Forum:Canonicity of the Afterward

Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Canonicity of the Afterward

Yesterday, a page was created, Afterward, that's from a section in the back of the Collector's Edition of the Fallout 3 guide and mentions events taking place 20 years after the main story of the game. The content from this page was then added to a variety of pages, including Lone Wanderer, Moira Brown, Megaton, Timeline, etc. Ignoring for now the fact that this was apparently taken from the Vault without credit, are we sure that this info is completely canon and should be added to the articles as if it is?

For one, we've never considered the guides "completely canon", since it's often contradicting the game itself and is written before the game is even completed. If we're careful with information from the guides pertaining to minor backgrounds and unmarked quest names, shouldn't we be even more careful with something as large as this?

Secondly, even if it were hypothetically canon at the time of Fallout 3's release, are we sure its canon as of now? Since Fallout 3 came out, Broken Steel was released which changed the canon, making it so the Lone Wanderer doesn't die in one main ending and releasing a new set of guides which do not have this Afterward. Heck, the Afterward even refers to the Lone Wanderer only in past tense ("knew him", "whether the Wanderer was a man or a woman") making you wonder if the Afterward assumes they died in the Purifier.

Anyway, to the point. I believe this content should not be added to the articles as if it is full canon. If not removed, it should at least have some kind of content warning. Anyone wish to discuss? Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 18:25, July 23, 2014 (UTC)

The FO3 strategy guides were co-authored by the writers of the Fallout 3 themselves, including the man mostly behind the main quest itself, Brian Chapin. So I don't think we get to choose to go back and forth drawing straws with what we think is or isn't canon in this case.

When the writers are involved in a source, it's canon, as far as I'm concerned. Afterward leaves it open to interpretation for possibly the first time in the entire series, which makes our role as editors simple for once in this instance...

We have something conclusive for a change, and I for one am grateful for that. Now we don't have to waste time pointlessly and endlessly bickering about at least one aspect of Fallout... 18:41, July 23, 2014 (UTC)

Before anyone wants to ask my opinion of this, I'm sure you can understand I'm staying well-enough the fuck away from these types of things, just throwing that out there. As for it being "taken from the Vault without credit", let's be honest, does anyone really give a shit? Don't even try to pretend that you all do, just don't. Let's look at it for a second by the way, none of the content on our Afterward page was copied at all. We're competing wikis covering the exact same topic, if one wiki covers a new subject, does that then immediately outlaw us from covering the subject ourselves? No, as competing wikis, this is what should be expected. It's something that also makes the concept of the split even more pointless and directionless.   OfficialLolGuy  Talk  Blog  18:44, July 23, 2014 (UTC)

1. Unfortunately, the guides are semi-canon, meaning its info is to be considered canon until contradicted. This is backed up by our policies which states the same.
2. If the DLCs contradicted any information found in the vanilla guides, then that information is rendered null.
3. Any article that is created solely through the use of the PSGs, should be noted for their semi-canonicity, just as we do with other semi-canon sources such as Fallout Tactics. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 18:40, July 23, 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, that reminds me, would someone please explain to me what the hell semi-canon actually is, how it works, etc? 18:44, July 23, 2014 (UTC)

In the case of the PSGs, they are semi-canon because they were created before the games were ever finished. This has led to a lot of false information, and information that never actually appeared in the games themselves, without confirmation of dev involvement in that information's creation. When it comes to other games... I have no real answer for you. I personally consider it biased as hell to just instantly assume games like Fallout Tactics are wholly semi-canon. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 18:49, July 23, 2014 (UTC)

I consider the term 'semi-canon' to be non-existent and inherently oxymoronic, quite frankly. Either something is canon, or it isn't, this isn't supposed to be rocket science. Wouldn't you agree? 18:54, July 23, 2014 (UTC)

"Ignoring for now the fact that this was apparently taken from the Vault without credit"

Furthermore, why is this even relevant for any other reason at all, but to take unprofessional (and unbecoming for an admin) jabs and passive-aggressive potshots at skillful editors minding their own business and making consistently valuable contributions, in the evident hopes of stirring up childish drama...? 18:51, July 23, 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we should note that it comes from the Afterward, similar to how we do for Wild Wasteland or Cut Content. Just have a little template that says "the following is blah blah blah" JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 19:25, July 23, 2014 (UTC)

I'm in favour of a new template to indicate the possible contradiction of canon - ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 20:13, July 23, 2014 (UTC)

Changed my mind a bit, I've just realised this was the Collector's Edition, when the game first came out, I was thinking it was the Game of the Year edition with the DLC for some reason, not sure why. But yeah, I'd agree with a Wild Wasteland type notice template. I'll go ahead and make one, see what everyone thinks of it.   OfficialLolGuy  Talk  Blog  14:46, July 24, 2014 (UTC)

How's this? Template:Afterward Template:Afterward   OfficialLolGuy  Talk  Blog  19:06, July 24, 2014 (UTC)

Just realized eh? I can see you didn't get it yourself then. Nice to know that you just don't care either.--Ant2242 (talk) 19:19, July 24, 2014 (UTC)

What in the world are you going on about, Ant? ^{Some Assembly Required!} 19:22, July 24, 2014 (UTC)

That he didn't aquire it himself and he didn't care HOW he got it.--Ant2242 (talk) 19:26, July 24, 2014 (UTC)

Then that needs to brought up elsewhere. It is not relevant here, as we are discussing canon. If there is an issue with how information has been obtained, then an Administrator needs to be gone to, or a separate forum needs to be created to address the issue in a more proper setting. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 19:29, July 24, 2014 (UTC)

Whilst Ant you are hardly one to claim the moral high ground when it comes to plagiarism, I invite you to contact me directly with any claim of, and evidence of, plagiarism so I may remove the offending content immediately and deal with the persons responsible.

As for the page, it either should be removed immediately, or with appropriate attribution given in line as Tagaziel has requested in the past.

And Lolguy, for the record, I give a shit. Anyone caught plagiarising will be banned. Agent c (talk) 22:49, July 24, 2014 (UTC) (←) 

Now hold on a minute before anyone feels their feathers are ruffled. It's just data we are talking about here. Not self created and original content from TV. Just some text taken from the back of a guide. We try to make our wiki the best it can be and we are allowed to add such a note. Maybe a reference to the guide, but that's it. No need to accuse anyone of plagiarism as far as I can see. So everyone calm down, ok? Jspoel 23:05, July 24, 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it a just direct quote from the guide? Nether us nor The Vault have ownership of direct quotes. Had Tag put it in to his own words when he made the page I would agree that we should change it, however, he did not thus no one can claim we're plagiarizing The Vault. Now, can we please move back to the subject at hand?

We already treat the GG as "semi-cannon" which, as Leon pointed out is "cannon until proven otherwise" thus it is still true that it "has not been confirmed by canon sources" and might contradict future canon, so IMHO it should be noted. Wild Wasteland would be considered semi-canon and we note that, after all. The template that lolguy has given us (thanks for that Mr Guy) would work nicely. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 23:13, July 24, 2014 (UTC)

Hm, I cannot say that the page is unnecessary. Parts of it could've been changed, so I managed to do some tweaks. Now, don't make any unneeded hostilites. Energy X 10:29, July 25, 2014 (UTC)

My only real issue with this is using the information presented in the Afterward as the basis and reference for various articles. Mainly due to the fact that the Afterward itself seems to suggest that the truth is in doubt due to conflicting stories. IMO using it as the basis of fact when it's presented in a manner (as I see it at least) where what is the actual truth is in doubt rather limits its use, even as far as saying Burke killed Lucas Simms, given the way Harden Simms' statement seems to be rather offhandedly ignored by the author as if it didn't happen or that it is merely the ravings of someone who's had a bit too much to drink, nor does the Afterward spell out just how the LW got Lucas killed. But hey, that's just my 15.5 cents worth. Richie9999 (talk) 03:55, August 29, 2014 (UTC)

I like the template idea. And also that the article itself is so conflicting, I mean, why would Moira be considered the only one with a viable memory, and immune to wild fantasies like the wastelanders' memories she writes about? Leea (talk) 11:45, August 29, 2014 (UTC)