Category talk:Inner Sphere Commands

"Empty" Command Articles

I started to re-name a the whole lot of the Word of Blake Commands, when I realized that the first five had absolutely no information within them, not even a reference for which Editors can seek to fill in the article. I'm one that believes redlinks are good, in that they indicate a need to an editor whom might just have the urge to scratch that itch. I also believe bluelinks that lead to empty articles are not good, in that they hide the fact that an article needs some information. Plus, my concern is if someone comes heres to research an article on their favorite command (say the 25th Word of Blake Division), they may come to the erroneous conclusion that the wiki is full of empty articles (and then not come back). (I say this from my experience with the ComStar Historical Archives, which seem to be filled with named, buy empty, articles.) So, I'm requesting comment to reach consensus: do we want to up the article count, and do we want to establish a policy that requires all articles to have content (or risk deletion)? --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have myself created articles with little content before, often on minor subjects where only a single source of information is available anyways. That, I (obviously) have no problem with. Another thing I have occasionally done is creating "placeholder" articles to remind me of something I wanted to do.

But on the issue at hand, i.e. creating totally empty articles on barely noteworthy subjects with no intention to add meaningful content soon, I am of the opinion that this is bad for the Wiki for the same reasons Revanche has given above. There is even an additional issue I have with the way Military Commands are handled right now: At what organisational level do you think they warrant their own article? I came across this problem when I found that individual regiments of McCarron's Armored Cavalry have individual articles with no reference back to the main article. Should regiments not be covered within an article about their parent unit? I feel that regiment size should not in itself be a reason to divide up units into sub-articles - there are many multi-regiment units out there that should have a single article. Goes for MAC as much as for Wolf's Dragoons, the Lyran Guards or the Red Lancers imho. Frabby 15:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)