User blog:PikovajaDama/Creating new pages

Hello everybody!

I would like  to address an issue that was brought up in Lord Boots' monster blog. I can see the hypocrisy he was criticizing, as we do indeed have pages containing merely one sentence, like many of the cities, while other topics like the Morely insurrection, which we have much more info about, are denied an own page and redirected to a section on the Morley page.

I think the problem stems from the fact that pages get created sometimes without the creator asking first if this page is necessary/the topic warrants its own page. Which is something we can't  avoid, and I'm not planning on adding a rule about having to ask before creating a new page cuz that would kinda defeat the purpose of a wiki, where participation is welcome. This, however can lead to the aforementioned hypocrisy, because while we might consider a new page unnecessary, we still usually just accept them once they have been created because while not necessary, they are not harmful either. Usually they end up forgotten in the depths of the wiki, or who else of you actually remembers Responsible Citizens Group or  the Parliament Street Cutters? Those pages sit there, but if a user actually DOES ask about a page they want to create and get told "we can just  add that to a bigger page" then they would rightfully ask in return "Then why do we have something like Parliament Street Cutters?"

So, how are we dealing with new pages created in the future? I am not talking about the pages we do have for D2 already here, most of them are stubs for now, but they are very likely to be vastly expanded once the game is out. Neither am I talking about minor characters or items that have reoccurences in the game like audiograph players, boats, and what not. I am basically talking about little lore additions like the War of Four Crowns (which is nothing current but a historical event mentioned in the Dunwall Archives) or many of the city pages, that will likely stay a stub forever.

While the method has been criticized in Lord Boots'  blog, I actually like the set-up of pages like Businesses, Streets of Dunwall, or Notable Clergy that allow us to have a vast amount of names that would be a ton of stub articles otherwise summed up in one page. And I also like how this gives us the possibility to link mentions of specific businesses or names to their respective header on the collective page to  lead users to the info they are seeking for, and the same linking method  works quite well  for historical events like the Morley Insurrection or the War of Four Crowns as well, so that those could easily be implemented into the Empire of the Isles page, or Morley page, or whatever they fit best into (I think you get the idea).

So, my take on this matter would be: I'd like to ask all of you to put down your thoughts, ideas, and possibly criticism in the comments so we can find a solution everyone can agree with.
 * If someone creates a page  for something that can be easily implemented into a larger page or that we have a collection page for, please try to address the matter in the comments before marking it for deletion on the grounds of "unnecessary" as to not scare away new users and to give them a chance to include the info on the proper page themselves.
 * If an argument arises over the matter, let the community decide.
 * This excludes pages that are clearly bullshit, of course, like the fanfictional members of the Timsh family we had once.
 * I am a bit unsure how to deal with edge cases like the aforementioned Parliament Street Cutters. They would be hard to implement anywhere cuz they have no relation to anything except for the book they are mentionend in, but we have some tiny info about them because Harvey chose to answer a question about them on Twitter. As I stated earlier, while not crucial to the game in any way but merely a tidbit that sits forgotten in the depths of the wiki for the most time, the page doesn't do any harm either. Since I am not a general  fan of "Unnecessary! Purge it!", I would vote for them to stay, but that is only me, so I would like to see some other thoughts on this.

Thanks for reading.

- Piko