Forum:Adding some future content/nonexistence policy points
- Use the future template on pages about future content where we know that the content is part of a confirmed future update e.g. augmented hatchets and t90 degradeable armours. Use the nonexistence template for content where it is certain if the content is part of a future update e.g. pestilence yak tusk, war yak tusk, famine yak tusk and death yak tusk.
- Pages should only be created for non-existent content if the content is mentioned by multiple sources e.g. Reprehensible Snowgre and Palingrad would not their own pages as they are mentioned only in one place.
- Early concepts and concept art should not be considered a reliable source. It would still be okay to use concept art images and state what early concepts are/were for confirmed updates, but pages should not suggest that the concepts will form part of the actual update. E.g. it should not be used as confirmation that concepts for a lot of Invention items that we currently have pages for like Dungeoneering automapper will actually become items.
21:44, April 22, 2016 (UTC)
Oppose 2 - Those articles aren't about content that's necessarily meant to be in game. Palingrad probably doesn't deserve the future update tag, but I don't see any reason why it shouldn't have an article. MolMan 22:32, April 22, 2016 (UTC)
Comment - My feeling behind the second point is that I don't see how these pages are useful. For example players would only really encounter Palingrad while doing Cold War and all the information mentioned about Palingrad would likely be on the Cold War page (or on the Cold War transcript page at least), with the Palingrad page just duplicating that information. Pages like horse, which have mentions from multiple sources, make more sense to me as players can learn something new if they go to that page from one of these sources.
Not sure what I typo'd in my first point, sorry.19:38, April 26, 2016 (UTC)
- I just generally don't like the argument of "this information is mentioned on a general page, therefore it doesn't deserve a specific page". I think it's weak and non-encyclopedic. You said "Use the nonexistence template for content where it is certain if the content is part of a future update" which doesn't make sense to me as the yak tusks may have been scrapped, and I think it's clear that we should use ʞooɔ 19:46, April 26, 2016 (UTC)
for content that is certain to be part of a future update.
- Oh I see now - I meant to say if it is not certain that something is going to be in a future update then we should use . It seems an straight forward distinction to me, but we do have a fair number of pages that are (in my opinion) using the wrong template so I felt it was worth pointing out that we have the 2 templates for different situations. 20:41, April 27, 2016 (UTC)
Comment I'm almost neutral. You could almost make the policy to only add content that is actively in game, referenced in game, or announced as to be released (ie: Ballad of the Barrow Brothers quest or the generic Gower Quest). Or at the very least, only create the pages for them a little before their release, rather than months in advance. If an item was mentioned by developers, but never released (ie: Life rune), then shouldn't the page be deleted? Then you get content like Shark soup and Thingy that were never really available even though they existed on the GE. You could almost have things where a developer just spouts 50 random items at Runefest or during a Livestream, then you would almost feel obligated to create the pages, only to fast forward 1-2 years that the ideas were scrapped. --Deltaslug (talk) 19:59, April 26, 2016 (UTC)