They're different websites. Hugs "Say 'ello to my little friend!"
This place was the Vault, then some of the admins got upset with how Wikia do things, and this seemed to boil over around the time the Oasis skin came in; initially they still stuck around for a while out of Loyalty to Ausir (who was a Wikia employee at the time), but after he left soon decided to split.
Those of us who stayed claimed no ownership of the Vault name or brand (although Wikia seemed to be willing to fight for us to keep this) out of respect for those who left (including Ausir), and decided to forge our own path.
However, we're both still a part of the greater Fallout community, and I'd dare to say that the links between here and The Vault are better than our links with other Fallout sites with content and things like templates being used on both, and some of the guys here even ask for (and get) help from our Vault-Dwelling friends.
Some however tell of a prophecy when both sides of our community unite against a common foe... No wait, thats Babylon 5, my bad. Agent c 16:45, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
I myself am actually a bit curious about the actual tech differences in the Wiki's. More Cowbell :) 17:07, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
- If that's the case, The Vault has Media Wiki Version 1.18 , whereas here they have... 1.17? I believe. Also, as there is more freedom at Curse, we have a full width page setup, a different layout and design all thanks to Porter21 and Ghost. It doesn't really make much difference over all, only visually. Other than that, thanks to the collaboration Agent C was talking about, templates and things are shared at the creator's discretion - even though there was some worring talk I saw a while ago about just taking it if the Vault refused. Not particuarly sportsman like -- GOTW User | Talk 15:32, June 15, 2012 (UTC)
- Ultimately what I think that talk was saying Guardian is that everything here, and there, is covered by CC-BY-SA, just like pretty much every wiki out there. The simple fact that you can see this page in the license seems to count as an "offer" for the person accessing it to reuse it as they see fit, as long as the same terms apply (and the creators are attributed, usually by a link back to the source). That said, I am of the personal belief that to take without consultation wouldn't be ethically the right thing to do, no matter what the license actually says; but if anyone wanted to take our content, or theirs, or wikipedias for that matter, there ain't thing one any of us can do about it - as long as CC-BY-SA is respected, the instant someone doesn't correctly attribute or offer on a sharealike basis all bets are off. Agent c 17:12, June 15, 2012 (UTC)
- I see. I understood the licence itself, but was unsure of what you were suggesting. I know that you can take it, but I thought you were advocating an 'ask first and then if refused, take it anyway policy'. As long as that never happens, then I see no reason for us not to share - one of the reasons I edit on both. -- GOTW User | Talk 23:16, June 16, 2012 (UTC)
As was already stated, the main differences are the version of Mediawiki software each site is using (Curse v1.18, Wikia v1.16, but updating soon to v1.19), as well as the site specific software that creates some visual differences, eg page width, and the way things like blogs and forums are laid out. Content-wise, we were exactly the same at the split, but as time goes by, the sites will become more distinct. Some content is being added to both sites simultaneously, while other things are added here, while different content is added there. Overall, with a few minor issues, I'd like to think the relationship with both sites is cordial and constructive. I know for certain I have received a lot of help from Ghost and Porter. I wish I had as much to give back. 00:14, June 17, 2012 (UTC)