Couldn't this and other islands of the Pacific be lumped into a big old article? Most of them will only contain as much information as this one, and there's no sense in having a bunch of stubby articles. Louisiannan 22:39, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
- I would disagree for a few reasons. The first being, there is no harm in having sperate articles not to mention that Wikipedia itself has a sperate article for Javis Island and all of the other islands in the Pacific. This is anyway after all in a sense the defacto "Wiki" for the Post-Doomsday world why should it not reflect these small pacific islands in the same manner? I do understand that these may not be the largest articles in this timeline but they still serve the purpose of explaining what happened to these places. Plus you never know what the future hold for some of these articles. Jarvis Bay may remain uninhabited or it may become a key naval outpost in a war between the ANZC & the USSR ;) You don't know& I sure as hel don't know, to exhaust the cliche "only time will tell". I will however make this counter offer to you, how about an article much like the "United States Minor Outlying Islands" on Wikipedia that links up to these obscure islands & provides a brief description of the islands. Thus it can be a "companion" article to go with these others. --GOPZACK 23:07, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
- The Miscellaneous Islands comprise an actual administrative unit *there*, so it would make sense for those, at least, to be grouped into a single article. They include Jarvis, Palmyra, Howland, Baker, and Kingman. And actually, the term "Minor Outlying Islands" on the page is anachronistic, since that term came into use only in 1986 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Minor_Outlying_Islands). Benkarnell 23:03, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to bump you down Ben I just wanted to response to Louis's concerns first. I would think that Wake Island & Johnston Atoll that were both blown up yet for whatever reason still claimed by the ANZC should not have separate articles. But for islands that were not targets I do not see the harm in giving it a page. --GOPZACK 23:13, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
- Zack, unless you plan on blowing this into a huge article the size of the North American Union's, there's no reason for it to be separate. If somehow, someday it becomes a huge article, then we'll move it. We don't need to have 15,000 articles because someone's come along and created an article for every hamlet in Germany and every named atoll of the Pacific. Unless it's going to be something truly new and different than what's happened in our timeline, there is no need to describe it. Louisiannan 22:39, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
- Goodness you're certainly very passionate on this issue. I was however unaware that every article needs to be the size of the NAU to be deemed worth enough to be in this timeline. I'm just curious why this troubles you so much? I also believe you are exaggerating the rational behind this article a tad by comparing well meaning islands to hamlets in Germany. --GOPZACK 23:24, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
- Zack, unless you plan on blowing this into a huge article the size of the North American Union's, there's no reason for it to be separate. If somehow, someday it becomes a huge article, then we'll move it. We don't need to have 15,000 articles because someone's come along and created an article for every hamlet in Germany and every named atoll of the Pacific. Unless it's going to be something truly new and different than what's happened in our timeline, there is no need to describe it. Louisiannan 22:39, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, Zack, hamlets in Germany make more sense as individual articles than uninhabited islands. A clutter of articles makes it harder to keep tabs on all the ANZ external territories. It makes the ANZ navigation template less useful. It's also misleading, since at minimum the pages should reflect actual political divisions. Benkarnell 01:35, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
- Hamlets aside, these uninhabited islands do not have to be listed under the ANZC template. What I am proposing IMO is a fair compromise. In the template we link up to the ANZC minor outlining islands then on that page a link is made the articles on the individual articles. That way no templates are screwed up & tabs are kept on all the island articles. Does that float anyones boat? Or am I the U-Boat that sinks it? GOPZACK 01:57, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
- Politely put, Zack, I did the same thing once in a different group and was shut down much less politely. These islands have little to no bearing on the timeline. They're fluff. They're a waste of space, and unless they're going to have some truly weighty influence on the timeline, they don't deserve their own page. We're Not Trying To Recreate Wikipedia. Read QAA again. If it's not different than here, we don't need to go spending time on those pages. As de facto and de jure head of this wiki, I can tell you that these types of pages make my skin crawl - they're prone to become flotsam that clogs up the search and makes the whole less navigable, and they're more pages for me to maintain, categorize and otherwise ensure don't get spammed.
- In short, unless it's going to be the place where the ANZC discovers ASB that magically change the world and turn the world into a peaceful utopia overnight (or something less grandiose, but with direct weight on the timeline) the single paragraph of this page (and every other Pacific Island) should be lumped together into island clusters, or, frankly, and bluntly, not at all. I would hope that you would trust me to run this wiki well since I've been in charge of it since it was created, and it's done quite well in that time. Louisiannan 03:56, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
- With All due respect, why do you only raise these objections now? Also I thought the person who created the article was the "caretaker" of it. Hence you don't need to worry about maintaining, categorizing and ensure it is safe from spam. I get a nice little email every time a page I am "following" gets modified and if it has been vandalized or changed in some obscene fashion I'll revert the edit. Don't feel that you have to watch over every article like its your first born child. I also judging by your comments are the lines on the home page that say "We currently have 9,406 articles, and look forward to growth!" no longer apply? Or what about the other statement that says "You are welcome to contribute any pages you wish, whether it be a minor sketch of an alternate history or an entire story that's fully-fleshed out." As the fellow who runs this wiki,(and you are doing a hell of a good job don't get me wrong) don't you think thats somewhat contradictory?
- All I am trying to do hear is complete the ANZC article that lists the islands that are controlled/claimed by that nation. This is not a Bolshevik plot to clog up searches or destroy your ability to lead & so on. If these articles were so offensive don't you think someone would have said something by now? Or do you have that little faith or respect in the people that contribute here? Reading the QSS it says "Quod Scripsi Scripsi means that when something has become canonical (which basically is the case when someone writes something and no one objects), it cannot be changed or undone."
- Hell even Mitro, who I consider to be the unofficial ombudsman of this TL has not had a problem with these articles. (minus a few mistakes I made along the way) You may be leader & I do respect the office you hold but as Howard Zinn once remarked "dissent is the highest form of patriotism". I am not your enemy on this Wiki, only the loyal opposition.GOPZACK 04:21, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
oh wait a moment I see you've changed the rules while the game has already began as it now says "Don't Recreate Wikipedia Wikipedia is there to house all information. A given timeline doesn't need millions of articles, because unless things are specifically different, we can assume they're the same as in our timeline. Don't create articles for the sake of having them. Create them to explore what's created the difference in the timeline. When in doubt, leave it out."
I suppose now I must refute this shot across the bow. Firstly I'd argue that every article I've made has been effected one way or the other by Doomsday. Be it a territorial swap, a nuclear strike, a birth of nation (no matter how small), a over seas possession cut off from its mother country & forced to fend for itself for some time. Each article has been uniquely effected. This article here your presently protesting was a part of an on going territorial dispute between the ANZC & Hawaii not to mention it was an over seas possession of the USA before doomsday. New article create new opportunities not clutter. GOPZACK 04:28, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
- Zack, you've misread what I've said. I didn't say how these little, uninhabited and uninfluential pieces of rock in the middle of the ocean have been affected by the events of Doomsday, I said how THEY have influenced Doomsday. And I haven't "changed the rules". I've stated plainly that this text:
Jarvis Island (formerly known as Bunker Island) is an uninhabited 4.5 square kilometer (1.75 sq. mile) coral island located in the South Pacific Ocean, about halfway between Hawaii and the Cook Islands. Before Doomsday it was an unincorporated, unorganized territory of the United States, as a part of the United States Minor Outlying Islands. After the APA disbanded, the ANZC and Hawaii both claimed Jarvis Island as their own. In 2005 the dispute was settled with the ANZC receiving Okinawa and the Miscellaneous Islands including Jarvis Island, while Hawaii got Midway, Wake, and Johnston islands.
- could be changed and have the article so it referred to Palmyra, Howland, Baker, or Kingman Island - with NO other difference. The point is, we don't need 5 articles stating that these little birdie pit stops in the middle of the Pacific are disputed from Hawaii and the ANZC. ONE article would suffice. Unless some scientist discovers the magic cure for cancer in the bird guano of Jarvis Island, this article has NO REASON TO EXIST of itself.
- Fine and DANDY that this article is part of an ongoing territorial dispute. But this island, and everything you've written in the article can be placed in an article about the WHOLE GROUP, or frankly, summarized in one sentence on Hawaii's or ANZC's page. I repeat - we're not here to recreate wikipedia. Unless the island itself makes a HUGE influence on the timeline, there's no reason for this singular piece of rock to have an article for itself, especially when it's uninhabited. An article for the group would suffice. Louisiannan 04:53, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
- As for who watches the articles - I do - as do Mitro and Ben - we watch the whole of the wiki. We've volunteered to do it, but there has to be order if this is going to be a nice place for everyone to contribute. I suppose that I'm putting my foot down because no one's gotten the hint. Louisiannan 04:55, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
Clearly this is going no where, were both entrenched in our postions and don't seem to want to budge. He is my compromis solution, for the real obscure islands we group them in ONE article called ANZC minor outlying islands. That way there all in one article so your soul is not troubled while at the same time satisfying me so they still in a sense have their own article but for the islands that are called "associate states " of the ANZC they cannot be changed because they are of more importance then say Howland Island. Some external territories like Chatham Islands, Kermadec Islands, Tokelau, Marcus Island, Christmas Island (Indian Ocean), & Cocos Islands because they have had a greater impact on the TL then (I hate to pick on them again) Howland Island. I think thats a fair compromise. What say you? GOPZACK 05:10, May 11, 2010 (UTC)