Forum:Battle articles
(I'm talking about the majority of the pages in the military conflicts category)
I have mixed feelings about these. Some are valid, but others (such as Raid on Black Mesa East) cover the exact same events as Combine War does, albeit with the addition of an infobox filled with largely conjectural statistics. I can't help but feel we're branching out with all of this stuff too much. For example, a new article, Attack On New Little Odessa, has been created for the small skirmish at NLO, but is it really necessary when the same summary of events could easily be fitted in the main article, New Little Odessa?
I say we try to follow a policy something like this:
IF: There's not much to say about a battle
THEN: Mention it in a large summary of events or list of battles like Combine War, and/or the article about the location in which the battle takes place
(Attack On New Little Odessa and Raid on Black Mesa East fit this bill, and any article on Freeman's and Grigori's fight against the zombies in Ravenholm should stay in the Ravenholm article, it's not really relevant to the conflict against the Combine at large.)
IF: Battle is significant enough to have at least a few paragraphs written about it, and enough statistics are known about it to justify the addition of an infobox
THEN: Create a new article on that battle, linking to it from main summaries and the like with the {{main|Article}} template
Obviously, this is all pretty subjective, but I don't want to see entire articles created for minor skirmishes that we struggle to write more than a couple paragraphs' worth of content about. --MattyDienhoff 08:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
