Thread:Wagwan piffting23/@comment-30706862-20190908205203/@comment-37973629-20190909081950

In response to that, I don’t think that having a non-randomised name makes a “significant difference” to NPCs with (from what you’re saying) randomised names. Having a fixed name changes nothing, as the page is too minor anyway to be made. If there is doubt over a page’s legitimacy, it cannot be defended with “well their name is fixed” argument, as they’re too minor to be a page. In essence, that’s the issue, and how their names work isn’t relevant.

For your second point, could you give a specific example? NPCs in the first Redemption work differently, as they have much more information to note. For example, the page can describe the NPC’s job, their location, what events they take part in, their family members, their quotes etc. None of this could be done with Theodore Dixon, Perry Eastep or Owen Gillies, as there is no information to give, and if there is no information at all to give, they do not warrant a page. Simple as that.

For your third point, they are not just NPC horses, but gang horses. They are unique horses that cannot be seen anywhere else. A lot of people take an interest in them, and there are plenty of facts to report on their pages (as I stated clearly on my last message), such as whether they can be found in the epilogue at the Tumbleweed stables, their relationship with the owner, what happens to them, comments made about them, whether they can be ridden etc. There is DEFINITELY more information to give about gang member horse pages (and I can confirm that because I was one of the main editors involved in writing the info on horse pages) than there is about these three poker players. Just because they’re characters, it doesn’t mean they have any more info to give, and them being even less minor than some horse pages that were deleted for being too minor makes the deletion seem even more reasonable.

I once again ask you to carefully consider your language and tone.