As the edit summary made clear, there is already a PC video for the articles which you edited. Additionally, as the videos that you added had the missions in Italian, the already-existing videos would take precedence as they are in English, which is favourable as this is wiki’s language is English.
Wagwan piffting23 wrote: As the edit summary made clear, there is already a PC video for the articles which you edited. Additionally, as the videos that you added had the missions in Italian, the already-existing videos would take precedence as they are in English, which is favourable as this is wiki’s language is English.
Ok understood, sorry... i thought that the video section could accept various languages...
I watched a gameplay of Micah Bell talking to Reverend Swanson Maich tells reverend that he believes God, heaven and the soul are fairytales so I added nore information to Micah's personality. Micah also tells reverend that he believes the church and people who represent the church deceive people he says that he thinks the church and God are great evil then anything else.
I added some of that information to his personality more information helps people learn more about Micah's character. Micah tells Reverend Swanson that jo one has a soul.
Talking about Micah's personality he shows is racist side by telling Lenny it is unusually for someone like him to red and write. He also shows his racist side when he says to Lenny he shot a lot of folks like him.
Also speaking of Micah's personality he tells Strauss he doesn't like money lending and loan sharking is where Micah draws the moral line.
That’s all good information, although pages tend to talk about aspects of his personality as a whole, rather than dwell on specific examples. If you think there is anything to add to Micah's personality, by all means add it, but bear this in mind.
Earlier, I mentioned my desire to make a page for Sean's father. I recall a newspaper or newspaper scrap (I think it was the latter) which told his story. However, I can’t find the information source anywhere in the satchel, so I’ll probably have to replay it or reload an early save and try and find it from there. Unfortunately, I will not be able to make the page until I find it.
Ok thanks also hopefully the page for Sean's father will be made. I will see if I can help on finding information about Sean's dad.
Oh yeah when Micah talks to John about him almost being eaten by wolves Micah says that he has never had any animals try to eat or kill him he says that animals don't like him or come anywhere near him.
I’d like to hear some opinions from more staff members (and editors in general, for that matter) before making a concrete decision. Possible alternatives are being discussed, including a page for bounty targets in Online as a whole, how they operate, and the potential individual targets. However, this decision is not yet final.
I will contact you, either on this thread or on your wall, when a decision has been finalised.
The pages will be deleted and replaced with a single page for bounty targets in Red Dead Online. This page will outline how the bounty system works in Online and have a list of all the possible bounty targets. This is it, for now.
However, how to go about this is an issue. Firstly, deletion. There is such a high number of pages to delete that I will need help from others, and failing that, either a bot account or AutoWikiBrowser. Secondly, I have not played Online, so I’m severely limited as to what I can add to the page myself, and again, I will need help from others who know much more about it than I do.
Rest assured, it will happen, but not immediately.
Anyone is free to edit the page, obviously, so you can organise it in whatever way you wish. This applies to anyone on the wiki. Although the page's content should be describing how bounty hunting in Online works and then a list of all potential bounty targets (perhaps more, but that’s all I can think of for now), the way in which this is applied is up to editors.
The page's name should be "Bounty Targets in Online". As I haven’t played Online and know relatively little about it, I can’t do much more than give the name of the page and suggest a general structure. Anyone is free to make this page whenever they wish, and organise it however they wish.
I see. I admire your ambition, but with suggestions that the targets are randomised or otherwise extremely high in number, that may become extremely difficult.
There is also the question of whether the biographies are worthwhile. Although they would be a nice extra on the new page, they would be fairly meaningless in the event that the targets are randomised, which may or may not be true. What’s more, they will make the page significantly harder to make; without them, a simple two column section with the names of the targets would be all that’s needed for them on the page, but with them, there would have to be a table, which is complicated to make and perhaps even impossible on VisualEditor.
If you’re willing to help with the extra work, then gathering the biographies would be most welcome. If not, I might suggest otherwise.
Sean's story that tells in the game I heard it when I was playing the game sitting down next to the campfire. People even have a video up on YouTube of him talking about how him and his father were forced to come to America and how his dad was killed in America and how he was sent to reform school.
I have heard Sean tell that story when my brother plays his file on the game as well.
Also the story that Simon Pearson tells about is life is in the game there is gameplay footage of Pearson talking his dad hunting whales. Both of the information of Sean's life and Pearson's come straight from a YouTube video actually gameplay from the game.
I think I found a link to the video for Pearson if it doesn't take you to the video or if doesn't load up I apologize in advance. Just doing my best to give you and show you the proof. Anyway here is the link.
I'm trying my best but there is something wrong with the link. I believe that I finally got the link right. Actually I think that the problem is fixed now so the link should load up.
I suggest you check out the two links they provide useful information about Pearson and Sean information that is missing. After it is good to know everything about the characters.
Also let me know how well the links work. No one likes for something to be incomplete and with out the information from backstories in these links the characters pages can only be fully complete until the stories from these linked videos are add.
Also here is the link to Sean's life story as proof []
Although there some problems trying to load up the link to Sean's video.
I posted those videos because I added information the characters blife stories to their pages and the information was deleted.
I posted the videos proof to show that the information about Sesn and Pearson is real information that I didn't make those stories up. With proof from the videos I am hoping that information on the characters won't get deleted again if proof is shown.
I am using Google to reach Red Dead Wiki Google won't let me download links to it so I downloaded Red Dead Wiki to my phone. Only one problem when I downloaded it to my phone the app told me I can't use an account that was already taken and being used.
Honest truth about that talk about being pain the app telling me to try a different account when I already have almost made me rip my hair out. Also since you were polite there no problem with butting in Kerbert27 don't worry as long as you keep that polite good manner it is fine.
I see. I don’t have any problem with the videos themselves, so thank you for uploading them. With the Fandom app situation, I would recommend not using it if it’s causing you problems. Do you admit that the account on the discussions is yours?
I'm trying to juggle the whole thing of talking to two people you and the other person who joined in. Your welcome and I wish the whole problem of adding Wiki to my phone didn't give me problems of not letting me use my account that I am using right now.
Thank you for the advice of the Fandom app it was my first time of using it. The account is my real name while this account is just a internet name used for wikis.
I saw you recently removed Jerimiah from the Morgan page, for evidence simply replay the mission and hold L2/LT BEFORE getting too close and you'll see he's a flaxen Chestnut Morgan, thought id just add that thank you for you contributions to this wiki, hope to hear back
I haven’t been able to do that, but I think it’s highly likely that Jeremiah is the horse you describe. Jeremiah’s coat is identical to the Flaxen Chestnut Morgan, and both his build and stats are also the same. I really can’t think what else Jeremiah is other than a seemingly giant Morgan, so I’ll re-add it. Thanks for finding this out!
What do you mean Bill “changed his name”? Like, legally? Cause you’d need evidence of that. Otherwise, as he states in game, he took to calling himself Bill which makes that a nickname.
He literally states in game his name is Marion and you can find discharge papers referring to him as Marion Williamson. I don’t know why you just straight up undid that edit but I’m starting to think you don’t like me pal
Jack is never referred to as John Marston Jr and I have never found evidence that his name is anything other than Jack but we are comfortable assuming his name is John Marston Jr. based solely on the fact that Jack is a common nickname for John. No other evidence
No, Bill's name is "Bill". Simple as that. It may have been Marion at some point, but he later changed it to "Bill" because he found it embarrassing. Those are his words (maybe a little paraphrased), not mine. If the discharge papers say "Marion", then that’s probably because he hadn’t yet changed it at the point where they were written.
In addition, Bill is an outlaw - he can hardly change his name with the conventional, legal means, as that would mean contact with the government. Just because his outlaw status restricts his ability to do it in that particular way, it doesn’t invalidate his desired name change.
As it happens, I agree with you on there being no evidence (as far as I know) for Jack's real name being "John Marston Jr.". I will look around for any evidence and ask on the talk page if anyone has any, but if not, "John Marston Jr." will be erased.
As stated by Wag, Bill could change his name, even without going through legal means, as other people had done in history before modern times. For example, real-life outlaw Butch Cassidy changed his name from Robert Leroy Parker.
On what Bill states in the game, while he says his name had been Marion, he changed it to Bill himself. Really not something that should be overly stated, as it is already noted in the "Background" and "Trivia" sections on his page.
Micah: “so what’s your real name then?”
Then Micah and Arthur proceed to call him Mary or Marianne. I really don’t understand this position. His legal name is Marion but he goes by Bill because he finds it embarrassing. I’m not disagreeing with that but paperwork literally refers to him as Marion Williamson its not that hard of a concept
Butch Cassidy was a criminal alias of Robert Parker. He is still Robert Parker, we was Robert Parker when he committed his robberies, he just went by a non de Guerre if you will. You can call Marion Williamson Bill Williamson but his actual name is Marion. I genuinely feel like I’m arguing with brick walls
When you go to Cassidy’s Wikipedia article it states his name is Robert Leroy Parker better known as Butch Cassidy. Same principle should apply to Bill. Unlike Jack, who was born in the woods to outlaws and likely had little legal paperwork regarding his info
Lenny Summers is referred to as Leonard “Lenny” Summers in his article. Introducing bill as Marion “Bill” Williamson is hardly a negative contribution or contrary to this wiki’s policy. Show me the policy that backs up your argument
And stop with this rhetoric of “once” his name is still Marion he just goes by Bill. Roosevelt’s own example was contradicted by the Wikipedia article for Cassidy, which refers to him almost solely as Parker (cause that’s his name, he didn’t change it lol)
I'll admit that my paraphrasing of the conversaton regarding his name was loose, if not, even inaccurate. But the point actually stands that he, while not legally, changed his name to Bill. The conversation in no way insinuated he was still accepting to being refered to as "Marion". Besides in-game newspapers even refering to him by this name rather than his original, added with the aforementioned fact that people have changed their names in the past without legal means, supports this.
Also, the wikipedia article refers to Butch Cassidy as both names interchangeably, (hell, with Cassidy being used solely after the early life section) not his birth name almost solely, as you suggested. "Butch Cassidy" is even the page name, so that doesn't poke holes in that argument.
With all that stated though, you're dead-set on the belief that everyone else is more stubborn than how you've continued to draw this out and it's clear there's no path to getting you to drop this, even with how it already has an appripriate place on his page.
I’m not continuing to edit the article which you should consider good enough behaviour, as it’s been established I’m allowed to continue my discourse on these talk pages. To reiterate my point, I don’t think I’m being the stubborn one here. Bill’s name is clearly Marion, which he admits, and I don’t understand how Bill can be viewed as anything other than a nickname (again, he says “Bill comes from Williamson” when Micah assumes his name is William Williamson, I actually think this is a reference to the fact that this wiki referred to Bill as William Williamson for years, R* cheeky like that)
Roosevelt, you still do not support your own point enough. Cassidy is clearly referred to as Robert Parker and when you say he is referred to as Cassidy it is after he had adopted the name. Marion Williamson was apparently not an outlaw until he was discharged from the army (not the cavalry as he claims) and began referring to himself as Bill. This doesn’t actually make his name Bill Williamson, and you tried to use a real life outlaw who is still legally referred to by his birth name, no matter how long he called himself Butch Cassidy. The Sundance Kid is still legally referred to as Harry Longabaugh, not by his pseudonym, so what’s the difference?
You two are arguing the semantics of “changed his name” and “goes by” and I think if you really think on it (hard) he actually just goes by Bill and I’m absolutely flabbergasted at the suggestion he “changed his name” ???? Like how? (Compare that to his own admittance that Bill comes from his surname and he chose to go by it, it’s just a nickname)
Okay, you’ve intentionally missed the points laid out entirely: we’re all in agreement that legally his name is “Marion”. Now of course, when he became an outlaw, he took up the name “Bill” as he was embarrassed by it. Therefore, that is his name, by his own choice.
As for Butch Cassidy, you purposelly misinterepeted what I stated in an attempt to support your own argument. I acknowledged the fact that his birth name was Robert Parker before he adopted Butch Cassidy as an outlaw (after the early life section), which you felt the need to restate as if I hadn’t. If anything, acting as if these points are nullified just because you said so or that whoever you’re trying to counter hadn’t stated them doesn’t help your own argument unless you intend to just draw the whole thing out.
I get that in both instances you’re arguing the legality aspect but that really didn’t matter much for anyone who just changed their name without doing so legally, before then and in that time period. Especially with the lack of formal IDs, social security, etc. Simply put, he renamed himself Bill, so his name is Bill. In addition, nicknames are far different than adopted names.
I really don’t think this is worth the obsession you have over it. Choosing the most mundane and simple things to start a dispute over and do so so condescending is not a good waste of anyone’s time.
@Kerbert - here comes the chat moderator with the hard hitting issues. I’m editing via mobile and with the chat wall system my messages don’t spam the recent activity page so I don’t think it’s that much of an issue. Try addressing my points, or responding to me in the other thread where I replied to you.
@Roosevelt - I don’t think I misrepresented your points, nor do I think I’m arguing the “legality” of it. I agree, it’s a mundane point, but I still think the intro to bills article should address him by his actual name, which he admits to having at a time you say he has changed his name, and then he can be referred to as Bill for the rest of the article, except it should mention his birth name in his bio, referring to his early life, don’t you think?
And I don’t have an obsession mate. Your wording is clearly an attempt to paint me in a bad light. I make good edits and back them up, they are undone with no discussion. I open discussion and eat called harassing and petty. Grow some thicker skin lad
Big talk coming from a man inching very close to getting banned. You spammed multiple replies in a row. The edit button exists. Use it. I would also watch your tone you have with all of us, although it may be too late for that since you have been harassing all of us with this disrespectful and immature attitude. I don't think Roosevelt is the one that needs to grow thicker skin if you're the one posting dick emotes and obsessing over the mundane topics in an attempt to get attention, but yet you get upset when someone says your obviously terrible idea is terrible? Absolutely shocking.
And the reason I'm not addressing the main issue is because I am neither an editor nor a content mod.
Kerbert, you are distracting from the issue at hand and your messages are pointless. First, I’ve already pointed out that my original ban seemed excessive, and expressed my reasons for thinking so. Raziel said he would look into it, but had been quiet for a week. So if I get banned again, it’s no skin off my back, cause I think you guys are abusing your powers.
Second, I’m not trying to get attention. I’m making perfectly acceptable edits and when they get undone by power mad moderators I express my discontent in discussion threads which is perfectly within the rules. Your decision that my inability to use the edit button still doesn’t constitute as spam, because it doesn’t affect the activity page.
Finally, either get out of this thread or provide your own reasoning why you think referring to Bill as Marion “Bill” Williamson in the opening sentence and in his early bio is a “terrible idea”
I think all of us have had enough of this. Numerous aspects of your behaviour are not only in direct contradiction of what wiki policy allows for, but also completely unreasonable. We have already stated why the introductory section should not include “Marion”, yet you act like this hasn’t happened and accuse us of undoing your edits without any reason. Furthermore, you cannot call people “power mad” just because they have a different opinion to you; discussions about wiki matters are supposed to be about the situation at hand, so your accusations were not only hollow and untrue, but also irrelevant.
You have been blocked for three weeks. After this time, you are welcome to continue your work on the wiki. However, this matter is closed, and any further correspondence from you on either this topic or the poker player situation will be ignored. Any more similar behaviour violations after your block ends will result in an indefinite block, so I think both of us should hope that this does not happen again.
Well apparently there are corpses with glowing green eyes, however the one on the pic seemed to be glitched standing upright. They might be teasing something. Found some in Armadillo. You can pick them up but you cannot carry them for more than a few seconds and they are dropped automatically and cannot be picked up again. Not sure if you have seen it before i thought i should let you know since we might have to create a new page here if this is going somewhere but it is definitely not by accident.
Yes, I have heard about this new occurrence. A popular theory on the matter is that they may be hinting at a second Undead Nightmare, although this is unproven. I don’t feel the need to make a page about them just yet, but really I need to find out all that I can about them and think about it more carefully before making a final decision.
To reiterate my points in as neutral a way as I feel is possible:
Your defence for deleting the gamblers’ pages still doesn’t hold up, in my opinion, under scrutiny. There are certainly pages for characters of far less importance towards background lore or any other aspect that have pages (and I’m aware I created the page for Bradley Hunt, but I thought I made it clear why I felt confused by your apparent validation for that character and not for three other characters that are, again in my opinion, equally valid contributions towards the wiki).
Second, my main issue, which I again felt I made clear (sorry you seemed to have misinterpreted my tone) is that you deleted the articles with no community discussion and used the nomination for the articles’ deletion by one (1) other user as enough justification for that action.
And on a final note, my issue with you has evolved into more that fact that I think you are abusing your rights. I pointed out policy that states your opinion does not automically usurp my own. Other policy dictates how vital community discussion is for the site’s growth (and also states you shouldn’t delete messages, but anyway). If you really just wanted me to “cool down” as you put it, I know you got other options. I’ll keep making good edits, as you graciously pointed out, but I fear I don’t operate well under authoritarians
You seem to have calmed down, at the very least. Welcome back to the wiki.
To address your first point, I understand your argument as to why Bradley Hunt’s overall contribution to Red Dead lore is no different from that of the three poker players, but I personally disagree with it. My reason for this is that the page about Bradley Hunt is not just about him, but also (indirectly) a page detailing an activity of the Night Folk. This is not the case with the poker players, who relate very little to anything else in the game. In fact, they don’t even have any relatives or family to note, whereas Hunt has an unnamed female accomplice to note (not much, I know, but from these two factors, it makes his page more worthwhile than that of the poker players). In your message, you stated that there are pages for characters with no more importance to lore than the poker players. Could you give some examples, please? Other than Bradley Hunt, of course. I’m not sure if you are aware, but immediately before or after (I cannot remember which, although it ultimately doesn’t matter) I deleted the pages in question, I added their names to the trivia of the mission page, "A Fine Night of Debauchery" as the link will show you. This, I think, is fair - their names are still on the wiki as they deserve to be, but they do not have an actual page.
On your second point, perhaps more discussion about the deletion would have been useful, but ultimately, I did what I thought was right. The only people on the entire wiki who have (as far as I know) expressed any opinion whatsoever on this issue are me, you and User:Bigbat39, who flagged the items for deletion. That’s it. Obviously I did not know your opinion before deleting it, but I acted on the only thing I could go on - that being myself and another user believing that the pages should be deleted, and no opposition to it on the talk pages, which is what the “Candidates for Deletion” category recommends for any who oppose the deletion. Now that I do know your opinion on it, the people who have expressed whether or not they support the deletion are two (me and Bigbat39) in favour of it, and one (yourself) against. Obviously this is a small and arguably non-representative group, but what else am I to go on now that the deletion has happened? A 2-1 majority in favour of the deletion is all I have to justify this decision democratically. Is this flawless? No, but as I said, there has been no opposition to the deletion, neither before nor after, except from you, so the opinions of myself and Bigbat39 are more than the opposing ones, so they overrule the opposing one that they outnumber.
I must say that your claim that I am “abusing” my rights, if I look at this impartially, is unfair. I have never said that my opinion has automatic superiority over yours, and nor was my action dictatorial. Even if you had stated your opposition to the pages being flagged for deletion, there would be a 1-1 impasse between you and the one who deleted it. It would then be my job, as an administrator (who are supposed to resolve disputes on the wiki, according to the role's description) to effectively cast my own vote on the matter. With no other input from anyone else, there would be a 2-1 mandate advocating deletion, which would be fair. When I deleted it, it wasn’t even that. They were flagged for deletion, and there was no opposition on the talk pages. This effectively (at the time) gave me a 2-0 mandate (2 because of my opinion plus the one who flagged it for deletion in the first place) to delete it. So yes, there wasn’t a community vote, and no one is perfect, but what I did was not entirely undemocratic. I merely did what I thought was right, with the support of another user. I must therefore conclude that the claim that I am “abusing” my rights is an unfair one.
This is the umpteenth time a page has been deleted without a community vote, done by both me and previous staff dating back years. Even if I was “abusing” my rights, the vast majority of staff on this wiki (and no doubt on other wikis) would be guilty of the same offence. By your definition, there’s a hell of a lot of admins out there who are guilty of “abusing” their rights. Moreover, the fact that I deleted it after it was put into the “Candidates for Deletion” category is something, it’s not uncommon for pages to be deleted purely based on an admin’s opinion and no democratic input (on almost every wiki), so compared to all the other admins guilty of “abusing” their rights, I’m really not so bad.
Now it is my turn to apologise for a hostile tone. It was not intended, and I merely wanted to explain everything to you with the necessary detail.
Nothing I say here matters. I’ve made my point that I think the three gamblers should have pages and there should have been a community vote before their deletion. And I get banned for a week to “cool down” when I know for a fact there are 24 hour and 3 day options, but my history of beneficial edits mean nothing when a teenager feels offended
I'm not the best to speak on the editing dispute as I am not an editor or a content moderator, but as a discussions moderator, your tone you took was not the best. It was apparent you were passionate and heated about the topic, which is perfectly understandable. However it's important not to let those feelings come forward as much as they did when dealing with an editing dispute. Whether or not you deserved the ban in the first place or the length of it is not within my power to say as Wagwan has superior authority over me. However, that is in the past and there's nothing we can do about it now but learn from it (not just you, all of us). However Ill have to disagree with you when you say nothing you say here matters. What you said in the past still holds, all editors are equal. The only advice I can give you is to be more professional with your tone, and if you feel Wagwan is abusing his rights or that the dispute isn't finished yet, I encourage you to contact Raziel. Just remember that as long as the dispute still stands and you remain civil, your argument will be taken seriously just as much as any editor or admin. I hope both parties can come to an agreement on this dispute, but that can only happen if both parties remain civil. I wish you luck in your pursuit.
"When a teenager feels offended"? Look who's talking.
But personally, I would suggest letting it go as there is next to nothing besides the names to these characters: no backstory to elaborate on, no notable importance aside from their minor appearance in a mini-game, and no other chances to encounter them. Unlike in the first game, where the players encountered in most side activities also appeared elsewhere (story missions, stranger missions, gang hideouts etc.) these NPCs solely appear there.
Besides, there's plenty of other pages of characters who while are minor, appear more than these aformentioned NPCs and need their existing pages expanded anyways. Why waste the energy on three who have little reason to have them?
Again, there are articles for characters that only appear in one mission and Provide no other contribution towards the main story, lore etc. But whatever. I am far too aggressive for you guys and I must sincerely apologize
@Roosevelt - I felt offended but because a teenager with administrative rights also felt offended I received a week long ban. I hope that clarifies my position a little more for you
@Kerbert - I’ve already messaged Raziel about a separate issue so fingers crossed I’m not harassing him so maybe I have a chance to address that issue as well
I am glad I am allowed to continue this discourse, considering Wagwan has already deleted one of my messages based solely on his opinion that I am aggressive. If he really feels I’m leaving “raging, harassing” comments then they should be left up as evidence that I am indeed a raving lunatic.
I’ve been around this wiki a few times over many years. I would like to point out some of the work done by former admins like Annonnimus, Jack Frost, Hobbes and 2ks4 which I think validated my point, as they went to some lengths to ensure that any Character appearing in, mentioned, or otherwise in the series have a page. I think the pages for the gamblers contributes towards the lore (albeit minimally) of the riverboat robbery. But again, it’s just my opinion and I think it should be put to a public forum. @Wagwan not every user is so familiar with the site that they know to mosey on over the a talk page for a category.
It's not our responsibility to make sure evry editor is well informed of the sites policy. That information is available to them. Whether or not they know and/or follow it is up to them. I also must add that your statement about your relationship with past admins is quite hypocritical being as how you yourself were preaching about every editor being equal. Your past does not make you immune to certain rules, and it does not make your voice louder than others.
@Kerbert - I stated nothing about having a past relationship with former admins. I stated that many of them have contributed towards articles of minor characters because I felt it bolstered my case that the three gamblers deserve articles.
Also, I only mentioned my past as a member of this wiki in an effort to point out I have been a user of this site for several years, with no issue, and therefore a week long ban was unwarranted.
As aggressive as I apparently come across, I have no misconceptions that I am “louder than others” and I’m unsure what rules I’ve even broken.
There’s also rules against edit warring, Kerbert, and on the one (1) occasion I undid Wagwan’s edit (on Uncle’s page), I explained my reasoning and it was immediately undone. When my trivia post to Barbarella Alcazar was deleted, I went to the talk page of the user who removed it to explain why I felt it should remain.
In regards to long standing policy on this wiki, any character mentioned or appearing in the red dead series deserves a page. Don’t understand why you deleted the pages for Theodore Dixon, Owen Gillies and Perry Eastep. They are literally characters that appear in the red dead series and there are pages for lesser characters that are only mentioned in conversation. Please back up your decision considering you edited but didn’t delete the page for Bradley Hunt. How is he more significant? Any character mentioned or appearing in the fame deserves a page.
And when Jack says “Uncle was old when I was a kid” Johns response clearly refers to himself knowning Uncle when he was a child. Uncle is clearly older than John and it would be foolish to speculate that John could have known Uncle as a child, but it’s not unreasonable to assume a young John knew Uncle considering it is mentioned numerous times that John was recruited by Dutch as a child. Uncle could have been there considering how often he is referred to as being around a young Arthur, John, and even by Bill who was recruited around 1893
One thing at a time, please. I’m going to deal with your first grievance for now.
When I said that the pages in question were “too insignificant for a page”, I meant it. All they did was play one poker game; no background info is known about them, only their names. The level of detail that we know about them would be comparable to any NPC poker player in RDR 2, such as “Henry”. You wouldn’t make a page for him though. Reason? Because no where near enough detail is known about him. If they only play poker once and do nothing else, they do NOT warrant a page.
You also referred to Wiki Policy in your message. However, I would argue that use of the “Ignore All Rules” policy is reasonable in this circumstance. It reads: “Use common sense first and then see if a policy applies to the situation in question“. In this situation, that’s exactly what I did; I used common sense and decided that the policy was not particularly suitable for the pages in question. Like I explained in the previous paragraph, there is sufficient rationale for these pages not having enough detail for pages in their own right.
You also compared the pages’ legitimacy to that of the Bradley Hunt page, and questioned why that was allowed and the others weren’t. My response would be this: Bradley Hunt was involved in some kind of gameplay-related, random event, and he also links to the Night Folk. Therefore, a page about him is in itself a page describing that particular event, and one that gives information about the Night Folk, which, considering how little is known about them, makes a page about him more relevant than a page about some random poker play who loses one game and is never seen again, with nothing known about him except for his name.
By all means, this is not the first time that something like this has happened. Various pages for insignificant characters have been deleted at various times, and today’s deletion of three irrelevant pages was no different. The Van der Linde gang members’ horses once had pages, but they were deleted earlier this year. I wasn’t too happy about it at the time, but I moved on. The reason why I bring them into this message is because a lot of the horses have more information to convey than the pages of the three poker-playing NPCs, including relationship with the rider, ultimate fate, what’s said about them, whether they’re rideable (Baylock) and many others. Case in point, pages for more significant roles in the game than the three no-background, never-to-be-seen-again poker players who are present for one game, have been deleted. If the pages that were deleted today have less of a role than pages that had been deleted in the past, then surely I was well within my rights to take such action.
As a final thing to say, the extent to which it was solely my decision to delete the pages is not absolute. User:Bigbat39 flagged one for deletion, indicating that he thought they were in need of deletion. After analysing the pages, I agreed with him entirely. This is not, in any way, me trying to blame him for the deletion, but simply me saying that the decision was not as undemocratic as you might imagine; an editor made a decision which I agreed with, and I took action accordingly.
I hope this satisfies your first complaint. It is late where I live and I would like to go to sleep, so I will address your second complaint another time. As a final note, the tone of your messages comes across as somewhat hostile. Please be careful of this.
There’s a significant difference between the three mentioned characters and random NPCs in RDR 2’s gambling because those names appear to be randomized. Dixon, Gillies and Eastep are set characters that appear every time.
Also, there are plenty of articles detailing characters from the first Redemption that do not contribute to any other article, as you say Bradley Hunt contributes towards the lore of the Night Folk.
Also, it’s hardly reasonable to compare this to NPC’s horses considering all they need is a mention on their owners page. These are characters we are talking about, however minor of a role they play.
And it’s not undemocratic to throw another user under the bus. But t should be out to a user vote, you absolute despot
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.
Okay, ban me if you think I’m so terribly rude but I won’t watch my tone. I’m coming at you exactly as I feel is necessary.
The characters you deleted will always appear. They are set characters in the Red Dead univervise. They play a role and even more minor characters have an article that contributes towards other lore in the game. Your own argument for having articles about specifically named horses applies the same logic.
You can’t compare them to seemingly randomized characters from gambling games.
Also, my point is Bradley Hunt contributes nothing towards the wiki and even towards the lore of the Night Folk, unless you feel every named victim should have a page, cause I know a bunch of people named in the news articles about Edmund Lowry Jr
Just cause there’s more info on some NPCs from an older game, doesn’t negate any value a character might have towards the greater story. You might have to consider undoing the work of some significant editors on this wiki if you wanna stick to your guns
Ralph Bagley from the first Rdr can only be found hanging around the town. He doesn’t even appear in a mission. But he contributes more towards Redemption’s lore than Dixon etc. Right? You stand by that?
Ralph Bagley does, yes. The page says the following about what he does: “Ralph can most often be found in Thieves' Landing, loitering in and around the docks. However, he has been known to frequent Blackwater docks”. The page also notes that he uses a Schofield Revolver, includes quotes, and says who he shares his appearance with. Long story short, his page has enough information on it to justify its existence. The page for the three poker players does not.
As I said in my previous message, how the characters are named is irrelevant. If they’re too minor, there’s no need a page. That’s it. Whether or not their names are randomised is not relevant. Furthermore, you also misquoted me when you said that I made an argument in favour of horse pages. I did not advocate that, and instead said that pages more minor than these three poker players have been deleted for being too minor, so it is logical and reasonable that something less relevant (the poker players) were deleted. That is not, of course, why these poker players had their pages deleted, it was done purely on the basis that they did not yield enough information to warrant a page (as I keep saying).
You also appear to have changed your mind on Bradley Hunt, asserting that he “contributes nothing towards the wiki and even towards the lore of the Night Folk” (which is odd considering that you made the page, but anyway). I disagree because, as I said in my previous message (a recurring theme here, eh?), a page about Bradley Hunt is in itself a page detailing the activities of the Night Folk, which is especially important given how little is known about them. The pages on these three poker players do not have the same importance.
I will not block you (not yet, at least), but nor will I continue having this conversation with you. I have not changed my mind, and what I tell you does not seem to go in. Due to your apparent lack of cooperation, manners, and even ability to be reasoned with, I will not do you the courtesy of responding to your second complaint. And with that, the case is closed.
Did you get any luck on that website with the RDR Brady's Game Guide on there? If not, I could try send you screenshot. I wouldn't know how, though, I'm not exactly tech savvy. But I'll try.
Also, do you know of any users that have the Game Of The Year Strategy Guide? I would like to compare The Brady's Game Guide and The Game Of The Year Strategy Guide, as it appears that they're mostly identical, with possibly minor differences.
Hello there. I apologise for not getting back to you earlier.
Unfortunately, I have not had any luck accessing Brady's Game Guide. I don’t know whether this is down to my device, internet browser or simply a poor internet connection, but for whatever reason, it refuses to load. If you could send me a screenshot of it, it would be much appreciated!
To answer your second question, I do not have the guide, and nor do I know anyone who has it for a fact. However, I do remember a dispute on Dutch's page a few months back, where User:Rvb forever referred to the Guide as a source for Dutch's birthdate. It is therefore possible that she may have it, so I would suggest contacting her.