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.