Talk:Raw Fish

Split?
Should we split this into 2 articles; fish and grilled fish? Come on, Grilled Pork has it's own page, we should be consistent. -F1racer101 12:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, though I don't think it's necessary at this time since both pages would have such low content, maybe when Fish have been out a little longer and a bit more content is there, it'll be worthwhile to be consistent and split them then. 06:42, 21 November 2010 (CST)
 * I'd be more inclined to merge grilled pork into pork. They're tiny pages. at 17:14, 21 November 2010 (CST)
 * They are separate items with different attributes, so I'd vote towards keeping them separate. 00:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So? That's what we have the block template for... at 18:51, 21 November 2010 (CST)
 * Let's put it this way. Once the game and the wiki grows, they will eventually become separate articles anyway, because they are separate items, albeit with similar visuals, qualities and uses. Separate items get separate pages, it's a simple principle used in countless game-based wikis including this one. So there's no point in going backwards just because the articles are short at the moment. 02:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I don't see how pork and grilled pork could possibly get any more information. Aside from being added to some crafting recipes, there's not much that could change with them. at 00:03, 22 November 2010 (CST)
 * Its not as if the pork and grilled pork pages are tiny. I'd say leave it, but you're the boss. -F1racer101 00:22, 22 November 2010 (CST)
 * They seem pretty small to me. We need a vote. All in favour of merging the pork and grilled pork pages and leaving this one until they have more info, say I. All in favour of leaving the pork and grilled pork pages and splitting this one, say Nay. I at 03:13, 22 November 2010 (CST)
 * I'm in favour of neither, but if I need to give an answer that will arbitrarily apply to both sets of pages, I'd say Nay, Split. You yourself in the above post practically admit that it'll be split later if it gets more info, and it could only get more info, not lose it, so a split in the future (as per the precedence of every item on the wiki having its own page) is practically a given. So what you're trying to achieve now is devolution of the wiki in favour of slightly compulsive wiki maintenance, which I think is wrong. 03:19, 22 November 2010 (CST)
 * I agree with Aclectasis. I'd say "nay" but maybe we should just wait fr more info? -F1racer101 09:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)