This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes.
Forums:Index > Wiki discussion > Referencing - Changing the way we do things (IMPORTANT)
Note: Reference policy has changed as of 2021, included former "Fallout Bible reference guide by subject" here for archival purposes
Hi Folks,
As a lot of you know theres been a lot of talk about referencing lately... This forum is to look at improvements. I've been talking about this a lot, especially with The Ever Ruler, and what were proposing in some ways is well overdue, but it is also transformative in the way we do what we do.
Some of the things here I'm suggesting are specific changes, others are more discussions format stuff. What I'd like to do is see if we can get absolutely consensus on some things to avoid the need for a vote, and only vote on those things we absolutely have to.
I want to stress that this is proposing some major transformative changes as to how the wiki works, and how you as an editor contribute. I encourage everyone to give this your full attention.
Where are we now?[]
To be absolutely frank our standard of referencing at the moment is very low. We have pages full of unverified facts and claims, and in some cases we have merely Ausir's word that an email conversation took place and that a fact was said in it - we have no idea as to the context, or if anything surrounded it that might give further clarification on what was said.
For an encyclopaedia to truly be an encyclopaedia it must be authoritative - that means every single fact must be verifiable, and traced back to some source.
Where should we be?[]
Take a look at this paragraph I've sampled from Tardis Data Core - The Doctor Who Wiki, from the Article on the Doctor himself.
Although he had saved millions on his travels, he was thought to have caused the deaths of billions at his conclusion to the Last Great Time War. (TV: Dalek) Though most of the Daleks were killed in the crossfire, Gallifrey — disappearing, rather than being burned — was hidden thanks to the efforts of all thirteen of his incarnations, eleven of these incarnations whose memories of this event were lost. (TV: The Day of the Doctor) Several individuals, including Jabe, (TV: The End of the World) Brother Lassar, (TV: School Reunion) the Beast (TV: The Satan Pit) and the Doctor himself prior to the eleventh incarnation to go by that name, (TV: The End of the World, The Day of the Doctor) considered the Time Lords to be extinct as well.
Here you'll see an excellent example of "in line referencing". The facts given are traced to the "stories" where they come from - if you want to check that the Doctor thought himself responsible for the death of Billions in the great time war, you need load up the TV episode "Dalek" (or its script) and check for yourself. If you look through that article further, or indeed any article on that wiki, you'll see this level of referencing on almost every article - almost every single fact given is traced to an episode, book, or other accepted canonical item.
This is the level our wiki should be, if not better!
How do we get there?[]
This isn't something thats just for the scope of a project, or even a group of projects. This is a transformative change on how we do what we do. It will change how we patrol, how we create articles, and how we edit. It will expand what we cover, and make some items that we do have more accessible.
Working with Primary Sources[]
Primary sources are where our facts come from. They are the games (including dialogue files), Bibles, Developer statements, manuals, and to a certain extent game guides. We have some of these on the wiki, but many are in a non accessible format - you may not know what you are looking for or even that we have it.
In more cases, we don't have it. We don't have dialogue files for Fallout 3 and New Vegas (Yet), we don't have copies of developer statements locally.
These both need to change.
We also need a system for determining the reliability of statements.
I intend creating a new section on the wiki, a reference section - suggestions for a more Fallouty name are most welcome. This should contain every possible source document we can reasonably and legally get our hands on and put on the wiki.
It isn't enough that we simply have these documents though. They need to be accessible and in a manner so that you can find what you want.
Subject Indexes for Source texts[]
You can see Fallout_Bible_reference_guide_by_subject|Here a work in progress on what I hope will be the first of these subject indexes. Here for the first 4 Fallout Bibles by Chris Avellone (and bits of the others), I have pulled out the "Facts" provided, and told you which bible its from. If I have been able to confirm or refute the fact given immediately, I've also noted this. This gives us a ready guide of facts that can be slotted in, and allows easier use of the bibles in the future to refute or confirm facts on content - rather than just loading them all and reading until you eventually get the bit you were looking for.
It is my intention that subject Index Guides will be made for Dialgoue Files, Design documents, and other items as we can.
This is a mammoth task on its own. I won't pretend otherwise, but I think its essential for the further steps to move us to where we need to be, and to help in ensuring we stay there.
Collecting and storing other primary source information[]
On many pages (including perhaps ironically the Fallout canon page), you'll find information that has been added to the wiki by Ausir following an email with a developer.
If you take a look at the conversation between Ant and Ausir on The Vault here (Ausir) and here (Ant), you'll see the scope of the problem - Ausir doesn't even have the primary source for many of these anymore... We don't know what was said, what context it was said in, or even really if it was said at all (just his word).
I don't think there will be many who will disagree when I say that this is simply not acceptable. For our information to be reliable, it has to be verifiable, and none of that information is verifiable at all - even if Ausir would talk to us, he doesn't even know where it came from anymore.
I don't want to go down the Wikipedia route of saying "No Original Research" - that isn't the way we do business - we have direct access to source documents and sometimes developers so it only makes sense to use them, however we do need to ensure that from now on any developer answer to questions that is not in a public place is placed onto the wiki in its original form (PDF, JPEG screenshot, etc).
This will require the developer to confirm that they are happy for the email/PM/letter/fax/telegram/parchment be placed (either in whole or in part if necessary) onto the wiki before it can be used. It should then be added to any relevant subject guide.
Gaging "Reliability"[]
As Fallout is a video game, with an ever changing and evolving lore, we have to be mindful that things change. What a developer says on one game about future intentions may not be true for the next developer.
Some have even heard me say in Chat that it is the released games, and the games only that makes the Canon. Anything that appeared in some other form first is only canon because a game made it so - and in some cases games have unmade those statements (a good example is Chris Avellone's claims in the Bible that there are no more Psykers after Fallout 1/2 - the Forecaster in New Vegas breaks this rule).
Whilst out of game information is useful commentary - and if it speaks to the development process is absolutely authoritative - for the game, they exist in some limbo.
This also is an issue for in game statements - there is a character in Fallout 2's Vault 13 who says that the Brotherhood of Steel were probably destroyed and that the Marioposa Military Base is probably what is left of them - the game itself shows this statement to be false, not all character statements are truth (just the truth as the character knows it).
For this reason, when taking these statements, I propose we institute a "traffic light" system for statements. it works like this.
"Green" - A green stated fact is undisputed truth. It can be demonstrated by actual in game events or status in game, by another character corroborating the fact, or where a character or person speaks to things that they are an absolute authority on. Examples:
Marcus is an absolute authority on his own history, so his comments on his involvement in the founding on Broken Hills get green status.
Chris Avellone is an Absolute Authority on the Fallout 2 Development Process. When he says Fallout 1/2 is not in the Wasteland series timeline (and vice versa) it gets green status.
In the Fallout Bibles Chris Avellone says there is an Easter egg in New Reno. You can verify it yourself in game, and thus is green.
"Red" - Red stated facts are not facts, or are unreliable. They are either incorrect statements in game (perhaps intentionally placed to mislead the character) or have later been corrected. Examples:
The existence of the Forecaster disproves the Fallout Bible claim that Psykers no longer exist.
The claim that the intelligence gene for intelligent deathclaws is "Male specific and dominant" is disproven by an intelligent female deathclaw in Vault 13 (it can however be dominant).
"Amber" - Everything in between. Either the fact has not yet been corroborated because no information has been found or linked to corroborate it... No Corroboration is available, or the statement otherwise doesn't fit into green or red status.
This would have an effect on how we do articles. Anything with Green status can be stated as a matter of fact with no further explanation (except for a reference tag). Amber items can only be stated with appropriate language (According to X in Y.... etc), and Red items included with language that makes it clear that this is no longer a fact, and what information contradicts it.
The R/A/G status would appear in the subject index, along with corroborating/contradicting information.
Working with Articles[]
This would change how we deal with articles. We would in principle not allow unverified facts to be included in articles, and would transform them over time to remove as many unverified facts as possible.
Why is this important? Well a few months ago, an eagle eyed visitor spotted that one page had the Vipers engaging in activity before another page claimed they left Vault 15. Whilst if I recall correctly The Ever Ruler was able to clear this up, it took hours of research to locate the original source for both facts, and to amend them.
This is clearly a major transformative change.
Addition of new unverified facts[]
I propose that when new facts are added to articles, an appropriate template is added to them - either by the contributor, or if left off, by the person patrolling the edit.
This would work similar to bug verification - if a fact is not verified to an original source document in a certain period of time, it is removed (or ideally at expiry confirmed if possible). Editors looking for edits could be directed to that report as a source of good clean edits.
Interim/Short Term Referencing[]
The next stage would be a short term form of referencing, for when the original source document is not (yet) available. This should only be accepted for in game information - anything out of game should be added either to the wiki, or the original website linked.
The reference should state the Character's name, and the game name. ideally the full line of text should be included as well.
In time these would be replaced with links to the dialogue files instead.
Long term referencing[]
In the long term, we need an official referencing format. At the moment between ever and myself we have two different forms of referencing going on. This needs to be resolved into one formal official standard for the wiki.
One format has the link to the dialogue file, who said it, and the line number for the item. e.g: "Marcus Dialogue File, line 356" or the section heading for other files e.g. "Richard Grey audio diary at 0058-0096".
The other format has the entire line included as well in the reference, and the file name: e.g. - VICENCOM.MSG:{240}{}{From what you can make out in the archives, two G.E.C.K's were part of every Vault's standard inventory package. Only one was shipped to Vault 8, however.} {241}{}{Cross-reference the G.E.C.K shipment information.} {244}{}{Due to a shipping error, it appears Vault 8 received a box of surplus water chips intended for another Vault. The other Vault most likely received Vault 8's second G.E.C.K.}
We need to agree on a common format before we go on, otherwise there will be more work created down the line. One is concise but directs to the source, the other is the directions and the item itself. In principle I don't think either is majorly advantageous or disadvantageous over the other - one stops pages getting overwhelmed, the other is instantly verifiable, we just need to make a collective decision.
The third option is, like the Tardis wiki, to use in line referencing. I do not believe this to be a good idea as a general rule it distracts from the flow of articles; however there are some times where it is appropriate (see the Amber reliability information as to a good example).
Grandfathering existing content[]
Possibly the greatest hurdle to making this change is the huge bulk of work already on the wiki. Some of it, like developer comments, is going to be difficult to reference - some sites have gone, some links are dead, and then there is the issue of Ausir's self referencing.
We need to decide on a common policy to deal with this. Removing content should be our last resort if at all possible, but ultimately any unverified content detracts from the whole.
Conclusion[]
I don't think I'm under any illusion as to how much this is going to take. Its a major change in how we think and act to add stuff, and a major project in changing our legacy content over that will likely require a stream of projects.
However, I think the change is a necessary one, and hope you all agree.
The Ever Ruler's input[]
I am speaking for myself here with Chad's consent. I'm going to keep things short by proposing my solutions to the problems outlined and why it works.
To start off I will give my answer to the important question, "What things require citations... and how many things?"
My answer mirrors that found on Wikipedia's policies, which is to only add citations to controversial knowledge that is contested by users or is blatantly incorrect. Everything else -could- benefit from a citation but those can be addressed over a long period of time.
The Goal of the Citation Project[]
The ultimate goal of the project is to bring awareness to the concept of citing claims and references and making it a definitive, standardized, and streamlined process that new users can pick up easily and new claims can be cited as they are made.
This is to avoid the fact that legacy content that has been on this wiki since it's creation is often incorrect and stated matter-of-factly without bothering to explain how.
The short-term goal of the project is to cite controversial knowledge that is either unverifiable, contradicted, or just plain incorrect.
The facts and claims the project will target are claims that usually surround factions, timelines, leaders of factions, endslides, and pages depicting lore (like radiation, mutation, wars, etc.). These pages will be targeted by user discretion perhaps with a list constructed.
The style I propose was developed upon consulting all of Wikipedia's Citation page starting around its information on text-source integrity (Overall the entire purpose of citing things in the first place) and ending around citation bundling.
From there it goes on to topics on bundling, line-breaks and bullet points & footnotes, and house styles.
I would read up a little upon those things so I can best depict my style to you.
The style I advocate is one that minimizes article clutter and maximizes citation fact-checking capabilities at the expense of reference section clutter.
What I propose is that at the end of every paragraph of claims (if the paragraph contains one sentence or one claim, that's perfectly acceptable) exists a single reference number (Ex. [1], [2], [3]).
When this reference number is clicked on/invoked, it will show up in the references header at the bottom, bringing the reader to the sources that verify the claim and is given information as to how and where they can find it. As an example, here's a citation for a paragraph with a total of four claims and two sources that provide support for various claims in the paragraph:
Each claim doesn't need to be addressed or corroborated in any particular order, but to make it systematic, sources should be in the order the claims are addressed. In this instance Source two goes second (last) because it's the only one that addresses the last claim. Likewise, Source one goes first because it addresses claim two, which is closer to the front of the paragraph. If sources address the same number or claims, alphabetical order is suggested.
Ultimately, the order of sources and the claims (in article and in footnote) are arbitrary and could be organized at any later date so long as the footnote is proper. If the footnote is proper, then each claim is detailed and can correspond with however a user changes the format or wording of an article.
A footnote should contain a short quip describing what claim it addresses/proves, and where such proof can be found in the source it's listed underneath. If it's listed in multiple areas of the same source, each area should be noted in the same line-break alongside the claim it supports.
Each source should be listed without a line-break with a colon after it. In situations where it may apply, some information about the source after the colon may benefit the clarity of the source (such as in infoboxes).
This way each claim in a paragraph gets addressed source by source, making fact-checking streamlined and easy for any reader or editor to do. Citing the end of paragraphs also makes the number of citations fewer at the expense of the footnote being longer. Paragraphs should generally be short enough to where footnotes aren't overloaded but exceptions may exist at which point citing each individual sentence where a citation applies may be in order.
This means that a source may be used several times in a reference section underneath several claims. This is because the style I propose puts fact-checking as a higher-priority than reference section clutter. The article clutter remains unchanged (and I would argue actually lessened than connecting each source to each claim it supports) all at the expense of the reference section.
Given how each citation can be invoked upon clicking the number, I figured clutter in the reference section was less of a problem to wade through than in the article where such precision is not found.
A couple more things[]
The exposition paragraph at the beginning of every article shouldn't contain any citations. Citations that are applicable to the first paragraph will most likely apply to the background section that follows in most if not all of our articles.
In some articles, citations won't even be needed, but a references section might apply.
The ultimate purpose are the footnotes. They allow for easy fact checking (Which I would argue is the entire point of citing anything in the first place) that's optimized for our wiki's information and sources of information. If we ever need to change the wording or format of an article's information, the fact-checking is absolutely vital in knowing what, where, and how a source might apply and how it should be changed to fit the edit perfectly.
Keeping it systematic will also help new editors get a good idea at how our claims work and when Fallout 4 inevitably comes out, we can hopefully cite every single claim as we make them.
To egg on why we need to do this, our information will be clearer, more factual, and far more professional.
C again. Look, I know this is a massive thread. But it is a big deal, and changes a lot about what we do. I know its a lot to take in, and comment on. I'll try to create subject headings later to reflect comments coming in and move em around to keep issues together. Please do let us know your comments, queries, concerns and suggestions so we can make the transformative change that is needed the right way. Agent c (talk) 22:33, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
Comments[]
Long forum is going to entail long responses, so apologies if I ramble on a little too much here, but I want to try and touch on as many of the points as I can.
I completely agree that our standard of referencing is way below what it should be. TARDIS is an excellent example of what we should strive for, and as well as the major articles at Wookieepedia, who also utilize templates for references I think we could implement successfully. As for the Fallouty name for the reference section, how about the Goodsprings source? Get it? Source? Ahem.
In terms of working with articles, in my opinion this is where we have to be careful. It must be made known that this is a long-term project, and as such, editors can't be reverting good faith edits based on the fact the information is unverified and policy dictates such - this will require a lot more communication with new editors, as well as the use of talk pages for adding new information, so it can be discussed and potentially verified. While the template is a good placeholder, I think active discussion between the people who discovered the fact and those attempting to verify will serve us better in the long run.
As for the method of referencing, in-line citations simply aren't appropriate for our wiki. They work at TARDIS because their content is subdivided into series and episodes, of which there are many - for our wiki, with 6 games released and a few cancelled, this would be rather redundant to cite every fact back to a rather large base game. Thus, in my opinion, footnotes or endnotes would be the best solution. My worry is that large articles would become far too long with multiple references. Again, we can look to Wookieepedia and their use of footnotes as a possible solution.
You mentioned interim citing for things we do not yet have the source information. I do not think that this is a good idea. It will cause more problems than it will solve, and add more initial work and take people's focus away from what really needs to be done - add all source documents to the wiki. Until we have the ability to do it properly, it shouldn't be done at all.
As a historian, grandfathering content is acceptable, as long as we note that the source material no longer exists. I don't see a reason to remove said information, especially since it was originally added by a user in good standing. However, we can't allow this in the future, everything must be based on sources that actually exist.
Anyways, those are my thoughts. A Follower Talk 21:44, January 14, 2014 (UTC)
I was going to write a longer comment, but... Follower just about covered all of my thoughts. So aside from that, all I have to state is that this will be one of the most important projects we'll undertake here at Nukapedia. Since our creation, we have been setting an excellent foundation, and it has resulted in one of the best gaming wikis out there. But our structural integrity is still weak in many places, and this is one of those projects that will aim to secure and improve our information. Some Assembly Required! 21:54, January 14, 2014 (UTC)
The only subject I'd like to tackle that deviates from Follower's is that I'm not a supporter of original research. I believe in trust, but as an encyclopedia, trust means nothing concerning our information. What our wiki requires is the hard facts. Unverifiable information is counter-intuitive. Some Assembly Required! 21:56, January 14, 2014 (UTC)
I figured most of the controversial information (the stuff surrounding factions, lore, the timeline, etc) were the things that needed immediate attention, the long standing information that provides helpful insight to the games specifics can remain without removal or citations (in most cases to provide one is unrealistic).
With that said, no one has to worry about "Citing everything under the sun!" as that is both unnecessary and unrealistic. But we cannot allow -anything- that is either controversial or original research.
The only thing worse than no citations are -BAD- citations, and that's what original research is. It's a claim that's either cited with a source that does not state the same thing the claim does and yet the claim itself is overlooked just because it has a citation, or it's simply controversial information. A confrontational (yet helpful and applicable) example of this is the infamous Eminence Gris citation over on the Vault wiki. Though Chris Avellone did not say Eminence Gris was a term that did not apply to the Enclave, he -never- said it did apply and yet the claim it's attached to asserts otherwise.
One thing I absolutely agree with is the compilation of all of our source material, notably Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas dialogue. Once we get those, we can start in earnest on our newer/current material. If anyone has any suggestions how to do that, start another forum discussion about it and post it here. I fear it might bog this one down (even further). --The Ever Ruler (talk) 23:12, January 14, 2014 (UTC)
And before you dismiss parenthetical citations, I had an idea of where they might fit in articles. On wikis like UESP they often have citations of, "Events of Skyrim" or "Events of Oblivion" for all the vague facts and claims that, though are true, are impossible to really prove with any source other than the raw game itself.
I feel that if we used citations like that, people might see them and write vague descriptions on the footnotes of other citations which is both undesirable and counter-productive. Instead, we could have something like, (Events of Fallout 2) in place of all of our "In 2241 - 2242"s on our Fallout 2 articles for example.
Keep in mind that this is the only place they would have as any links to main quests of these games in relation to the article would suffice. Our articles may not even need citations like these but I simply DO NOT wish to have citations like, "Events of Fallout 3" as a footnote as I feel it would set a bad example for what I argue footnotes ought to be. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 23:12, January 14, 2014 (UTC)
The in-line citations would work if we were citing something smaller than a complete vanilla game, as I said above. I actually don't like the in-line citations on UESP, because in order for you to self-verify that fact you would need to complete 100% of the vanilla game to find it - it's not specific enough. With a TV show, you could cite an episode and then watch the episode to self verify, taking an hour at most. It's just too big of a game to do that for. A Follower Talk 23:39, January 14, 2014 (UTC)
If there is no existing source to cite for your edit, maybe you just want to include some supporting evidence as an attachment to the change log/edit history? In the interest of avoiding formal citations for everything, shouldn't there be some way to include notes about your edit that are not displayed in the actual content? See Forum:How_to_correct_WIKI?Bheimbaugh (talk) 01:14, March 1, 2014 (UTC)
Reference Library[]
I've created the foundation of the Reference Library Portal. It now just needs filling out, creating and linking index files, etc. The Headings can be expanded later as we find new ways to make content accessible. Agent c (talk) 21:24, January 19, 2014 (UTC)
Archived Bible reference guide by subject[]
Reference guide
This page catalogs the information provided in the Fallout Bible series, created by Chris Avellone during the development of Van Buren.
Status - This includes statements including all of Bibles 1-4, 7, and 8 and parts of 5.
Scott Bennie (quoted) is an absolute authority on his own history
Scot Bennie got into the RPG industry through Dragon Magazine, is Canadian, worked on Lord of the Rings, Castles, Stopekeep II, and many of Interplay’s star Trek games (including Starfleet Academy)
Scott Bennie (quoted) is an absolute authority on how own history
Scott Bennie designed a different introduction involving a person ranting about his ancestors, After War never changes was decided upon instead it was supposed to appear in game said by a barfly, but got lost
The farmer in the first Horrigan "Foreshadowing encounter" had Enclave/Brotherhood/FEV knowledge, was complicit in the Redding miner enslavement or knew the Location of Vault 13
Nothing in canon to prove, or disprove this. There have been no other signs of Super Mutants becoming fertile, but no continued corroboration post Fallout 1 that the original strain mutants cannot become fertile.
FEV enhances fertility in some creatures - specifically Mantii and Giant Rats
Fallout 3 and Fallout Tactics would suggest that FEV is not required for Ghoulification due to distance from West Tek. It is possible that Necropolis Ghouls have been exposed to some degree.
Richard Moreau confirmed as a vault exile in Fallout 2[6]. Richard Grey confirmed as being with Harold in a military base with FEV believed to be Mariposa in Fallout 1. Proof linking names is missing.
Computer in shot during talking head, and talks with digitised voice. Neurolink possibility confirmed in Richard Grey's audio diary at 0154 - 0172</ref>
Limited mention post Fallout 1. The ending slide of Fallout 1 usually results in the death of all Ghouls, however this is thought to be a bug and is contradicted by Fallout 2.
Fallout 3 and Fallout Tactics would suggest that FEV is not required for Ghoulification due to distance from West Tek. It is possible that Necropolis Ghouls have been exposed to some degree.
"there may have been a handful wandering around in Old Town" "The ending (suggesting this) is more appropriate if you just mentally change the word "ghouls" to "skags." Basically, peace and harmony reign supreme. It's possible several ghouls traveled to the Hub during the Migration after they formed their engineering development house in Necropolis.
Somewhat confirmed by Razlo in Fallout 1 who is unable to determine the origin on their mutations, except to say they are "large versions of the American Emperor Scorpion"[9].
Full quotes:"and Vault-Tec was commissioned to build only 122 such Vaults" ... "Rumour is there were 122 different vault experiments" Depending on whether you count control vaults as an experiment, this may be a contradiction (with Vault 8) and further contradicted in later games.
Richard Moreau confirmed as a vault exile in Fallout 2[10]. Richard Grey confirmed as being with Harold in a military base with FEV believed to be Mariposa in Fallout 1. Proof linking names is missing.
Rather than taking sympathy on the poor souls that have come to Vault City for protection, she has instead taken the view that these "outlanders" were simply not strong or smart enough to achieve what Vault City has, and thus, are inferior
Potential Westin relationship confirmed in Fallout 2 ending slides. Previous relationships unknown and not likely knowable.
Lynette cut endgame Dialogue - McClure became president, Lynette became an honorary council member, and was responsible for legislation between NCR and Vault City.
In order the study the effects of radiation on the selected population, the Vault Door was designed not to close. This is the Necropolis Vault... and the ghouls were the result.
Intended to stay closed for 200 years as a study of prolonged isolation, the broken water chip forced the Overseer to improvise and use the Vault Dweller as a pawn. Later study of the Vault 13 records by the Enclave led them to their current plan to end the war.
Intended to stay closed for 50 years and include people of radically diverse ideologies. Gathered from what you hear from Aradesh in Fallout 1, he has quite a bit of multi-cultural flavoring to his speech.
Bible cites Chris Taylor on Vault13.net (defunct). No number present on this vault in Fallout.
Off Screen vaults[]
Statement
Bible
Status
Notes
Vault 27 would be overcrowded deliberately. 2000 people would be assigned to enter, double the total sustainable amount. The location of this Vault is unknown.
No one in Vault 29 was over the age of 15 when they entered. Parents were redirected to other Vaults on purpose. Harold is believed to have come from this Vault.
Most of the equipment in Vault 53 was designed to break down every few months. While repairable, the breakdowns were intended to stress the inhabitants unduly.
Tim Cain hated Dr Wu and insisted his speech be toned down away from obscenities. Although this was done, the revised version of the dialogue did not make it in game.
As Chris Avellone is no longer in charge of the franchise or its development, any information would have to come from future games or subsequent developer information.
- As the burrows is a cut location, the content here is to be treated as RED for all in game canon purposes. Green And Amber ratings refer only to development decisions, or to the Canon as it would have applied had this location not been cut.
The encounter with the Jackals divided the community between those who became den-dwellers and prioritised security, with the more technological inclined staying in adobe buildings
The Glow” gets its name from an original survivor of the Glow heading back to the location and turning back after all he could see was a great big glow
Design Document included in Bible 7 (Probable typo as prior to burrows setup date and great war, should be 2150?)
A number of “Top Dwelling” Slanter left the village to the glow and al but 1 died there in 2061 , the survivor reported “there are no gods, only death”
The Jungle contains traps. This will results in the player being ambushed by den dwellers and then assisted by tip dwellers, and eventually stopped by Rinar
Barstow/Bakersfield Controversy - Bakersfield doesnt correspond to the location in game, but Bakersfield is mentioned in Vault locations v34.129.
?
NA
Chris says he believes that it is meant to be Bakersfield, but isn’t sure. However the information included from emails by readers seems conclusive that it is in Barstow's position.
The Glow” gets its name from an original survivor of the Glow heading back to the location and turning back after all he could see was a great big glow
Development decision, so Chris Avellone is an absolute authority
EPA[]
- As the EPA is a cut location, the content here is to be treated as RED for all in game canon purposes. Green And Amber ratings refer only to development decisions, or to the Canon as it would have applied had this location not been cut.
Statement
Bible
Status
Notes
The EPA site was to be a pre war industrial waste management site.
Design Document included in Bible 7; Both Jackals and Burrows cut from game although Jackals still referenced in some dialogue.
Vipers[]
Using this index/citing the Fallout Bible[]
Chris Avellone has stated that his bibles shouldn’t be taken as the official word on canon as Bethesda is now in charge of the canon. The only true guide that we have as to what can be accepted is what is in-game, and any public developer comment from the Bethesda team that seems to be binding. This guide shows how reliable the statements in the Bible are, and help determine if, and how, they should be used as a source.
Green - Reliable facts.
Where a statement has been shown to be true in-game
Where a statement relates to the real world where Chris Avellone (or his source) is an authority (e.g.- Fallout 1/2 development)
Examples:
Vaults 8, 13, 15, 34, and 106 appear in games as described in Fallout Bible 1, as such they receive Green status. Other vaults do not.
The Vault Experiment being Tim Cain’s idea is confirmed in Fallout Bible 1 and Fallout Bible 2. Chris is a reliable witness on this, and as such gets the green status
Using Green information:
For game facts, always cite the game where it appears (and link to dialogue files, etc)
Cite to the bible if the information goes beyond the facts shown in-game
For real-world facts, cite the Bible freely
Amber - Uncorroborated facts
Required: The statement is provided by Chris as a "fact" but one of the following exists:
No corroborating information is known from games
There is conflicting information from games - some confirms, some denies
Frank Horrigan being subjected to conditioning programs before his mutation is stated in Fallout Bible 1. This is not verifiable elsewhere and is unlikely to be verified by a future game. It thus has Amber status.
The term “President” becoming a boogeyman figure is mentioned in Fallout Bible 3 and confirmed by an unavoidable ending slide in Fallout 2. However, in Fallout: New Vegas, the term is used by the NCR to refer to their president without this context is present.
Using Amber Informatoion:
The Bible can be cited, but only with appropriate warnings about unclear canonicity.
Red - Unreliable or Incorrect statements
The statement is contradicted in games
The statement is floated by Chris as a possibility
Chris suggests that the Enclave may or may not be responsible for the Wanamingos. It gets a mention, but only red status.
Using Red Information:
DO NOT cite as fact
Mentioned only where the conflict is interesting enough to warrant a mention in an article.