armor pages, for example: we don't know which locations are part of a bigger location, we don't know which armors are part of a set etc. Having own articles about every mentioned thing just means we have to do a lot of merges later on.
 * Finally, I hope that I can figure out a way to add (at least) all the item pages by bot when Vegas comes out, with the infoboxes already filled in. The already existing pages would get in the way then.

I could go on for a bit, but I think that should suffice for now :P What I'm suggesting is that e.g. all known info about characters would only be described on Fallout: New Vegas characters, all known info about weapons on Fallout: New Vegas weapons and so forth. In exchange, all the detail articles like Cyberpunk Cowboy SMG or Tabitha would be removed/redirected until the game is actually out.

Opinions? -- Porter21 (talk) 00:42, May 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe you are right, Porter. Having 200 pre-release, preview-inspired articles is making readership of New Vegas articles attrocious. If there were just overviews for now, then enough information on just the characters or just the weapons would suffice for a real article. By the way, do you spare a single detail on this Wiki, Porter? ;) -- Ghouly89 (Talk)00:57, May 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing can escape my scrutiny >:D -- Porter21 (talk) 07:31, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * No wonder the Vault thrives. You have quite the case of productivity, my friend. Ghouly89 (Talk) 07:46, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with the few overview pages idea. Is there a way to disable or put up a warning or explanation when someone tries to use the New Article function and chooses a New Vegas template? Or is that just dreaming?--Gothemasticator 14:57, May 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, we could remove the FNV links from MediaWiki:Newarticletext and instead add a message along the lines of "do not create FNV articles before the game is out". If we replace The Vault:Create article/Fallout: New Vegas with the same message, we should at least be able to get the message to the people who do read notices :P -- Porter21 (talk) 15:36, May 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the idea. Anyone else?--Gothemasticator 15:46, May 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't. Definitely not for things like characters, factions and locations. And even for e.g. weapons, armor etc. people are coming in order to look for things like item images - if they are kept on the overview pages, fine. Ausir(talk) 17:44, May 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * So basically your opinion is "it causes a huge workload for no additional informational value, but I think it should stay that way"? It's not like galleries can't be added to overview pages, and there are also redirects. -- Porter21 (talk) 19:00, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * I just don't really see much of a point of it in case of characters, locations, etc. where info has nothing to do with game mechanics, unlike weapons, items, etc. In these articles, the infoboxes and other templates won't really need to be adapted, unlike with weapons etc. so I don't see the point in removing them. How about at least leaving major characters, like Tabitha, Raul or House in separate articles and merging the ones where there isn't much info anyway? Maybe you could make a mock-up page first? Ausir(talk) 19:17, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll see about making a sample tomorrow. The templates were really just an additional point (although the issue regarding empty fields being removed when people with RTE edit them applies to characters, factions and locations as well); I'm mainly concerned with the lack of sourcing, the pages inviting speculation and poor content as well as having a large amount of potentially inaccurate info inserted all over the place which we'll then later have to remove/fix.
 * That aside, I feel that making own articles for every little tidbit is actually inconvenient for people who want to read up on info about the game. Due to my extended break, I'm a bit out of the loop regarding previews and I find our wiki not to be very useful for catching up unless I want to read all news posts since otherwise I'd have to scrape together little bits and pieces by hopping from one article to another. On the other hand, Mass Effect Wiki used to summarize all info about ME2 on one page and I found that very convenient back in the day. Obviously, Bethesda/Obsidian are a little more forthcoming with pre-release info than Bioware/EA so having all info on one page would be impractical for us, but more concentrated info would still be more useful in my opinion.
 * Regarding at least leaving major characters, not sure. I'll think about it, a bit too tired at the moment. -- Porter21 (talk) 20:24, May 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Oops, completely forgot about this. Will make sample page first thing tomorrow. -- Porter21 (talk) 17:59, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

See /sample. Keep in mind it's just a quick mockup; I'd probably remove the inhabitant listings and simply link to the respective section on the character page. Basically all the location names (such as Novac or Dinky the Dinosaur) would be set up as linkable entries, and their names would redirect to that (similar to how Fallout 3 keys works, for example). -- Porter21 (talk) 11:49, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * So, how would we go about removing those pages and replacing them with proper articles when Vegas is released? Nitty Tok. 11:55, May 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, there are various possibilities for that. One would be compiling a list of redirects linking to the overview pages (via Special:WhatLinksHere) and having a bot replace them with the content of the up-to-date article creation templates; the verified content can then be moved over. Turning the overview pages back into "standard" overview pages shouldn't be too hard considering all you need to is remove info. -- Porter21 (talk) 12:10, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Kay. But what would become of an article like the one in the sandbox? Nitty Tok. 12:12, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's what I meant when I was talking about "turning the overview pages into 'standard' ones" ;) The example in my sandbox would be Fallout: New Vegas places, and upon release it simply needs to be reduced to a format like the one used by Fallout 3 places. -- Porter21 (talk) 12:15, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. Well, I'm game for it. As long as you put everything back when you're done. :P Nitty Tok. 12:17, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * The main idea is to save us unnecessary maintenance work until the game is out, and to avoid having the pre-release info floating around on a gazillion pages which we have to patch up later. If the info is concentrated, it can simply be verified once the "big split" happens and we're done. Patching up all the pre-release DLC pages was quite the pain, at least for me, and we're talking about a much higher volume of pages here. -- Porter21 (talk) 12:24, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, although I'd still exclude pages for some major characters, and of course for characters and locations mentioned or appearing in previous games, such as New Vegas or Hoover Dam. Ausir(talk) 13:50, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I like it.--Gothemasticator 15:59, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with keeping articles about locations which were mentioned in previous games, although I'd still suggest to keep the pages with only pre-FNV content until release; FNV info should be in the respective overview article. We could simply place a "for FNV-related info about this location, please see etc" message at the top. Not only for consistency, but I'm also getting a feeling that the FNV appearance of New Vegas/Hoover Dam will not necessarily be compatible with Tycho's/Van Buren's rendition of the places. Tycho's account is minor enough that it can simply be a footnote in the real article later on, but for Hoover Dam we might end up needing separate articles.
 * Regarding major characters, fine with me if you're so attached to it ;) Although I can already see the upcoming discussions about the definition of a "major" character. -- Porter21 (talk) 16:32, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think keeping only pre-FNV info in the New Vegas and Hoover Dam articles might confuse people, even if there is a link at the top. As for Hoover Dam, yes, even if the FNV version is consistent with VB, it is set many years later, so the article will likely need to be revamped. Ausir(talk) 10:51, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think only the Hoover Dam and New Vegas articles containing FNV info while all other FNV place info is in "Fallout: New Vegas places" would be at least just as confusing. -- Porter21 (talk) 12:00, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * They would still be at Fallout: New Vegas places as well, just with Main links to the main articles. And any info about sub-locations, such as the Strip, would be in the locations article. Ausir(talk) 14:09, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't quite see how that's less confusing than simply having all info in one place and using for, to be honest. -- Porter21 (talk) 07:32, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

Going back to one of Porter's points waaaay at the top, about the RTE removing empty fields. Has anybody complained to the staff about that yet? In addition, I've brought up the idea with Tezzla Cannon, so I'm pretty sure that things are going to be getting done now. (:P) If it's just a matter of going down the list of ammo types and redirecting them all to FNV ammo, for example, I guess we could get things going. There's very little information we'd need to merge with ammo. Nitty Tok. 12:09, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I think there's no general resistance to the merge approach anymore; Ausir and me are just "bickering out" (don't be so disrespectful to elderly people, Nitty ;)) some details. For things like items (and any subcats thereof), skills, perks etc the merges can go ahead as far as I'm concerned. -- Porter21 (talk) 07:32, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Ausir(talk) 12:42, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

So What Now
Okay I know this is a some-what old forum, but whatever happened to this overview page plan. I know we have a few overview pages, but appears people are making pages for single objects anyway. If we are going to do this, there should be some sort of site announcement and warnings before making new articles like people suggested above. On a related note hows that F:NV page making bot coming along?--Verno 19:21, June 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it seems that everybody is waiting for Porter to do something (as usual :P), but Porter is busy with other things currently. Porter also thinks talking about himself in third person is not a good sign regarding his mental health.
 * Regarding the bot, I haven't worked on it yet. The release of FNV is 4 months away, so there's still plenty of time and I don't think it's urgent. -- Porter21 (talk) 08:35, June 17, 2010 (UTC)