Forum:Fallout faction overhaul project debate
Well, I think there are some small problems with this project. I edit the page, but this is only temporary (a way to pause), and I wanted to have a debate on this before having a final page.
Many gameplay information resides in these pages under the section "Interactions with the player character", which gives quickly indications and help the player - but before my temporary edit, the guidelines doesn't mention them, so he is free to stay or be deleted by the goodwill of participants.
Although I favor the background at the expense of gameplay, I find it a shame to remove so much information, accurate and well written by many people. Some people look on these pages for give an indication and not to read the history or other background information.
All projects involving the characters have such section, I don't see why the "Fallout faction overhaul project" would not have? In addition, it can sometimes separate the different interaction when the faction concerned appeared in several games (like the Crimson Caravan). And truly, I don't see make a page only for gameplay and another only for background, each for all factions.
Another unique section of the Capital Wasteland Brotherhood of Steel - named "Similarities and inconsistencies with other Fallout games", is also not mentioned in the guidelines. I think it's interesting to keep it for see consistencies and inconsistencies compared to the Fallout background.
Brotherhood of Steel pages also have section named "Members" and "Rank system" - I think it would be better to keep them under the "military" section specifically for Brotherhood type factions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itachou (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~!
- I want to know who decided how the layout should be and when and where it was voted for? 19:46, June 1, 2011 (UTC)
From what I know, the Project Leader(s) start the page and provides the guidelines (layout, Infobox etc.) as he desires, but after, nothing has been ever decide if it's well or not, or if they are things to be changed. Itachou [~talk~] 20:55, June 1, 2011 (UTC)
- I've gotta agree with Itachou here, I think that the "interactions" part should be included, but maybe writtenin a more professional manner. Hugs Scar: "Say 'ello to my little friend!" 21:40, June 1, 2011 (UTC)
- I think we should keep gameplay stuff to a minimum. "Interactions with the player character" is particularly problematic because you don't interact with entire factions, you interact with their members, and they can be put on character pages. Imagine doing an interactions section for, for example, NCR. "Rank" can be covered under the "Military" section, "Members" is redundant to the members field in the infobox.
- Just for posterity, this discussion was born from the following exchange: .
- Other than that, I've not got much to add yet, other than maybe that we should be using Caesar's Legion as a benchmark. --Lugiatm (talk · contribs) 11:00, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
Agree for the "similarities and inconsistencies" and for the Caesar's Legion page, it's overall the most complete page in the project. For "Interactions with the player character", the faction page talk about the entire faction, so I think we should globalize all information without given too much detail - like talk to him for this quest, talk to her for that etc. (particularly NCR), Crimson Caravan appears to be a good example of what should be the section (accurate and given without much detail - know that you can become a King in the Kings page is an rare information on the page and yet interesting). Most of faction pages already possesses this section, simply changed and re-write to be suitable. When there are too many members, I think your idea to put the categories member in the infobox is good. Itachou [~talk~] 13:47, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
- I think we should keep gameplay stuff to a minimum. - What!!! this is a gaming wiki and gameplay has as equal right to be included as the lore does. We are not here to sell the games or tell a story, but to document it including the game play. 20:24, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
- Did you read my reasoning? The gameplay information should go because you don't interact with the faction, but its characters, and there is a section for that on the characters' pages. For example, in Itachou's example above, becoming a King should be documented on the King's page or on the respective quest page(s), not the faction page. If need be, it can go in the notes section, but it's not a strong enough reason on its own to add an entire section to the guidelines. And actually, this wiki was originally started to sort and document the Fallout Bible stuff, IIRC - the Vault has a long-standing policy of not including any strategy or walkthroughs outside of quest pages. --Lugiatm (talk · contribs) 21:59, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
- How the wiki was started and for what purpose is completely irrelevant to what it is now and its current scope. Secondly , no walkthroughs outside of quest pages,   you might want to check those links before such statements. Also there is a big difference between including strategy and style of play (subjective) and player interactions or game play attributes (otherwise that would not even be considered as a section under the character layout.
- Now for your reasoning, that the player don't interact with the faction. You do realise that the faction is the sum of its members. So therefore by interacting with its members you are interacting with the faction. Plus the whole addition of faction reputation plays a big part in the gameplay and the progression of the story. There is also instances of interacting with the faction but not directly with its members, ie: NCR emergency radio. So frankly your reasoning is weak.
- I think both of you have a point - while we should avoid unnecessary duplication of content, there are still certain faction-related interactions which really can't go on character pages, so I think we need to find a middleground here.
- Regarding the member lists, I don't think cutting them out entirely is a good idea. Sure, for smaller factions it's redundant with the infobox but larger factions have too many members to list them all in the infobox without overloading it. This is also the reason why the infobox field is called "notable members", i.e. it's not supposed to hold an exhaustive list. Still, the redundancy argument is valid but I'd rather remove the infobox field than the article section. -- Porter21 (talk) 06:57, June 3, 2011 (UTC)