Well, United States of America means in this article - US flag and Commonwealths.--dotz 05:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to say, I really like the idea of 13 "Commonwealth's" (adds to that whole messed up and different United States feeling) but really, Texas and Arkansas? Do we have any information from Sawyer or Chris on their reasoning behind the divisions? DarkUnderlord 05:52, 4 June 2006 (EDT)
- No idea (we could always e-mail them about it, though). Although I actually *like* the fact that the divisions aren't entirely reasonable, but were done for some vague political reasons. Ausir 05:59, 4 June 2006 (EDT)
Talking about "shadow US goverment":
- is US president presence on the oil rig hypothesis or some more sure information form designers?
- otherwise - check desiganted survivor procedures.Dotz
- a kind of...Original DC was a part of some Commonwealth, the oil rig just technically was federal district (and the Enclave mainland bases were federal property), for more detalis see: Federal government.--dotz 05:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the double source box in the Commonwealth section is redundant. I don't remember reading about the Commonwealths much in the VB documents so maybe we should cut that box and just leave Sawyer's PNP box. Daesch 01:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
While I am on the subject of the Commonwealths, I thought I'd put together a map of how I would distribute the States. I was not satisfied with all the generic names Mr Sawyer used in his map nor was I satisfied in his distribution. Hawaii, which is not on this map, would be governed by Alta California.
- Of course commonwealth division is fully described at Sawyer's PnP, however some Commonwealths were mentioned in van Buren also - check eg. Denver design document carefully as well as van Buren tech demo. Your names for commonwealths are a kind of fanfic, so please do not change it in articles. I can't see purpose for changing name of Alaska, in Fallouts it was simply Alaska (however due to distance I don't think Sawyer's idea to place it in North Commonwealth was right).--dotz 08:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Fallout Flag Edit
Whilst watching the film 'Fatherland' I noticed this flag (or something very similar) as the Flag of the USA on a street banner in conjunction with a Swastika. Fatherland is an alternate timeline film where the Nazis won and 20 years after their victory they are in a detente with the USA which has just had its new president JFK.
184.108.40.206 21:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I have wondered about the flag, and noticed an anomaly on the loading screens, see here. Is this current day US flag an error in the picture?
Most likely an oversite, but an in universe explation could the poster was made to be nostalgic
- Yeah, looks like an oversight on the part of the artist. Ausir(talk) 18:23, September 22, 2009 (UTC)
This Image is also seen on the in game posters. It is also possible that this is simply used in fallout universe as a alternate variant of the flag. There are many countries today that use more than one flag variant, so while adopting the new flag it was not impossible that the old variant was not totally abandoned, just used much less frequently
Stars on the Flag Edit
I was just looking at the number of stars on the flag in Fallout 3 at the Museum of Technology and it is as this article says, but the image that is shown has 13 stars with one in the middle. Should we revert it back? -Firba1 20:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
"No side gaining a meaningful advantage" Edit
"with both sides unable to gain any sort of meaningful advantage over the other. Even the mighty T-45d Power Armor units don't tip the scales, as China's Crimson Dragoon units rampage behind American lines, disrupting logistics and transport."
correct me if im wrong,but Hadn't the U.S. turned back the chinese in alaska? Would any body mind if I made a slight alteration until it's proved that it was a stalemate?
- Well, it was the T-51b that won the Alaska campaign which wasn't introduced until 2076.--Amitakartok 18:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
An opinion Edit
Every Fallout game up to date has been in the U.S. Not that I have a problem with this as it is a great part of what makes Fallout, but would anybody find it interesting to see a spin-off (or eventual add-on in the future) in another country like Canada or even China? Just putting this out there and I'm just looking for other users' opinions. --SSDGFCTCT9 01:42, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
I'd like a game set in Europe and China to. I mean Europe would be an interesting experience due to the fact that it is really fucked up ( worse than America, i mean why dud Tenpenny come over in the first place)And China could be the America of the East
After I finished playing FO2, I daydreamed about a sequel set in China. You could easily see the Mao-era propaganda kitsch taking the place of 50s Americana advertising kitsch. There would be several, related problems: the existing games were clearly set in parts of the US with which the game developers were familiar; there's the way in which the US is fascinated with an imaginary 1950s, a touchstone which never really existed as it was imagined, which lends itself readily to satire; and, it's one thing for game designers in the US to mock the US, and quite another for game designers in the US to mock China. FoolishOwl 03:34, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
- Hm. But you wouldn't be mocking the real China, just as the Fallout universe isn't mocking a real United States. The China of Fallout 3 looks as if it never emerged from Mao-mania, and that would be very mockable. Wunengzi 21:02, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
I agree it would be a nice change of sceanery to have Fallout parcially or full in a different country like Mexico, so you can see and feel the effects first hand of The United Commonwealth of America's (Enclave's) economic and millitaristic imperialism.--Ant2242 06:09, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
I personally think that the think that the article should be moved to "United States" for the sake of brevity. -- M.C.Tales 20:16, December 24, 2009 (UTC)
- Brevity is not really a concern when the title of the article is the full name of the article's subject.--Gothemasticator 22:27, December 24, 2009 (UTC)
- What I mean is that the article's name should be concise. Also, the United States' article on Wikipedia is merely titled "United States", while the country's full name, "United States of America", is still used at the beginning of the article's introduction. In a similar vein, it would be a hassle to have the United Kingdom's article's title use the country's (much longer) full name, "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". --M.C.Tales 04:42, January 16, 2010 (UTC)
- What's the point? That's just 11 characters, which translates to what, 11 bytes of saved Wikia drive space? Tagaziel (call!) 07:52, January 16, 2010 (UTC)
I personally think that the name should be changed to The United Commonwealths of America because the country was divided among unethical political ideals sometime between 1945 and 1969, by the (pre-Enclave) UCA (USA) polititions. --Ant2242 00:08, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
Capital Congressmen Edit
This page isn't really the place for analysis of President Eden's speeches, but I'd like to suggest that the statement, In his speech about baseball, he makes mention of what is likely a Washington DC-based team, the Capital Congressmen, playing teams from every state, including Pennsylvania and Maryland, may be a naive reading of the Baseball speech. I believe a more sinister interpretation would be more appropriate to the Enclave. From one interpretation, that gives us "what is likely a Washington DC-based team", President Eden sincerely related the history of baseball in Fallout's America for the benefit of his fictional audience and us the players. In that case, the purpose of this monologue is to provide some world-building detail and to expose some of President Eden's motivation, that he wants Americans to be able to watch baseball teams play again. From another interpretation, President Eden is deliberately obfuscating history to enable a more autocratic regime. The "Capital Congressmen" is a lie intended to confuse wastelanders about the representational form of government the United States had before the Great War. Eden's motivation is to lay the ground-work for denying arguments to re-establish Congress.
- The statement in the article is there merely to acknowledge the mention of governmental bodies in in-game text. It makes no claims to do more than that. In any case, Eden's sincerity has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of the existence of the team. He could just as easily be insincere about a real team as he could about a made-up one.--Gothemasticator 07:07, December 30, 2009 (UTC)
New York City/State Edit
Obviously more than just the Manhattan area is part of the Eastern Commonwealth, given the amount colored yellow on the map. I altered it to say New York State, rather than just New York City.
Commonwealth system canon? Edit
Beyond the 13 stars flag, which could have come about for whatever other reasons, is there any canon references about the state system being replaced by commonwealths? Because there might be several mentions of it in other source materials and all but in the games everything seems to consistently use the old States system both pre and post-war. New California Republic, Welcome to Nevada signs, the power stations in Fallout 3 using MD and VA, ED-E with an Illinois plate, The Pitt's sign with PA(as well as the official description) and countless other uses of the old states which really doesn't make it seem like the commonwealth system being in use since 1945-1960 or even at all.
It's made worse by the fact that Zimmer and others in Fallout 3 uses the term "The Commonwealth" to refer to a very specific location in the US and everyone doesn't seem confused by it even though there would be 2 different commonwealths to the north of the Capital Wasteland covering a significant area.Dr. Lobotomy 19:53, February 1, 2011 (UTC)
Yes they were, the states still existed but they were heavely subjicated by the autocratic Commonwealth system.--Ant2242 00:13, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
- I was asking for canon, in-game sources. Anyway, I'll just answer my own question with the big stone sign at Red Rock Canyon in New Vegas with "Southwest Commonwealth Conservation Area" written on it. Dr. Lobotomy 00:39, July 22, 2011 (UTC)
Under the notes page I thought might just point out a factual error, the Mongolian empire was actually slightly smaller than the british empire, so yeah...220.127.116.11 08:00, February 11, 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out, that entire section is fraught with incorrect information. I'm in the process of removing it. 08:54, February 11, 2014 (UTC)
US flag incorrect? Edit
Why does the U.S flag have 12 stars in the circle and not 13? This is how it should look 18.104.22.168 00:44, July 21, 2015 (UTC)
- The flag that appears in the games only has 12 stars, not 13. Paladin117>>iff bored; 00:57, July 21, 2015 (UTC)
Yes but what I mean is there are 13 commonwealths and the lore stats that the circle of stars represents the commonwealths. So why 12 and not 13? Especially since there are the correct amount of stars on the red glare rocket launcher but not on the actual flags. --22.214.171.124 01:18, July 21, 2015 (UTC)
I posted a corrected version on my DeviantART profile: http://the-artist-64.deviantart.com/art/A-More-Accurate-Fallout-American-Flag-540402674 "Space. The final frontier." ~The-Artist-64 (talk) 02:13, July 21, 2015 (UTC)The-Artist-64
As a vexillologist, I find the notion ridiculous. No, the pre-war government has been specifically stated to not play favorites on a specific commonwealth. "Space. The final frontier." ~The-Artist-64 (talk) 02:23, July 21, 2015 (UTC)The-Artist-64
- Could you dig up that source for me? I am now intrigued. But how else do you explain such a scathing oversight? And if my theory is incorrect, what does the star in the centre of the canton represent? --Skire (talk) 02:32, July 21, 2015 (UTC)
- The country as a whole, that's what the center star represents. The symbolism is obvious, or at least I thought. Maybe not. That's why the star is larger than the others. "Space. The final frontier." ~The-Artist-64 (talk) 03:11, July 21, 2015 (UTC)The-Artist-64
Washington D.C. is NOT a Part of the Columbia Commonwealth Edit
D.C. is still an individual district, even after the divergence. Washington D.C., DISTRICT of Columbia. It is not a part of the Columbia Commonwealth. Consider this, and I hope that this isn't just brushed aside. Nowhere in Fallout lore is it ever said that it wasn't independent. "Space. The final frontier." ~The-Artist-64 (talk) 20:24, August 3, 2015 (UTC)The-Artist-64
- I don't see any evidence there that DC wasn't a part of the columbia commonwealth. That the commonwealth is actually called columbia suggests that it is indeed part of it. Pre-commonwealth names were clearly still in use during the great war (California, State of Nevada). Agent c (talk) 21:05, August 3, 2015 (UTC)
- First off, thank you so much for responding! I was worried that everyone would ignore this. Now, for the discussion, I would appreciate if you could link me to some evidence to support your argument. Not being aggressive or anything, just trying to prove my point and see if I'm wrong. As I said before, note that in Fallout 3 (worst game ever, but still) it is called Washington, D.C., i.e. District of Columbia. That, right there, is evidence that it is still a federal district and not part of the local commonwealth. If it were part of Columbia, than it would just be the city of Washington. "Space. The final frontier." ~The-Artist-64 (talk) 21:25, August 3, 2015 (UTC)The-Artist-64
- Agreeing with Agent C here. There is no evidence suggesting that DC is an independent district. The Commonwealth, as C said, is named Columbia, for a reason. As for why it's still called Washington DC by post-war inhabitants, that's just because pre-Commonwealth names were still used during, and after the Great War. There isn't any more evidence to prove this is a fact but there also isn't any evidence to prove you're correct. Changing information based on conjecture isn't something we like to do on the wiki and until there's something significant to backup a claim like this, it should stay as it is, as that makes the most sense, logically. Scissor Shock (talk) 23:09, August 3, 2015 (UTC)
If it were part of Columbia, than it would just be the city of Washington”
Thats Not proof of the assertion that its not part of the commonwealth. D.C. Has been there so long its pretty much stuck... Just like its rare to hear anyone call Myanmar Burma. It also acts as a useful differentiator to the region/state "Washington".
- It's speculation to say otherwise! If it's not a part of a state in our world, than why on Earth would it be a part of a Commonwealth? They specifically outlined when the city was built that it was to be a federal district. I don't understand why you wouldn't default to real life information when nothing at all exists to back up this...well, practically fan fiction. I don't know why that wasn't removed years ago, it's speculative information! "Space. The final frontier." ~The-Artist-64 (talk) 13:09, August 4, 2015 (UTC)The-Artist-64
- A lot of information about the Commonwealths is just unknown at this time but you're overlooking the most vital piece of evidence that suggests it is part of that particular Commonwealth. The Columbia Commonwealth name implies it is indeed part of it. Until it is said in-game or by a developer that it's not. This has been discussed a long time now, you're not the first to say it shouldn't be, but most agreed that it should stay as is...for now.Scissor Shock (talk) 15:24, August 4, 2015 (UTC)
- It makes sense, and I'm not saying I'm against the idea, but there's just as much or more evidence for D.C. being independent. It kept its name, why would it change? I really don't understand why you would go for the less-likely assumption. "Space. The final frontier." ~The-Artist-64 (talk) 17:22, August 4, 2015 (UTC)The-Artist-64
I don't accept that its any less likely. As for why would it change? There are a lot of good reasons for DC to resolve its anomalous status in the USA, and a reorganisation like the commonwealths would be a good time to do that. Agent c (talk) 17:48, August 4, 2015 (UTC)
- ...But it's still speculation. "Space. The final frontier." ~The-Artist-64 (talk) 19:49, August 4, 2015 (UTC)The-Artist-64
He later took the website down, removing the sole source for the commonwealth information. Again, how does calling something District of Columbia prove it's not part of Columbia? I guess Fallout New Vegas proves that the state of Nevada isn't part of a commonwealth. Is there any actual evidence? Paladin117>>iff bored; 19:42, August 5, 2015 (UTC)
- No, the states still existed under the Commonwealths. People think Commonwealths replaced states, but they didn't! The Commonwealth system served as a sort of 'middle man' between state governments and federal government. And no, DISTRICT. Independent, federal district. What's so hard to get about that? Also, pretty convenient that no one took a screenshot of the web page. Is there any actual evidence? "Space. The final frontier." ~The-Artist-64 (talk) 21:00, August 5, 2015 (UTC)The-Artist-64
- So, the states can be placed under the commonwealths but a district can't? It would explain the US flag with twelve stars circling one, central star. Also, it's not convenient, it's inconvenient as hell. All of the information on the commonwealths came from J.E. Sawyer, with only one of them being mentioned elsewhere (one of the Van Buren documents). Paladin117>>iff bored; 21:47, August 5, 2015 (UTC)
- I think there's been a misunderstanding. Here, this is exactly what a district is and why it can't be a part of a certain territory: "A capital territory or capital district is normally a specially designated administrative division where a country's seat of government is located. As such, in a federal model of government, no state or territory has any political or economic advantage relative to the others because of the national capital lying within its borders. A capital territory can be a specific form of federal district." -From the Wikipedia article on Capital districts and territories. "Space. The final frontier." ~The-Artist-64 (talk) 21:53, August 5, 2015 (UTC)The-Artist-64
- Here's another interesting quote from that page: "The City of Washington no longer exists; however, the name continues in use and the city is often referred to as just Washington, D.C." Weird, they changed the function of the city, but kept the name. Guess that can never happen again. Paladin117>>iff bored; 21:58, August 5, 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that your way is the least speculative, Artist - it seems that no one else in this conversation can understand the difference between being an independent district, and being part of a local commonwealth.
- That seems to be where the root of the problem is born: it might seem pedantic, but it might be in everyone's best interests, for the sake of posterity, to explain the exact difference between the two.
- A little knowledge goes a far way in debates such as this one. Regardless, you have my support on this one. I do not really see any way to compromise between the two positions, so I am supporting what I consider the least speculative of the two options, unless an alternative can be proposed. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 21:06, August 5, 2015 (UTC)
Look, all of this is beside the point
We have the origin, but its no longer verifiiable, and in any case not from a canon source.
The correct course of action is clear and simple. We source the claim with appropriate weasel language. "In a page on a wiki he created for a Pen and Paper roleplaying game featured in the fallout universe, Josh Sawyer placed Washington DC within the columbia commonwealth (this site is no longer online)".
Having non-verifiable sources constitutes original research, which is something that Nukapedia does not allow (See: FW:C).
This is something that could easily have been lost in translation due to non-complete memory of what was read before the source was removed. If we allowed "...recollections..." onto the wiki, we might as well and allow speculation, too. Not to mention that we already have a precedent for removing original research, even from prevalent editors, such as we had/have been doing with the removal of Ausir's original research. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 22:09, August 5, 2015 (UTC)
Its not original research because no research is being done. At the time it was entered, it was verifiable, and a reference was linked.
What we have is a dead link, just like the millions that are on Wikipedia, and every other wiki, including ours.
- The term 'Original Research' is not a literal one. It means:
1) The phrase "original research" (OR) is used to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.
2) By "exists", means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source.
User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 22:23, August 5, 2015 (UTC)
I don't accept that something added years ago when it was verifiable and published can somehow become "original research" several years later because someone takes down or reorganizes their website.
Original research is against our content policies, regardless of what you accept. I am not saying that I do not trust Paladin, because I do. But recollections are not reliable - not even in the least. I know I constantly have to go into stuff personally, such as the Fallout games, because even after years of playing the same content over and over and over again, I still periodically get stuff wrong when writing for the wikis.
It becomes a matter of the 'Golden Rule' - if I add information to an article, I better damn well make sure that the information is verifiable. If an anon or new user adds information to an article, I expect the same. Patrollers and higher are no exception, either. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 22:41, August 5, 2015 (UTC)
Its not a matter of a recollection, the link is there in the history. If you want to volunteer to scour the wiki looking for dead links you're welcome to it. Agent c (talk) 22:45, August 5, 2015 (UTC)
- The link does not prove that what Paladin recollects is exactly what was written on the source when it still existed. That would be circular logic, using a non-verifiable link to confirm original research.
- Secondly, I did scour the wiki for dead links. You keep forgetting that I was one of Nukapedia's heaviest editors, especially in regards to cleaning up our wiki. I expected myself to clean up the wiki every time I saw something wrong - so I also expect our editors to follow our policies, too. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 22:50, August 5, 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I'm sorry. Perhaps those weren't the correct words to choose.
- -Your source is no longer verifiable, and is therefore speculation.
- -Washington D.C. retained its name as an independent district, and this can be proven because it is called that in game. A federal district CANNOT, and will not ever, be part of a local governing body such as a state or commonwealth. I listed a source below, in the thread we are supposed to be using. Ahem. "Space. The final frontier." ~The-Artist-64 (talk) 13:37, August 6, 2015 (UTC)The-Artist-64
- Retaining the name doesn't mean much. I guess people are just hesitant to disprove the source because then we would have to remove the whole Commonwealths section. And I like how it's somehow *my* source, it was added to the wiki years before I got here. Paladin117>>iff bored; 13:46, August 6, 2015 (UTC)
I thought you might want to see what would be left of the Commonwealths section if we discredit Sawyer's old site: here. And again, the name means nothing. Washington DC is also often referred to as just Washington, which no longer exists. Yet, they kept the name Washington when they changed it. Paladin117>>iff bored; 15:33, August 6, 2015 (UTC)
- Are we going to keep going around and around? Please, read this time. District. Independent District. District = Not local/state government. Owned by federal government. This cannot be changed. "Space. The final frontier." ~The-Artist-64 (talk) 15:59, August 6, 2015 (UTC)The-Artist-64
- I'm sorry, no, it's not entirely possible. That would not happen. It would be even more confusing if they retained the name. So you don't think that they would implement the Commonwealth system, which would undoubtedly confuse everyone, without changing the name of D.C. too? "Space. The final frontier." ~The-Artist-64 (talk) 16:04, August 6, 2015 (UTC)The-Artist-64
- I think it is possible that they would retain the name. To completely write off a possibility like that would be foolish. You're saying that keeping a city called Washington DC for as long as a country being around would have to be changed for this? That it would not possibly at all be confusing to completely rebrand a nations capital without something short of a full on revolution or other drastic shift in government? Richie9999 (talk) 16:19, August 6, 2015 (UTC)
- I'm afraid the simplest solution to this discussion would be an attempt to verify the now-rotted source by asking JE Sawyer on his twitter. Even if he never responded to us now, the rotted source would better serve us on the page than not as it would give future readers enough information to make a verification attempt. The only time unreliable sources should be removed is soon after its addition to pages by those patrolling edits.
- I realize our content policy is no-tolerance for unverifiable content but I believe that it was added and preserved on good merit and reserves the ability to be verified by JE Sawyer and should, therefore, be exempt likely verifiable content. I also believe this same mentality should be and should have been applied to the infamous Ausir citations in retrospect, but that's a different monster.
- I'm basing most of this mindset off of how wikipedia treats the matter: Wikipedia: Keeping dead links. If I should be required to make a forum about, "Rotted content" in order to pursue this suggestion as the proper course of action I will have no reservations to do so, but in the mean time, I believe it's the best course of action. Arguing against present content could inexplicably derive us from a slough of actually correct content on the grounds that we merely failed to properly reference it. The day we removed that content is the day we erase more than half of the wiki. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 18:51, August 7, 2015 (UTC)
- By district, I meant federal district. "Space. The final frontier." ~The-Artist-64 (talk) 00:46, August 8, 2015 (UTC)The-Artist-64
- You are assuming that things in fallout work the same as they do in the real world, let me fix that for you, they don't. From physics to an entirely different history post WWII, Fallout differs greatly from our own universe. To suggest that something in Fallout explicitly adhere to the real world equivalent is foolish. A Federal district may be unable to be part of a local government in our world, but who are you to say that is the case in fallout? Who are you to say that the Fallout universe's DC is just DC in name and hasn't been absorbed into the surrounding commonwealth? There is a lack of evidence on both sides of the argument, to be sure as you cannot unequivocally prove that Washington DC is the same in Fallout's universe as it is in ours, just as I cannot prove unequivocally that they are different. Repeatedly saying that a district cannot be part of the local government, you prove nothing. If anything, you reduce a potential wealth of reasons down to a single, unproven talking point. Richie9999 (talk) 01:31, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- Precedents change. Having states was a precedent, then they were turned into Commonwealths, and while they retained their statehood, a whole new layer was shoved right in there, destroying the prior precedent. Prove to me, with content from the fallout universe that Washington DC is not part of a commonwealth, real world evidence, similar to real world weapon comparisons holds no water here. Richie9999 (talk) 01:37, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it matters for the purposes of this page if Washington, D.C. was an independent district or overseen by the Columbia Commonwealth. The page doesn't present either claim, and neither can be supported by available lore anyway. If the issue is about why Washington, D.C. is included in the chart listing which states are part of which commonwealths, then remove D.C. from the chart. It isn't a state, so it has no business being in a chart listing states. We aren't compelled to classify D.C. as part of any commonwealth just as we aren't compelled to classify Puerto Rico, Guam, or any other U.S. territories. We don't know their status, so we leave them alone. Clockpuncher (talk) 05:35, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- I wasn't with you on the 'countries' thing, but I agree with you here. I second this motion. "Space. The final frontier." ~The-Artist-64 (talk) 14:41, August 8, 2015 (UTC)The-Artist-64
- Yes, we're not invalidating the source, we're fine-tuning the purpose of the chart to remove a piece of ambiguous information. Alternatively, we could add a footnote explaining that because of D.C.'s unique status as a federal district rather than a state, it is unknown if it falls under the jurisdiction of the Columbia Commonwealth even though it lies within Columbia's geographical boundaries. Clockpuncher (talk) 20:57, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
- Commonwealths have been proven canon by Van Buren and Fallout: New Vegas. This bit of information hasn't. "Space. The final frontier." ~The-Artist-64 (talk) 01:53, October 27, 2015 (UTC)The-Artist-64
- Not quite, Van Buren mentioned the Great Plains Commonwealth, but not what is contained in it, and Fallout: New Vegas showed a sign for the Southwest Commonwealth. The history, division, other 11 commonwealths and more are all from the same source as Washington DC that you are trying to invalidate. Paladin117>>iff bored; 02:29, October 27, 2015 (UTC)
Van Buren is never canon.
A dead link is not speculation.
In any case the assertion that a capital district can never be a part of another level of government is wrong (capital districts are man defined, and there is no physical law preventing it). Agent c (talk) 08:54, October 27, 2015 (UTC)
- Again, what evidence is there that it was absorbed? I've never seen the website. For all I know, it never even existed.
- May I bring everyone's attention to the wiki content policies:
- "All content needs to be accurate. Fallout Wiki aims to provide reliable information. In particular, adding speculation and own inventions (fan fiction, fan art etc.) to articles should be avoided."
- "All content needs to be verifiable. Other editors need to be able to check and verify it."
- The information is no longer verifiable, and is therefore speculative in nature. "Space. The final frontier." ~The-Artist-64 (talk) 01:09, October 30, 2015 (UTC)The-Artist-64
- There's no need to be sarcastic. The commonwealth system is canon and has been confirmed to be so in Fallout: New Vegas, so you can't use that as an attempt to derail the correction of this error. This piece of information regarding Washington D.C. is speculative and goes against wiki policy, unless a new, verifiable source can be found. "Space. The final frontier." ~The-Artist-64 (talk) 01:52, October 30, 2015 (UTC)The-Artist-64
- What sarcasm? The only thing Fallout: New Vegas confirms is the existence of a "Southwest Commonwealth", whether California or Nevada is the member is hard to tell from the sign's location. The source that DC is in Columbia is the same source that confirms the existence of Columbia Commonwealth, Northwest Commonwealth, Four States Commonwealth, and all of the others. So, you wish to get rid of the source for them, yes? Paladin117>>iff bored; 01:57, October 30, 2015 (UTC)
- Again, the commonwealths have been mentioned in-game. The creators reference the commonwealths as canon, and the Southwest, Columbia and Great Midwest Commonwealths have all been mentioned by name. This bit with D.C. has no verifiable source, so it is not canon. "Space. The final frontier." ~The-Artist-64 (talk) 02:02, October 30, 2015 (UTC)The-Artist-64
- As a matter of fact, your evidence for their existence is right on this page. The map of the commonwealths comes straight from his website, clearly shows all commonwealths and has been proven canon. The D.C. bit has no evidence. "Space. The final frontier." ~The-Artist-64 (talk) 02:39, October 30, 2015 (UTC)The-Artist-64
Ok, let's see. For the map to be a source, first it can't be edited by any editors-- oh wait, it has been edited, so it can't be a source. Second, it would need a link to the original image site. You have the link, yes? Paladin117>>iff bored; 02:44, October 30, 2015 (UTC)
- I believe I saved the original, unaltered image on my computer, and may I have a link to where that rule is specified? "Space. The final frontier." ~The-Artist-64 (talk) 02:51, October 30, 2015 (UTC)The-Artist-64
- No. Unverifiable information isn't allowed according to the wiki guidelines. D.C. cannot be confirmed as being in the Columbia Commonwealth, and that piece of information is therefore speculation. Leaving it there is against policy. "Space. The final frontier." ~The-Artist-64 (talk) 03:21, October 30, 2015 (UTC)The-Artist-64
- And a single image with no source holds the same weight: none. The old site was taken down, making all of it unverified. So, it's literally all or nothing in regards to the Commonwealth info. Want me to draw up an example Commonwealth section if the source is debunked? Paladin117>>iff bored; 03:25, October 30, 2015 (UTC)
Removing the Interactive Map Link Edit
I was looking at this page when I found a link to an unofficial map under the Behind the Scenes section, and I believe it should be removed. First of all, the statement that it "holds every single location in the USA where its location is truly known" is false, as it contains locations that don't have a confirmed location (unless you count the game maps from Fallout 1 and 2 as sources despite them contradicting each other, their own in-game lore and the actual geography of real-life America).
Secondly, the map, as far as I can tell, is unofficial, and doesn't even seem to be associated with this wiki. It also contains multiple inaccuracies and wild assumptions.
Third and last of all, with all due respect to the amount of time put into the map and putting aside the blatant inaccuracies, the map is poorly implemented. This last point is more of personal preference, but the map doesn't provide layers for convenience, indicators of what game the locations appeared in (if any at all), images, links to the wiki or anything else aside from a dubious dot on a map.
Given these points, I suggest that we remove the link to this map. If we must link to an interactive map like this, I know of others that are better, and at least one that should qualify as "holds every single location in the USA where its location is truly known." However, unless someone can give me a valid reason as to why this particular map should remain linked to despite its detriment to the Fallout fandom, I will remove it in a few days. --GamerAim (talk) 15:37, November 2, 2015 (UTC)