Talk:Assaultron

Merge tag
What article did the person who added this merge tag want to merge this with? This is already the "Assaultron" page and not the "Assaultron (Fallout 4)" page. --Trifler500 (talk) 07:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a reference to an antiquated policy of bloating pages by listing every single creature variant and their mother down on the page. Tagaziel (talk) 09:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks. --Trifler500 (talk) 09:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that the policy changed. Should we split the Creature and Robot pages of FO1,2,3, and NV now or later?--Ant2242 (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Could have one policy for FO1, 2, and 3, since they didn't have nearly as much creature variation. and a different policy for NV, FO4, and future games. Certainly I would leave FO 1 and 2 combined. --Trifler500 (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My point is that I wasn't aware of any policy change. If there is one; why? What makes these variations any different to how we handled the FNV creatures/robots game overview page? Here is the article guideline page.--Ant2242 (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In your own example, how is this Assaultron page any different than the Mister Handy (Fallout: New Vegas) page? --Trifler500 (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In that page we kept the generic variants on it, rather than separating them into separate pages.--Ant2242 (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're referring to the links to the variant pages on the Assaultron page. You have a point there, but putting the merge tag on the Assaultron page indicates that you want to merge the Assaultron page itself with a higher tier article. Having merge tags on the pages for those individual articles (as I see you've done) is what makes sense. Better yet, having a discussion on the Talk page about it to explain what you were getting at would have been helpful. I think you were the only one who even knew why you added those merge tags. For my part, I didn't even notice there were links to those variant pages until just now. Personally, I have no disagreement with doing away with those individual variant pages. It just wasn't clear what you intended, which is why I made my original inquiry. --Trifler500 (talk) 04:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)