Forum:Old Fallouts Segments

It makes no sense for separate articles for FO1/FO2 sections. Backgrounds, quests, characters, screens and everything from sections, are repeated in the main article. Often, most of the sections in seperate articles are empty. I would like to clean-up that, but I need ability to remove articles. Why I don't want to work with delete template? I used it a few days ago and no one admins cares about that, (Council of Citizens) for example, while admins in nukapedia always checked these articles very quickly. Thats why I need that possibility, anyone could give me moderator (if he can removing articles)/admin rank for some time? --Languorous_Maiar 13:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems we have once more look at our maintenance manual. BTW I removed the delete template from Council of Citizens. Why should we delete an article about an actual faction? If you insist on deletion, please provide some justification on talk page. veryblackraven 15:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, Vault City is faction, not Council. All the informations are already in VC. This article can't give us any new information like Redding council or NCR council (that's why they havent own article), and there is too little informations about those councils. --Languorous_Maiar 16:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There's enough information to warrant an article. Furthermore, the delete template is there for a reason, but it should be used with a proper edit summary, telling us that you're nominating it for deletion. And separate articles are the basis of our policy - we already implemented that for drugs and weapons, adding it for the small number of shared locations is simply adhering to an established rule. Tagaziel 18:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Erm, do you understand me? I used delete template, and for days, any admin didn't look at article. If article wasn't for deletion, then why admins didn't delete my template? Because no one looking articles with deletion templates... like this was before, and that's my problem. --Languorous_Maiar 18:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why I told about Maintenance manual. There wasn't much activity here for some time after we moved here. So I assume some admins stopped regular patrolling since all they saw from day to day was just empty lists. I used to patrol the wiki earlier. I'll try to do it more or less regularly from now on again. veryblackraven 10:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You deleted my templates... what is sense with having those articles? They don't bring anything NEW. Why then segments from every Vault (i'm talking about Vault 13, Vault 15 etc.) haven't own article? And if you say that they should have... --Languorous_Maiar 11:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that deleting a page (not some page with ^&*&*^&$%%$^&%^&%& as the only content) is something that has to be properly justified. It demands community consensus. Someone may think the article need to be deleted (or, as in this very case, merged with another; we have a merge template for this). Others may think that a district in Vault City which has it's own map deserves to have it's own article. That's why community have to discuss the issue first. Creating a forum topic like this one before marking pages for deletion would be a good idea. And if you mark any page for deletion (or merge) it would be a right decision to add a proper justification (maybe even some additional info in the talk page). Just Repeated informations is not a sufficient justification. veryblackraven 15:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I checked and merged, what should be merged. And as you can see, no one really cares about old (1/2) Fallouts. I even made ​​a that thread, however people discuss about delete template, not Fallout nonsense-segments, what is a problem. But ok, let people say their opinion. We should strive to clen up everything, not repeat something in 10 articles. --Languorous_Maiar 16:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Be patient, my friend. As I recall when there was an idea to start a decapitalisation project the discussion was much bigger. Nevertheless the project was started and completed. The problem you raised is big enough for another project if I'm not mistaken. veryblackraven 19:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I thinks this isn't. 10 locations from FO2 and only 3 from FO1 have articles for theirs sections, and around half of them is total empty, while the rest is slightly affected. I can very quickly deal with that, needs only the admins approval. ;) --Languorous_Maiar 20:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Right, let cover a few things here. First off, the use of the deletion tag. The deletion tag is there to suggest a page for deletion, adding the tag doesn't mean that the page will get deleted, especially within a few days. The only time a page gets deleted right away is due to obvious vandalous page creation. In all other cases, the page is left for a period of time (at least a week, or longer depending on how substantial the pages content is), to allow other people to object and discuss the deletion. If no one objects within the time period, then it gets deleted as this is considered that the community agrees and consensus has been reached. If an objection is raised, then the tag stays for as long as the discussion continues until the time consensus has been reached. The tag may be removed in cases where a person intends to fix a page based on the reasons for deletion, therefore negating the reason for deletion. This is why it is normally a good idea to add a brief reasons to the tag as to why you considered it should be deleted.

Now for locations. I know English isn't your first language. So I just want to confirm I understand correctly what you are saying, before I go into it with any detail. Am I correct in saying, that for Fallout 1/2 locations, there shouldn't be pages for sub-section of a location. And that they should be combined into a single page, with location sub-sections having their own sections within the main page. As an example, you think they should be like Shady Sands, instead of the Hub and its sub-sections Hub Downtown, Hub Entrance, Heights etc.? 18:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep. --Languorous_Maiar 18:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I actually like the way the Hub page is organised. Short sections for every sub-location of the city with the main template that links to sub-location's own article. And those articles don't look bad at all. The only difference if you look on Courtyard page - it needs expansion. So my opinion:
 * Expand sub-location articles, fill 'em with content;
 * Link them from the main location page (e.g. Vault City) with main template
 * (not sure here) rename them like Courtyard → Vault City Courtyard
 * veryblackraven 01:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thats what i'm talking about. All this informations can be in main article without creating seperate articles. U said Hub, one of the few improved. Maybe look at New California Republic (town) sections or Klamath. First are total empty, second have so small informations, which could be in main article. Now, in Klamath for example any information is needlessly repeated from main to separate. If someone go to separate section article from main template, what he gets? The same information. In addition, it creates a new problem. Which locations should have separate articles for sections? Those from SS can't be too much of the developed (that's locations are really small). Also, every vault/base never had separate articles and how they looks? Vault 13, SAD, Mariposa Military Base. The best looking locations in wiki from FO1/FO2. If you want to describe every pixel from separate sections for separate articles, you are wrong. There should be smaller or lager overwiew. Every interaction with player is described in NPC page/Faction page, every quest is desribed in quest page, every important building same, loots in toolbox. There is not even enough to write, and such overwiew, ideally suited to main article. --Languorous_Maiar 08:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The simple answer is to use both. Separating into pages for section should only occur for extensive locations, such as large town, districts etc. Other wise a single page is enough to cover a small location. In regards to NCR location page, I wouldn't get confused with pages that require expansion as opposed to those that have nothing more to be added to them. User avatar tag.gifUser Avatar talk.png 23:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)