Talk:Fallout 4: Wasteland Workshop
 | This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page: • Fallout 4 downloadable content Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Fallout 4 downloadable content |
Notability requirements[edit]
Why does this possibly not meet the notability requirements, Fallout 4: Far Harbor and Fallout 4: Nuka World are both DLC for Fallout 4 and they meet the notability requirements, why doesn't this?
—Lallint, 10/29/21 11:26 AM
- Ok, let me explain. If you look at the actual sourcing for both Far Harbor and Nuka World, they pass the general notability guideline because there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". We're talking about at least six or seven cited reviews from different sources in the reception section alone, with substantial development and release sections for each article.
- Your article for Wasteland Workshop is....nowhere near the benchmark set by both articles, and frankly needs far more work before it is of an acceptable standard, nevermind Good Article or Featured Article status. Two articles by two different IGN writers still counts as one source, since they're published by the same outlet being IGN. We don't normally cite Steam as a source in a Wikipedia article for any relevant information, and it certainly doesn't count towards notability since it is not independent of the subject as a storefront that sells said product. The other problem with what you are citing for Steam are its reviews which are all user generated content, which is inappropriate for Wikipedia. We only give consideration to critic reviews when it comes to reception. Player reaction towards a game may be notable and we can cite it if news and media outlets report on it. Please refer to reliable sources noticeboard for more info on what sources we should or should not use.
- I will not comment on whether it is necessary for you to split it from the main Fallout 4 downloadable content as I have not looked into extent sourcing out in the internet, but other editors may take issue with its subpar quality, with possible actions being a bold redirect back to that article, or a nomination for Articles for Deletion. So, I do recommend that you start finding more sources ASAP to build up this article, or work on it within draftspace at your leisure. Please don't remove the tags I've left in the mean time as the issues are quite substantial. Haleth (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- I will go further than that and say that there is no chance Wasteland Workshop would merit its own article, not simply on merits of notability but on relative importance as well. It is such a small DLC that it should simply be mentioned in the parent article even if there wasn't a separate article for Fallout 4's DLC. It just adds a bunch of decorations for the settlement and some creature traps/taming devices, something that can be mentioned in a few sentences. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Zxcvbnm, I would've preferred that you opened a merge discussion first where Lallint still has time and opportunity to find sources that could potentially justify the DLC as a standalone article, instead of boldly redirecting it back to the main DLC article. While I don't disagree with your rationale and my own initial impression is that the topic doesn't warrant a split, it just comes across as biting a newcomer to me. We are not on a deadline to decide how the topic should be handled within the context of a Wikipedia article. Haleth (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- The page was already reverted a couple times; if the editor continues to want to edit war instead of bringing it up on the talk page of one of the articles, then that's exhibiting WP:NOTHERE behavior and I have to question if that's the kind of editor that is wanted on Wikipedia. I only restored the redirect that was reverted by several other users. While I am more than happy to explain why I turned it back into a redirect, there is a fine line between simply not knowing the rules and willfully being disruptive. I also have to question why, if the editor is here to improve Wikipedia, they simply could not add the information to the existing page and HAD to spin it off.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Wait, Zxcvbnm, are we talking about the same article? Whereabouts in this article's entire revision history is there an edit war or pattern of reverts that you are talking about? Also, I WP:AGF that Lallint is not an LTA or sockpuppet, it appears that they have only been on Wikipedia for less then 2 months and there is so far no indication that they are being willfully disruptive. All I and another editor did was leave some cleanup tags, and its understandable that a new-ish editor would not understand why there's an issue unless our guidelines and policies have been explained to them properly. How exactly did you come to the conclusion that they are WP:NOTHERE? Is that how you are supposed to treat newcomers? Haleth (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Lallint - makes no attempt to edit the main article first, and instead immediately starts editing the redirect, which is clearly a redirect. Gets reverted by the IP editor with a clear explanation and rationale. Reverts the revert of the IP editor, ignoring them and continuing with creation of the article with no response. I think we are past the point of "biting the newcomer" when they engage in obviously counterproductive activity. Why does the benefit of the doubt go to Lallint and not the IP editor who (correctly) reverted the edit?ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- What do you mean ¨Main Page¨, this IS (was) the main page. What are you talkng about? I get what you mean, and I don´t blame you for reverting it to a redirect, but you didn´t really do so in a ¨Helpful¨ way. You know what, I´m just gonna like make the Vault-Tec Workshop page because that one is a bigger DLC and will for sure warrant a page. -Lallint (TALK) 12:31, November 1 2021 (UTC-5:00) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lallint2 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Lallint - makes no attempt to edit the main article first, and instead immediately starts editing the redirect, which is clearly a redirect. Gets reverted by the IP editor with a clear explanation and rationale. Reverts the revert of the IP editor, ignoring them and continuing with creation of the article with no response. I think we are past the point of "biting the newcomer" when they engage in obviously counterproductive activity. Why does the benefit of the doubt go to Lallint and not the IP editor who (correctly) reverted the edit?ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Wait, Zxcvbnm, are we talking about the same article? Whereabouts in this article's entire revision history is there an edit war or pattern of reverts that you are talking about? Also, I WP:AGF that Lallint is not an LTA or sockpuppet, it appears that they have only been on Wikipedia for less then 2 months and there is so far no indication that they are being willfully disruptive. All I and another editor did was leave some cleanup tags, and its understandable that a new-ish editor would not understand why there's an issue unless our guidelines and policies have been explained to them properly. How exactly did you come to the conclusion that they are WP:NOTHERE? Is that how you are supposed to treat newcomers? Haleth (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- The page was already reverted a couple times; if the editor continues to want to edit war instead of bringing it up on the talk page of one of the articles, then that's exhibiting WP:NOTHERE behavior and I have to question if that's the kind of editor that is wanted on Wikipedia. I only restored the redirect that was reverted by several other users. While I am more than happy to explain why I turned it back into a redirect, there is a fine line between simply not knowing the rules and willfully being disruptive. I also have to question why, if the editor is here to improve Wikipedia, they simply could not add the information to the existing page and HAD to spin it off.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Zxcvbnm, I would've preferred that you opened a merge discussion first where Lallint still has time and opportunity to find sources that could potentially justify the DLC as a standalone article, instead of boldly redirecting it back to the main DLC article. While I don't disagree with your rationale and my own initial impression is that the topic doesn't warrant a split, it just comes across as biting a newcomer to me. We are not on a deadline to decide how the topic should be handled within the context of a Wikipedia article. Haleth (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)