FANDOM


Hi Folks,

If you're been pointed here its because I know you have an interest in improving the referencing on the wiki. If you stumbled across this anyway... Welcome!

As a part of improving referencing, I think its important to start by working out what we have... that way we can pull it all back later.

You can see an idea of what I have in mind Here where I'm pulling out the bibles to have them indexed by subject and statement, and also a signal on the "reliability". I'm thinking this model should be expanded to all other source documents, and then a master "Subject Index" created combining those.

Whats a source document?

Well for this purpose, I would be looking at:

  • The Fallout Bibles
  • The Manuals
  • Dialogue Files
  • Developer Statements
  • Ending slides
  • Other events demonstrated in game (Special category).

What is not a source document?

  • Anything that occurs in the context of a special random or weird wasteland encounter EXCEPT where it speaks to that encounter only
  • Ie - it is not canon that the Chosen one broke the water chip.
  • This does not include "Forced" special encounters, like Horrigan mowing down the family in Fallout 2.

Now of course not all statements are created equal. As you can see in the Bible example, I've a Red/Amber/Green indication on the statements reliability. Basically, if a statement is either Corroborated, or if Chris is an absolute authority on it, it gets rated green. If its been contradicted, its red. Anything else is Amber. I'm thinking this would be a reasonable model to extend to other source documents, and would work "as is" for other developer statements.

What we would need to see "corroborated"

  • For Characters, I would suggest that we take the same standard that I'm taking to Chris's statements to in game characters, except maybe tighten up the "Absolute Authority" requirement. (Be careful not to confuse the players dialogue options with the characters responses).
  • For Ending slides, we'd only count that which matches the facts from later games the closest, and would still seek to corroborate the statements
  • For demonstrated facts in game, where these are either unavoidable, parts of the main quest line, confirmed by later games, or set in place at the start of the game, these would have automatic "green" status.
Why not just take their word for it?
From Ocjimmy.msg
{158}{}{Can you tell me anything about this Brotherhood?}
{159}{}{No, I'm sorry, but I have no information on them. This all happened ages ago and I've never found any references to them other than this one. However, it's my understanding that the Brotherhood was a military outfit and there are some ruins of what appears to be a military base west of here. That may be what's left of them.
This is a clear example of a character giving a statement that can mislead the player. We know from other facts that this wasn't the remains of the brotherhood at all.

Examples:

  • The "All Clear Signal" coming from surface monitors for Vault 8/City is stated by First Citizen Lynette only. This isn't corroborated, Lynette isn't an absolute authority on it (and seems to be basing her statement on an assumption that there must have been some sort of monitor), so it would get "Amber" status.
  • Marcus is an absolute authority on his own history, so that he founded Broken Hills with Jacob, so this would get a "Green" status.
  • Horrigan killing Gruthrar in Vault 13 is Demonstrated (by recording), so gets "Green" status.
  • The Ending slide that indicates the Followers of the Apocalypse were wiped out clearly falls into the "Red" category, as this is contradicted by later games.

What is acceptable corroboration? I would suggest the following:

  • A character statement demonstrated by an event that is displayed. The BOS at San Francisco tell you that Navarro is a Vertibird base. Vertibirds are seen there, so this is corroborated.
  • A character statement that builds on demonstrated facts, except where otherwise contradicted. We don't see Vertibirds being refuelled at Navarro (as stated by the BOS member in SanFran), but it is a reasonable thing to build on the facts we can demonstrate, and is not contradicted in anyway
  • A character statement that is confirmed by another character, and is not otherwise contradicted. Numerous characters in Modoc will speak to the current drought in the area, so this would corroborate each other; however numerous characters will also speak to "Ghosts" at the "Ghost Farm" - this is soon contradicted in fact when you visit it, and thus this second example wouldn't count

Bringing it back to articles

  • Red items should either be excluded completely, mentioned only as a conflict to facts, or be used in other special cases. These are confirmed non canon.
  • Green items can be used freely and cited as facts. The reference should be to the "Most Reliable" source where possible.
  • Amber items can be included in articles, with appropriate language (ie- Such and such claims, such and such said...etc.) and a link back to the person making the claim. Where appropriate (such as developer statements) it should be mentioned that this isn't reflected in game.

Any comments, queries or questions on this? Does this seem like a good way to go?