Suggested rewording - historyEdit

In 2005, the Fallout wiki was set up by Ausir and DarkUnderlord, and was originally hosted by Duck and Cover, a Fallout fansite at the address, then under the name 'The Vault'. Later, it was moved to a different server, but was still hosted by Taluntain, the host of Duck and Cover, at In 2007, because the original host could no longer take the wiki constantly being targeted for various exploits by spammers as well as other attackers, the Fallout Wiki moved to Wikia, operated independently from any other Fallout website. With the release of Fallout 3 in 2008, The Vault became one of the most popular gaming wikis in the Wikia network, and for a period held the number 1 spot.

In November 2011, the Fallout Wiki (The Vault) brand moved to, hosted by Curse whereas the remaining wiki here became "Nukapedia". Although two wikis were identical at the time of the split, both wikis to create, develop and update articles independently of each other.


The old way made it sound like we're rather static - that we haven't made any changes since the split. Agent c 15:07, March 30, 2012 (UTC)


I've amanged to make contact with Dark Underlord. He's over on RPG codex. He mentions he remembers setting it up, but Ausir took the lead in filling it with content. He doesn't remember too many of the others at the moment, but if I hear more I'll let you all know.

I'd like to suggest the following form for the revamp

  • Before the wiki - The Bibles, the Q+A's etc.
  • After the wiki - Notable users - so Ausir, Porter, Dark Underlord, Jspoel, maybe Gav and some of the other admins who made a major impact... Nominations welcome.
  • Today - I think this is probably where it stands, maybe expanded a bit more on our actions post split.

Any thoughts? Agent c (talk) 11:13, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, the about section is for our wiki's origination. So adding editors that came in afterwords seems a bit inappropriate to me. No offense at all intended for those that would be eligible for such an honour otherwise. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 23:53, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

I still don't really agree with the idea of singling users out like that. Only founders should really be there in my eyes. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 23:54, January 3, 2014 (UTC)
There are other users that have had a bigger effect than the users... As for the Origination... its not, its to describe what its about really... Typically a long credits list in most applications. Agent c (talk) 00:25, January 4, 2014 (UTC)
It is about our wiki's origination. It details when we first came here from D&C, and then details when Nukapedia first originated after The Vault split off from us. Not really sure why there's a list of Bureaucrats there. That's the only section not consistent with the rest of the page. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 00:31, January 4, 2014 (UTC)
The article is "About" Nukapedia. It includes a section titled "History". As far as I'm concerned the article can be expanded to make certain that it completely covers Nukapedia's history, as long as the info added is of encyclopedic value. Only notable things about our history should go in that section. Now, of course, since the page is "about" Nukapedia, it should also contain information that is notable about it's current state, perhaps in a section titled something other than "History". Encyclopedic and notable, that's the threshold. It it meets those thresholds, add whatever you want. We don't need a vote to add content to pages, do we? The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 01:32, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

( I am in favor of expansion, however I do not believe in singling out particular users for their contributions unless they were involved in this wiki's founding. Past users contributions are carried on by their significance & through their recognition by those around now who knew them historically. If we recognize some users, why not recognize them all? After all, everything here is a collective work of many people. Sure, note the founders, but anything else beyond that is inappropriately putting people on a pedestal, to be honest.

As a historian, however, I think there is validity in noting past users who held admin or bureaucrat rights. I would suggest creating an archive for this that can be noted under a 'past administrators' section on the Admin page, but this is not the place to or way to promote the contributions of specific users. FollowersApocalypseLogomorituri te salutamus 03:36, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Follower, this would just end in a fiasco of debate about who -or who not- appears on this page if we based user listings on contributions, needless to say how we would format such a user list in to the current structure of the article without it looking like a cheap ego-stroking routine. Users involved in major wiki changes (such as the founding and split) are of course needed, they are proponents of change and define our history. Neko-signature Archmage NekoNeko's Haunt 14:35, January 4, 2014 (UTC)
Above comments pretty much sum up what I think - it would be nice to credit people like but there would be squabbles over who is important enough; the easy rule of thumb is just "founders" but considering the split was a large part of our history then maybe some users heavily involved with that should be mentioned. Having an archive of past admins/bcrats wouldn't be something I am 100% against but it shouldn't be on the Admin page, as that is to let us know who is active and useful. As a whole, I don't really see the point in saying "X, Y and Z used to be admins" but I wouldn't have a breakdown if it was implemented. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 15:02, January 4, 2014 (UTC)
I am in agreement with Follower and Jasper. We really don't need to single out individuals unless they were founders or if they were heavily involved in the split. ---bleep196- (talk) 15:41, January 4, 2014 (UTC)
Any page for past rights holders can simply be added as a subpage to the admin page. Easily done. I don't see any reasonable reason why this couldn't be accomplished. As for anyone who is mentioned on the about page, the threshold is "notability". Certainly, the folks who started this are notable. Possibly, some of the folks who picked up the pieces after the split (a notable event) may be notable (but frankly much less so than those who founded the site). About the only other person I would consider notable would be Porter, based on the fact that about 90% of the templates we use were built by him. That's a fairly notable contribution, in that context only. Of course, you can, and many will disagree, but that's my two centavos. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 17:35, January 4, 2014 (UTC)
What's wrong with adding a few names, if they were involved in key events? Ausir and Porter are notable for sure. If it weren't have been for the split, hardly anyone else was notable. But it happened, and Kingclyde came forward to take on the leading role as bureaucrat. He may not have edited much, but at the end of 2011/beginning 2012 he played an important role. And (ok I toot my own horn once) I was the only edit-admin left and for 2 months made sure the content stayed intact while we built the pieces up again. Counts for a good deal I think. And I'd nominate Agent c as well. He was the one with the emergency broadcast which was the start of the way up again and the one responsible for the start of new and improved community events in the past 2 years which have kept us at the top level wikis. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 17:51, January 4, 2014 (UTC)
For me, it's because this is an encyclopedia. We're supposed to celebrate the information - not the individuals out of an entire community that helped create that information. To me, it seems a bit... droll, to put individuals up on a pedestal when it's the fact that a collective community of hundreds of thousands of editors are the reason why the wiki is what it is today. Porter is the only exception I can think of besides Ausir, since Porter is responsible for how our wiki operates even today. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 18:04, January 4, 2014 (UTC)
Well in the case of this article, the information in question is about the wiki itself, and that includes the individuals who have created and maintained it. If we do the proper "encyclopedic" thing here, we will add all pertinent notable information to the article that relates to it's remit, in the specific case we're discussing here, that being the site's history. Again, note that I said "pertinent" and "notable". Everything in this article should be able to pass our notability guidelines. (Hm. Do we have any? Well, if not, then pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines, I guess). To have an article on the wiki and have it not completely cover it's subject, regardless the subject, is just as bad as having an article on the wiki that has information that is not notable or germane. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 18:40, January 4, 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps that we can only think of Ausir and Porter is a reason why we need this. One of the other early people from glancing at the talk pages seems to be responsible for the way a lot of things look... Seems like a good thing find out. Agent c (talk) 22:49, January 4, 2014 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea. I think it'd be interesting as hell to dig into our history more, and learn of those that helped shape Nukapedia. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 03:03, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

( So... I was bored one evening and I did this. I have a comprehensive list of all founders, former bureaucrats, and former administrators, as well as their respective fates (resigned, inactive, etc.). There were lots of former admins that Ausir gave rights to because they were Duck and Cover admins, and it seems he didn't give continuance to their rights once The Vault moved over to Wikia in 2007. In addition, many of the rights were given out without community approval, just at Ausir's discretion (from what I could find, Crazy sam10 was the wiki's first elected administrator, and GhostAvatar was the first elected bureaucrat). Anyways, the complete archive can be found here. Feel free to create a page for it in the mainspace if everyone feels like it is something to be included. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  07:30, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

That goes to show it was a different time, right? Ausir handing out rights as his discretion. I remember reading a blog on him declaring handing out bc rights to Porter, no questions asked. Those were the days (anyone wanting to reinstate that kind of power to bcs? ;)). I'm not that impressed about those old bureaucrats other then Ausir and Porter. Some of them did some work at the beginning but have done so little they're down to 0 edits(!). Checked all admins, I consider none of them mentionable for the about page, or it would have to be Tagaziel/Itachou for their work on important content and Mirar did a little bit of template work. All in all though I'd leave it at Ausir and Porter, and people playing important roles around the time of the split. My 2 cents. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 16:56, January 7, 2014 (UTC)
It should be noted that edits were not tracked until The Vault moved to wikia in 2007, so that zero edit count is a bit misleading. I reiterate that I think an archive like this is the best way to recognize former extra-rights holders, but I wouldn't be dissatisfied with J's inclusions based on notability. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  02:28, January 8, 2014 (UTC)