Forum:Article notability

I have had a brief conversation with GhostAvatar about this matter, and we both think that others would be interested.

Throughout the later half of today, GhostAvatar was creating articles for the developers on the various translation teams for Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas. I approached him enquiring as to why such articles were necessary, as the notability of these developers to the Fallout series is dubious at best. He then informed me that this was "common practise" on this wiki, and that he was "creating them to reduce the red links."

If it is true that the general consensus is to have articles on these sorts of people/things, then I am here to challenge that.

The Vault may indeed be dedicated to being the most extensive database on everything Fallout, but it's important that such information is informative. These articles are unlikely to get beyond two sentences at best, and even then, how useful is the article to the reader? We're probably not going to hear again from a guy like Frédéric Dalmasso, who you probably did not even know had any relation to the Fallout series unless you were furiously reading the credits. What exactly necessitates an article for Mr. Dalmasso? The mere fact he is listed in the credits? I suppose we should also have articles for babies born during development if that's the trend.

If a specific developer was interviewed a bunch of times, is present in numerous developer diaries, and perhaps even makes his own mod for a game, then yes, I can see the argument for having an article. But as it stands, these people hardly have any notability in regards to Fallout. It's fine if they are listed somewhere, but an article for each and every one of them? What can such two-liner articles accomplish that a streamlined list cannot?

Additionally, creating new articles to cut down on red links is a separate concern that I will not divulge too much into, but that seems to me the wrong way to go about it.

Anywho, discuss article notability here. -- Bovell 01:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I would think that it's better to remove red links for non-notable things than to create non-notable articles about them; if they go on to cure cancer, then someone could always create an article and add the link back in without any trouble!


 * In the specific case mentioned, I would agree that the article doesn't provide much useful information that is not on the credits article(s) - except for one useful thing: it shows that that person worked on both Fallout 3 and New Vegas. It unfortunately fails to do even that clearly, however, as it mentions New Vegas in at least three places that Fallout 3 is not also mentioned but should be (lead-in text, infobox, stub template). --HunterZ_tiny.png(talk 07:18, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Then fix them, Hunter. Anyway, the Vault has been built from the ground up as a definitely inclusionist project. If an article can be made about it, then it will be made and will be included. It's been that way for the past five years and I don't see a good reason for changing it. Tagaziel 08:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I figured the pages were bot-generated and could therefore be bot-fixed, but it looks like GhostAvatar may be doing them by hand. Maybe I'll do a few here and there. --HunterZ_tiny.png(talk 15:37, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Update: Something I'm seeing as I go through these is that they say "so-and-so works on Fallout: New Vegas", but FNV development is complete and nobody is working on it (officially stated by JE Sawyer). Also, several of them have years of 2010 listed, when they worked for the same company on Fallout 3 in 2008; they may have worked there prior to 2008 as well, so I'm not sure it's appropriate to have a year entered at all. I'm going to defer to GhostAvatar on these, but I thought I'd mention it. --HunterZ_tiny.png(talk 16:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Tagaziel's point is entirely correct. Why is anything necessary on here? Nothing is. But who knows what people want to look up, and you'll be surprised about the amount of traffic that these guys get. Furthermore, you pointed out our key policy yourself, to create the ultimate guide. It wouldn't be much of an ultimate guide without access to better information on the developers; after all, without them, there would be no Fallout! Also, I doubt it was intentional, but please watch using 'commanding language' such as "Anywho, discuss article notability here", it gives a bad impression :). Good question though κηδεμόνας  [~μιλώ~]  19:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone is arguing with those points; rather, the concern is more about whether some of the articles actually contain any info that isn't already on the pages linking to them. Going back to the example of the developer articles, FNV ones linked to by the FNV credits page provide absolutely no info beyond what is in the credits article itself. There are definitely exceptions to this even for the developer articles, though, such as articles with images/bios and articles that show people who worked on multiple games. --HunterZ_tiny.png(talk 20:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to answer a few things, yes I did do them by hand, but I used the page template tools. So things like works do need changing, should have picked up on that and changed the template. As such, so does the intro sentence to the page and the stubs. User Avatar talk.png 21:32, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That largely ignores the issue at hand. There is a point at which relevancy and notability to the Fallout series ends. Are you suggesting we should have articles on dead trees and the Moon? There is a difference between covering notable items in the Fallout series, and having articles on every single one of them.


 * However, notability is not specifically defined in the content policy (with exception to "bugs"), and as such, deciding whether something is "informative" or not is interpretative. Remember, I am not disputing whether or not The Vault should cover these items; I am challenging the notability of some of them in regards to having their own article. -- Bovell 22:12, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Reductio ad absurdum. User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png 22:28, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed it is GA, indeed it is. I'm sorry, but I for one think that they should be there. And as for links, I meant the pages that they link to, not that link to them. I feel, personally perhaps, that all the developers deserve a page. It was there hard work that made the dead trees and moon in the game possible, and surely the fact they are in the game credits deem them notable, otherwise they wouldn't be in the credits. I'm sorry, but I can hardly see where you are going with this. The vast majority of us want these articles, and we are not going to start deleting them because some-one who frankly I've never seen before (no offence) thinks that thewy aren't notable. Put it this way. You design the sky and the mechanics for it in game; would you want to be included or not? That's rhetorical, by the by, because I'm sure you wouldn't, but some people would simply say no in order to not undermine their argument. I know for a fact that the developers do come to the Vault, and I'm sure they would appreciate the fact that we have included them, even if only to link to their information off site. κηδεμόνας  [~μιλώ~]  23:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, I don't think anyone means to diminish the contributions of any of the hard-working people that brought us these great games, but I think it's a reasonable counter-argument that naming people only on a credits article may be sufficient if the community has no realistic expectation of being able to come up with any additional information about them (which is what a stub implies). Put another way, we will eventually no longer be able to determine whether additional information is available for someone just by looking at their entry on the FNV credits article; instead, navigating to the person's article will be required, only to find that in most cases there's really nothing else there that wasn't already captured on the credits article. Put a third way: it's arguably violating The Vault:Content organization guideline.
 * It sounds like there a community consensus has already been reached for the developer links/articles in particular, however, so I feel that it is more important to stay consistent with that. --HunterZ_tiny.png(talk 23:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We're not here to please the developers; we're here to build an encyclopedia on Fallout. It is still not clear as to what more individual articles on scores of people mentioned in the credits of a game add, that a list or compilation in a single article can achieve. What additional information do these two line articles add? You seem to be drawing the conclusion that I think there should be no mention of these people at all; that's NOT what is being discussed. The ambiguity of the content policy does not explicitly lay out what necessitates an article, other than the word "informative," which, as I have explained, is subjective.


 * And yes, I will give absurd examples when there is nothing to suggest that they are impossible. -- Bovell 03:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

When it comes to article criteria, consider trusting the judgement of people who have been with The Vault ever since its founding. Tagaziel 08:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume this somewhat snide comment is directed at the age of my account here. I have no problem trusting people as long as the logic is consistent and easy to follow. The issue is that newcomers cannot follow some secret code that the sacred elders are privy to. I have still not had it explained as to why two-line, repetitive/copy-pasta articles (something which HunterZ mentioned could be in violation to the content policy itself) are deemed necessary when that same information can be transcluded in a single article. -- Bovell 17:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Then in answer to you Hunter, we could make a credits article and then link off to the developers own pages. And in fact, there is the intention to add information to them, and to make sure that they are no longer stubs. In fact, if you have ever come across VeryBlackRaven, that's what he did more than anything else. He also told me how to find the pictures and extra information that you seem to desire as to avoid repatition. Sure, at the moment, we are creating the pages that will stay stubs for a while (I have less time at the moment and there are less of us), but that's the point of the stub tags, they mark it to be epanded when time and inforamtion allows.


 * Furthermore, most 'newcomers' are easily able to see that the developer articles are made using a template, not a copy and past structure, that shows their role: that's the aim of their article. They are often not bothered by issues such as 'whether or not developer articles are notable' and instead try to get some editing done and show they are here as a force for good, rather than coming across as arrogant and challenging the rules that the people they are arguing with have written. "And yes, I will give absurd examples when there is nothing to suggest that they are impossible" hardly portrays you in the best light. If it were up to me, I would finish by saying that these articles are desirable and indeed notable, then lock this forum, but as you I would be abusing my powers, I'll simply let you express the same point in a variety of different ways, and then follow suit, because let's face it, this is going nowhere. κηδεμόνας  [~μιλώ~]  19:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've just thought, maybe an added clause in the content policy will help you feel a peace? κηδεμόνας  [~μιλώ~]  20:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Right, I think it is time for my input on the subject. Personally, I think the pages in question are junk and a waste of space. But I also realise that others have a desire to have these pages. Since the majority think this way, then I have to accept that fact and move on, this is how a consensus driven wiki works. If you don't like it and wish to throw the rules and policies in peoples faces just to get your way or that of the minority's way, I feel you are on the wrong wiki - Wikipedia should be more to your liking for this kind of style of editing.


 * As for the policies, yes they are subjective, and sometimes that's a good thing. Not being overly bound by the rules in every action allows for freedom and innovation to be expressed and implemented. But the rules do require a certain level of common sense and consistency when being implemented, something you are ignoring in your absurd conclusion of the end result. But since you like to have absurd arguments, lets do it the other way. If we started to define the rules, then redefine the rules for every single case (instead of using common sense and community driven consensus). We will end up with a restrictive set of rules that is so well defined, it would make the most complex laws of the land seem like child scribblings. It would also take forever and a day to read and implement, something that isn't very practical and would end up in a situation where no new pages would ever be created again due to violating a single line in the mass of rules. At the end of the day, the rules in there present sense are effective and stood the test of time.


 * As for your personal dislike to having the pages, what harm are they causing to you or the wiki. This is something you have failed to answer or even express fully, instead trying to attack policy instead without giving any real reason to it (reminds me so much of Lugiatm/Flowers). Until you can answer and make the community feel the same way with a valid argument instead of absurd statements, you wont get very far indeed. User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png 21:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In response to Guardian's comment: I'm confused about the statement "we could make a credits article and then link off to the developers own pages". There already are credits articles such as Fallout: New Vegas developers, which I thought were where the developer red links live that are precipitating the creation of stub articles in the first place? As you can see, that article lists names and roles (and the game in the article name), which is all that is covered on many of the stub articles that are being created.


 * In response to GhostAvatar's comment: The majority you mention seems to be underrepresented in the current discussion, or perhaps the community has changed since consensus was last reached on this? I suppose, however, that it may in any case waste at least as much effort to change course mid-stream than to simply stick to an earlier community mandate.


 * In general: I should probably clarify that I personally have no strong feeling one way or another about this. On one hand, it doesn't inherently hurt to have "too many" articles on a wiki, and I respect the vast amount of work and thought that the community has put into the wiki to achieve its current state. On the other hand, I feel that it could potentially cost people time (in reading and maintenance) with no real benefit when information is effectively just duplicated into a stub article that has no near-term hope of expansion. As I therefore feel that there are reasonable arguments to be made on both sides (Guardian's and Bovell's), my intent is to promote open-mindedness rather than advocating for one side or the other. I'm also fully in support of creating an article when there is anything meaningful that can be added to it beyond what can be found on the articles linking to it - even if that additional thing is merely a list of multiple articles that link to it (such as a mention that someone worked on both FO3 and FNV, for example). --HunterZ_tiny.png(talk 21:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hunterz, how are they underrepresented? At the moment I am only seeing one person against inclusion, while there are 2 indifferent and 2 for. And just to comment on another thing, if they are that void of info that is never going to be added to (as it is currently being made out to be), what maintenance would really be required beyond the initial set up? User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png 22:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And in this vein, should we be deleting our VB articles? Some of them will never be beefed out. Full responce tomorrow. κηδεμόνας  [~μιλώ~]  22:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Having near-equal representation in the for, indifferent and against categories doesn't seem to indicate an overwhelming majority; instead, it sounds like a good opportunity for rational and open-minded discussion/debate. I also don't know that 2-5 people are enough to declare official consensus on anything, even if they were to all agree. Is there a forum thread from when consensus was originally reached? Maybe that would help people here reach agreement without the need for re-hashing old talking points.


 * Regarding maintenance: Ignoring the multiple passes that have already been required to achieve the "initial set up", these will potentially add noticeably to the workload of any large-scale effort that spans either the whole wiki, any one of the multiple categories that the articles in question are members of, or the templates they use, etc. If they also end up not being able to realistically be expanded upon, then they could also become needless noise that can potentially discourage, slow down, and/or distract things like stub-fixing projects (just as the red links that spawned them have arguably been). --HunterZ_tiny.png(talk 22:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, let's all gear down a little bit. I think the discussion should be less about the account age of the participants and more about the actual argument. I'll post a more extensive reply to the arguments made in a little while; just wanted to prevent further escalation in the meantime. -- Porter21 (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * First off, while I understand the train of thought that creating such pages - and to be clear, the question was about whether minor devs like people who "only" localized/translated text should get an own article or whether a mention on the credits page is sufficient, not whether this info should be removed completely - may be a bit "too much", I don't think they're causing massive harm. All in all, I'm fairly neutral regarding whether those devs should have own pages or not.


 * As a preemptive note on policies in general, the community thus far has always favored the "as specific as they need to be, as unspecific as they can be" approach. I don't think many members of the community are interested in turning this wiki into a Wikipedia-style bureaucracy where you need to spend hours reading guidelines before you can make any contributions unless you want to have people jumping down your throat instantly (I'm exaggerating, just trying to illustrate the point). So yeah, sometimes the policies are intentionally a bit vague to leave room for human judgement. Most importantly though, the policies follow community consensus and not the other way round - the community determines the way things are done on the wiki and shouldn't force the community into doing things it doesn't support.


 * Now unto the policy lawyering. VA:ORG is more aimed at preventing mass duplication of content (such as repeating quest info on character pages) which in turn puts a substantial (and unnecessary) strain on the editors in terms of maintenance. I think we can all agree that since the issue seems to be an estimated lack of content to fill those pages, a policy aimed at mass duplication of content isn't really applicable. And I do think that information who worked on Fallout games in some capacity is covered by the VA:C's "informative information" provision since this is a Fallout wiki. It's not really "information which is only of interest to the writer or to other editors (as opposed to readers)" in my estimation. And since nobody seems to be advocating that info about these people should be removed from the wiki entirely (which is what happens if things fail to pass VA:C), most people seem to share that view.


 * What is applicable in this case though is another sub-section of VA:ORG, specifically VA:MAS. There we have two criteria:
 * "Strength of an article: Every article should be "strong" enough to stand on its own. This means the subject provides enough content to write an article of decent length about it."
 * "Reader convenience and clear structure: Content distribution across articles should be clearly structured and convenient for readers. Simply put, this means information should be presented in a way that allows readers to easily find what they are looking for."


 * The strength of the articles in question is low; there's no debating that. I would however suggest the "clear structure" criterion does lend weight to keeping the articles separate. "One article per dev" is clearer than "one article per dev unless they have only done XYZ or have been in at least X games", both for finding (full-text search isn't exactly a strength of the MediaWiki software) and maintaining the info. It provides an easy-to-remember rule and a low potential for permanent discussions on the criteria for inclusion. For example, who is going to define the (to paraphrase something mentioned earlier in the discussion) "realistic expectation that these articles can be expanded in the near-future"? In the case in question, I don't really share the expectation that the people on the localization teams for FO3 and/or FNV are not going to do the same work on future Fallout titles - these teams/companies are usually hired by the publisher, and the publisher for Fallout games isn't going to change any time soon. So there's already one example of differing expectations.


 * I also see a certain risk that information might fall through the cracks. Let's take the "own article if the dev has worked on at least 2 games" approach - then editors need to actively check whether a dev who worked on the most recent game has already worked on another game in the past on various credits pages. From experience, I seriously doubt this is going to happen or going to be done thoroughly, so the information that this dev worked on multiple Fallout titles will potentially be lost. In reverse, if an own article about this dev has been created based on the first credit he/she received, simply linking the name on the new game's credits page reveals the fact that there is already an article and the information can be added.


 * Just my 2 cents. -- Porter21 (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If there's already a community consensus, great! But - what is it? It does not appear to be documented, which makes it still unclear to me as to where the line is drawn for notability. For another example, Deborah K. Chasanow appears to be a Wikipedia-esque biography on someone whose relevancy to the Fallout series is questionable. I wish I were kidding when I say there is only one sentence that has any possible connection to anything Fallout. I would think that "X has to do with Y, therefore X needs an article," or notability by association, is not ideal nor practical.


 * Also, there has been repeated mention of myself "Wikipedia-ing" this discussion; that is not my intent. I had been told that such articles were "common practise," but could not find proper precedent in the policies. -- Bovell 23:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That article does seem to be a bit off-the-wall, but I personally have less of a problem with that kind of thing because people will likely only navigate to it if they're genuinely interested in finding the additional information it contains. --HunterZ_tiny.png(talk 23:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Reader interest aside, I think it is fair to say that a biography on Deborah Chasanow is probably covered better elsewhere than at The Vault, which I would think renders her fairly un-notable to the Fallout series. -- Bovell 23:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "Notability by association" is what this wiki is all about; otherwise it wouldn't be a Fallout wiki but Wikipedia. -- Porter21 (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Porter, those are some good points - especially the last paragraph. However, I have to say that I would apply the "reader convenience and clear structure" criteria differently here: Specifically, it seems to me that seeing a developer's name linked on a credits page implies that clicking that link will lead to a developer-specific article that contains more information than is contained about them on the credits page. This is what readers would be "looking for" when clicking those links, but in many cases they're going to see "So-and-so - lead writer" on the credits page, then absolutely nothing more than "So-and-so worked on game such-and-such as lead writer" (plus the same thing repeated in table and info box form) on the article that their name links to. Now the reader has wasted his/her time in navigating to that article! How is that convenient or clearly structured? What additional info could the reader actually find that they are actually looking for, if nothing is in the article that was not also in the credits article? This is my concern. --HunterZ_tiny.png(talk 23:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Edit conflict
 * Woooo, when did I say that 5 people constituted the majority of the community or even to declare consensus. You are putting words in my mouth. I was asking how they could be considered under-represented in a discussion involving 5 people, and as close as you can get to half those involved (without chopping someone in half) are against it. To me that is equal representation in the current discussion, unless you are expecting a wave of people to come in and essentially vote on the subject. At the moment this is a general discussion, just cus people have no yet decided to or wanted to comment means nothing as all this is is a discussion.


 * And to respond to some of the maintenance stuff. Templates used on a page are maintained via the actual template page itself, so be it a single page or 100 hundred, it is all the same when considering changing the templates. As for things like changing template parameters on each page, that would be bot driven, so it doesn't make much difference there either. The same would also apply to any project spanning the entire wiki, I have one I am personally building which is decapping every single page, again all bot driven. The only things that would be of any real need of manual work are category based projects. Which brings me back to my first point, since there is little info and no chance of more being added (which it is currently being made out to be), then these pages are most likely to not be affected by said project since there is virtually nothing on the page. If there is something on the page that needs to be edited because of a project, said project would then actually deem these pages to actually hold more content than what is being represented here. User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png 23:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Bovell, Deborah K. Chasanow is a completely separate and unique case in the context of the discussion so far. Hence why I marked it for deletion, so it can be noted by others and discussed in the talk page of the article itself. The reasons I marked it is because (until you linked it) it was a orphaned page which is a good sign that it isn't notable in the first place. Secondly, there is not direct input from said person to the Fallout franchise. To be honest, a single page like that is not going to be a policy changer. User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png 23:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Granted, but Ausir's creation of the article is curious, and suggests some discrepancy on the notability. Your second point, "there is not direct input from said person to the Fallout franchise" is exactly what I have been looking for. I presume that this is what has been used to define notability? -- Bovell 23:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ausir probably created the page because it was linked from several news blogs about Bethesda vs. Interplay. He likely figured it was interesting background information for the people following the case. The blogs were not imported when we moved since they are a Wikia-specific extension, hence the page ended up being orphaned. -- Porter21 (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * How much more does The Vault's article inform that a Wikipedia link cannot, however? Particularly when the vast majority of the text is lent from Wikipedia, it suggests that the article is better covered elsewhere. If that's the case, then the subject is relatively un-notable to the Fallout series. -- Bovell 14:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure whether you apparently think I'm in favour of keeping this particular article; I'm merely providing some background information regarding the article's creation. That aside, I don't think having an article originally based on Wikipedia content necessarily means "the article is better covered elsewhere". Articles like Fallout and Fallout 2 were originally based on their Wikipedia counterparts, and I doubt you're seriously going to suggest these should not exist on a Fallout wiki. -- Porter21 (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There's a pretty significant difference. We are the Fallout wiki; we can cover articles like Fallout and Fallout 2 better than elsewhere (at least that's the goal and intention of this site). We are not a database on federal court judges, however, and the point is that a Wikipedia link, in this instance, achieves the same effect. -- Bovell 02:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * My point was that "when the vast majority of the text is lent from Wikipedia, it suggests that the article is better covered elsewhere" does not hold true; other factors are of more significance. Again, I'm not interested in keeping the article, but I'm not interested in establishing faux criteria either. -- Porter21 (talk) 09:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What can Wikipedia carbon copy do here that cannot be achieved with a Wikipedia link? Lending text from Wikipedia is fine, in moderation, but for an entire article? We do want our content here to be unique. -- Bovell 11:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You do realize you're just perpetuating a discussion about an article which has been deleted and which nobody disagreed to delete in the first place?
 * Again, the argument of yours I'm replying to was "when the vast majority of the text is lent from Wikipedia, it suggests that the article is better covered elsewhere", which I do not believe to be generally applicable. Even if the majority of an article's original text is based on Wikipedia this does not inherently mean it'll always stay that way - as evidenced by the Fallout and Fallout 2 examples. It's better for people to have something to work with and improve on than having them start from scratch.
 * Nonetheless, you're apparently set on interpreting my comments as being targeted towards this specific instance. Well, be my guest - I have better things to do than repeating myself. -- Porter21 (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I may also add, that there is nothing in the critia that says that content needs to be unique. The founding princple of this wiki is to be the ultimate guide to Fallout. If that means hosting content that can be found elsewhere, so be it. We are here to try and include as much Fallout content as we can. 164.38.32.28 13:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hunterz, have they truly learnt nothing from said page. I surmise that they actually learnt that said person only had a minor role in xxx game/s and had no further involvement in the Fallout franchise. A lack of data only means a lack of data, not that nothing can be learnt from it by the reader. This is also a fundamental fact of science, many times have scientists expected something only to find nothing and change the course of science and the world in the process. User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png 23:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It could, in my opinion, be reasonably argued that the same thing could be conveyed by not having said article (nor a red link) at all. This has the advantage of not wasting the user's time by forcing them to navigate to a second page "just to be sure," which is the point I keep coming back to. On the other hand, I like Porter's point that it is better for maintenance to have them in case an individual developer goes on to work on subsequent Fallout games, as linking their name on the new credits page will result in a blue link instead of a red one (thus prompting editors to add to the developer's individual article).


 * As an engineer, I must also regretfully point out that this appears to be more a matter of philosophy than one of science. --HunterZ_tiny.png(talk 00:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that the Deborah Chasanow article is probably best to be deleted after all, I disagree on deleting articles (even stubs) on the games' developers. While I don't necessarily think it's necessary to create stub pages on all of them (as in, on the ones we have nothing more to say than the credits do), I also don't see the reason to delete them once someone did create them either. Ausir 03:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this is pretty much where I'm at on the developer articles as well. The fact that it would probably take more work to clean them out now than to press on as-is makes the discussion regarding the developer articles a bit moot. --HunterZ_tiny.png(talk 03:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well. If someone wants to write such articles I don't see why shouldn't he/she. Even credits can be useful. Some people can find it interesting to know that John Doe was a translator not only for FNV, but also for FOBOS, for example. veryblackraven 15:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)