Forum:Halopedia: Inclusionist or Exclusionist

ED here, with a question for the community on the direction we want to take Halopedia from here. Its a decision that affects the policy of the entire site, and I wanted to know what the community thought about it.

Halopedia has never directly stated whether it is an inclusionist wiki or an exclusionist wiki.

Inclusionist wikis are those that make articles on every subject related to the wiki, everything ever mentioned in the wiki's universe, no matter how small. These wikis are usually larger ones where there are lots of users to monitor every article and make sure everything is correctly written and so forth. An example would be Memory Alpha, which has articles on everything ever mentioned in Star Trek, including its own article on World War II with all its relavence to star trek. But Memory Alpha is huge, with 25,000 articles and 15 active admins to watch over them.

Exclusionist wikis just link small references to Wikipedia instead of making an article about them. They also merge smaller articles together. This is mostly because these wikis are very small and have small communities that can't maintain a large amount of articles. An example of this would be the Starcraft Wiki, which has 300 articles and 2 active admins. They just put the information for every planet mentioned in Starcraft one one page, and link minor references to Wikipedia instead of writing about them.

On Halopedia, we've done a little of both. We make our own articles for things like Tritium and Deuterium but other subjects minorly related to Halo such as Swahili are up for deletion. We're right in the middle, though. We're not very big, but we're not small, either.

So what do we think? Should Halopedia be inclusionist or exclusionist? -- ED ( talk )(gaming) 04:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts
Inclusive, mainly because that way we can become bigger and bigger as we make more articles. If we want to become one of the largest wikis on Wikia, I think we should do so.--H*bad (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't we focus on quality over quantity? -- Dragonc laws ( talk ) 06:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, and we can have both.--H*bad (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Quality is more important then quantity.--''' UoH. COL. "Running   Riot"   Ryan    BAM' '' 09:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to say we can't have both. --  Manticore  [[Image:Fleet Admiral.jpg|25px]] TalkundefinedCSV 11:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Inclusive
Inclusive. If we want to become (or continue to be...) the ultimate source of Halo knowledge, this has to be our goal. If we need more admins as the site grows, there's plenty of dedicated Halopedians we could consider. --  Manticore  TalkundefinedCSV 05:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Inclusive. I agree with Manticore. (CommanderTony)

Inclusive i agree with Manticore too, and i'm sure any Halopedian would be glad to be an admin if the need arose.  Phil.e.  [Talk to me] 13:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Inclusive - I'm all for quality over quantity, but what good would it be if we had one very beautifully written article, but no others. Now I know this is an extreme example, but I think that we should shoot for a happy medium. In competitions, quality over quantity, but in an encyclopedia about something, quanitity just might win out.
 * -- Master Gunnery Sergeant  Hank J Wimbleton IV COMHalo: Galaxy 17:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Inclusive- I go with inclusive, but quality must be maitained. -- WR A IT H  COMM   CONTRIBS  18:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Inclusive- We need to mantain good quality, though. -- Captain Wolfenhawk  - Captain's Log ]]- - Ships I've Plundered ]]- 18:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The biggest factor here is the community. Inclusionist wikis have thousands and thousands of contributors, Halopedia only has around 700, with fewer than 100 being active consistantly...If you the users think we can maintain 3,000-5,000 articles and are willing to keep them high quality and up to date, then it will be much easier. -- ED ( talk )(gaming) 20:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't all about the contributors though. Off the top of my head, I can think of several articles (such as T. S. Eliot) which were deleted because of violation of H:NOT. Policy may need to be modified. --  Manticore  [[Image:Fleet Admiral.jpg|25px]] TalkundefinedCSV 13:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WE can do it. I am sure that we can.--H*bad (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Extremely Strong Inclusive - Relen tless Recu sant 'o the Halopedia Team [[Image:Fleet Admiral.jpg|25px]] TALK • SPEAK 20:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Inclusive* -