Forum:Character Page Policy

	This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes.

Hi Folks,

Whats a week without a controversial vote?

The question to be put

What should be done about the "All named characters MUST have a page" rule?

For why this is an issue See the latest in a chain of fora on the issue

The voting options

Option 1 - Addition of a sub rule

The rule is changed to:

Option 2 - Removal of the rule

Rather than replacement or amending the rule, the rule is removed completely. The standard is that of any other page "All pages must stand on their own".

Option 3 - No change

No changes. Life goes on, for some.

How to vote

Read this carefully, as failure to vote in the right way may see your vote treated in a way you might not like.

Voting on this issue will proceed on a preferential voting system.

If during the first round any proposition secures 50%+1 of the vote, that proposition wins.

If no proposition secures 50% of the vote, the least popular option will be eliminated.

You should when you vote indicate which of the propositions is your second preference. If your preferred option is eliminated, your vote will be automatically redistributed to your second preference option.

You should indicate this preference where you would normally put your voting rationale - you can still include a rationale if you like (and are encouraged to do so), but your second preference should be obvious

You do not have to indicate a second preference if you do not wish to, however your vote will be treated as "Neutral" in the second ground (ie- it will be counted purely for quorum purposes).

If your second preference is not immediately and obviously divinable through your comment/ratonal, we will err on the side of disregarding your vote in the second round.

Sample Vote

I'm not using the vote template due to the preferencial system. This poll ends on 21:00 12 September GMT (reminder for Me, Britain is presently in GMT+1).

Agent c (talk) 20:55, September 5, 2015 (UTC)

Voting

Option 1 - First Preference: Addition of the "List" rule (state your second preference)

1. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 21:06, September 5, 2015 (UTC) second preference: Option 3 (No change)
2. Second preference: option 3 --Skire (talk) 22:53, September 5, 2015 (UTC)
3. 2nd Preference, Option 3 --TwoBearsHigh-Fiving (Talk) 23:10, September 6, 2015 (UTC)
4. Aleksandr the Great (talk) Second preference: Option 2.
5. Second preference: Option 3 Sigmund Fraud (Talk) 18:16, September 7, 2015 (UTC)
6. Second preference: Option 2 Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 20:15, September 7, 2015 (UTC)
7. The Ever Ruler (talk) Second preference: Option 2

Option 2 - First Preference:Removal of the "named characters" rule, revert to "all pages must stand on their own" (state your second preference)

1. Agent c (talk) 2nd Preference: Option 1.
2. Clockpuncher (talk) Second preference: Option 1.
3.  The Gunny   19:07, September 7, 2015 (UTC) Second preference: Bacon wrapped chocolate cookies. Oh, and option 3.
4. Kingclyde This and then option 3.

Option 3 - First Preference: No Change (state your second preference)

1. I have no second preference. "Space. The final frontier." ~The-Artist-64 (talk) 01:33, September 6, 2015 (UTC)The-Artist-64
2. anything other than this is wrong. ^{Hawk da Barber 2013 - BSHU Graduate} 22:33, September 6, 2015 (UTC)
3. Best leave it as it is; 2nd preference would be option 1. Jspoel 18:08, September 7, 2015 (UTC)
4. - ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 20:02, September 7, 2015 (UTC)

Excluded votes

1. The Ever Ruler (talk) Second preference: Option 1

Requests for assistance in voting

Comments, complaints, dissent and so forth

Doesn't Option 1 = Option 2 ultimately?

I believe the spirit of Option 1...

...is already captured in our current guidelines...

... and I'm confused that if clarification of current policies is what we desire, any user is permitted to do that via...

... and that Option 2 should be as preferable to those voting for Option 1 as Option 1 is.

So could someone explain to me what Option 1 accomplishes that Option 2 couldn't aside from a redundant level 3 header?- if it's even decided to keep the header? Because I'm not seeing it and I do not understand the popularity of Option 3 being many people's second preference. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 23:30, September 7, 2015 (UTC)

Option 2 allows us to have pages short pages for mention only character, and only limits to the removal of those better shown as a list. For example: Cass mentioned Long Dick Johnson. He is the only person in the group, thus gets a page. The boulder city memorial lists a lot of characters who are all the same, and thus would be presented as a list. It is setting up specifically what counts as "stands up on it's own", and when we should allow a shorter page to exist and when we shouldn't so that when we come to a situation where people disagree, there will be a rule in place to lay down a president, instead of us just working to how we feel that day.

Option 3 is my second choice, because option 2 is too general. It pretty much says that ANY page we don't feel is long enough can go, and I do not agree. I only agree that pages that are part of a larger group should be condensed down to a single page. Option 3, although meaning we keep the pages I want gone, also protects pages I want to stay (and future ones) from anyone just saying "no, this one is too short" without there being any really guide for what does and doesn't stand up on its own, and I can see that being very problematic.JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 23:43, September 7, 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I gotcha. The spirit of reader convenience is similar but the spirit of "content strength" is tackled in Option 1, which I never considered to be a problem. And then if clarity or readability can be improved by reorganizing the guidelines should Option 1 pass, it wouldn't have to occupy a seemingly redundant level three header but could instead clarify content strength at or near where it first appears. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 00:11, September 8, 2015 (UTC)

I'd honestly be fine with options 1 and 2 both being implemented. The 'all named characters' policy leads to things like Catherine the Great getting their own page just because they mentioned once by a character in passing. I actually had to change my vote though since Option 1 provides a more immediate solution for the memorial pages issue but ideally I'd like to see both. ^{BOLTMAN FOREVER} 04:09, September 8, 2015 (UTC)

In regards to pages like Catherine the Great, as you tackled in your Forum:Real World, I believe you could gut the page to only the content relevant to Fallout underneath FW:C...

... along with information needing to be verifiable...

... to bring the article in line with the rest of our mentioned-only characters and hopefully acceptable. If not, the option 1 rule change does say, "In general..." and one could argue or make the case that articles like Catherine the Great (perhaps mentioned-only characters that could be more succinctly added as cultural references in behind the scenes sections) do not apply. One thing at a time though. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 17:35, September 8, 2015 (UTC)

Result

Round 1 - No vote has achieved 50%+1 of the vote. Option 1 has 7 votes, Option 2 and 3 have 4 votes apiece.

Both options having 4 votes was not foreseen as when deciding on the preferential system, so I will run both possible outcomes.

If Option 2 is eliminated, 2 votes are distributed each to Option 1 and 3. This results in option 1 having over 50% of the vote.

If Option 3 is eliminted, 1 vote is distributed to option 1. Three votes are discarded (one option states clearly no alternative preference, one implies it, and one says nothing at all). This results in Option 1 again having over 50% of the vote.

Therefore, Option 1 has won the day. Agent c (talk) 23:40, September 12, 2015 (UTC)

Where are my cookies? The Gunny   23:45, September 12, 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately less than 50% of the electorate voted for cookies. This is a bit of a shock... Agent c (talk) 23:47, September 12, 2015 (UTC)