Board Thread:Wiki Discussion/@comment-1370845-20150505005336/@comment-4991685-20150505020243

To say I disagree and oppose the actions above would be an understatement. I'll get right to it.

"As we are a wiki that covers the content of the Spore game(s, I refuse to accept the spinoffs exist : |), all our articles should contain information strictly relevant to the games. This means that the personal life of Will Wright, the other games EA has published and the history of Maxis prior to Spore should receive a sentence outlining them at most. This is to say, most of our out-of-universe articles currently contain irrelevant information - it is not strictly relevant to Spore."

Besides your rather unprofessional stance on spinoffs, this isn't entirely true. As a wiki that covers Spore games (not necessarily just the content as you've described), we should also at least briefly cover those who developed the game, and other information relevant to it. To me, a wiki should have as much information as possible. We are not restricted like a conventional encyclopedia in that we must discard information not strictly relevant to an entry. Here, we can provide as much as we may, and we should. Trimming redundancies and whatnot is one thing: Outright deleting information deemed "irrelevant" by a line in the  sand is another.

"We end up giving first tier coverage to information that should receive second tier coverage at best."

Why? Why should we put arbitrary barriers up like that? Why should we intentionally degrade information and, again, delete information due to a line in the sand? Isn't a wiki supposed to deliver the best information possible?

"My problem is that limiting our articles to strictly relevant information leads them to being what would be considered a stub in other cases. An article is no longer a stub when no more relevant information exists."

Again, I disagree with outright deleting information for no good reason. Why is the barrier of "relevance" set so strictly? Whoever said it had to be strictly game content, and not other things? What of the fiction universe?

As for the false dilemma you propose...

"1. Delete them and link to Wikipedia's."

This is fairly reasonable, but nonetheless unnecessary.

"2. Have them be short sentence articles. If someone can write a decendecently-sized article that stays relevant on these subjects, I will support it."

This is simply silly. Again, this is the deletion of so-called "irrelevant" information. Wikis should be inclusive when it comes with information.

"3. Ignore the above, and include irrelevant information. This is not strictly helpful to the wiki, and these pages will need cleanup regardless."

Biased. You paint the option of "live and let lie" in a one-sided, negative light, and not with a hint of subtlety, either. You again bring up the "irrelevant information" argument, and almost paint those who support this option as negligent. Well, call me negligent, but I would support this course of action, and moreover I would lend a hand in cleaning up the articles.

I understand this piece is strongly-worded, as well it should be, as you have presented an openly-biased, and frankly misleading proposal to begin with. In all, I disagree with your conclusion that a wiki should be exclusive with information, your fabricated definition of a game content wiki (where would this leave the fictionverses? They are not, strictly speaking, relevant to the game itself either), and moreover I find your proposal otherwise personally disagreeable.

Good day to you.