Fallout Wiki
Fallout Wiki
Forums: Index > Wiki proposal votes > Creation Club Final Solution

This is the vote to finally decide what the Creation club policy is going to be. I'm not going to editorialise because I know everyone is sick of this and wants this to go away already so we can get on with something more worthwhile.

The quorum is 10, and a single vote more than the other one is going to get it.

This is a pure binary vote. No Maybe, no Neutral, no Fence-sitting - we're using an electric fence.

In the event of a tie, I will flip a coin, race a pair of dogs, or do something else, and that outcome will stand.

So vote for which one its going to be.

Note: Requirements for those wishing to vote for the request are that they must have a registered account, and have made at least one edit prior to the start of the vote.

Forget the single page stuff, and just do multiple pages on the wiki

  1. Yes Agent c (talk) 20:34, October 15, 2017 (UTC)
  2. Yes Dragão Carmesim Howdy! 18:37, October 15, 2017 (BRT)
  3. Yes - FDekker talk 20:38, October 15, 2017 (UTC)
  4. Yes Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 20:39, October 15, 2017 (UTC)
  5. Yes Overseer X (talk)
  6. Yes While I hope power armor skins (and other small mods) dont get their own page, I'd rather have this than one constantly increasing, messy page. Skysteam (talk) 23:30, October 15, 2017 (UTC)
  7. Yes Pedro Washington (talk) 23:54, October 15, 2017 (UTC)
  8. Yes ArgentPrime 03:43, October 16, 2017 (UTC)ArgentPrime
  9. Yes Though we can keep a brief single page to list and briefly summarize all the CC contents. Eddo36 (talk) 09:08, October 16, 2017 (UTC)
  10. Yes Rebel427 ~ I'll be your huckleberry 11:23, October 16, 2017 (UTC)
  11. Yes Jspoel Speech Jspoel.png 16:11, October 16, 2017 (UTC)
  12. Yes YOD ᕦ(ò_óˇ)ᕤ 00:09, October 17, 2017 (UTC)
  13. Yes I do think multiple pages are needed, so I will have to vote Yes here. However, people reading this should take this poll with a grain of salt - I fear that as soon as this poll is resolved, people will take this decision too liberally and end up trying to create unnecessary pages down to the last detail (as Paly suggested, Paint variants, for example). This solution should not be taken to more than one level - if a subject such as Paints can be confined to one page, it must be confined. |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 12:27, October 17, 2017 (UTC)
  14. Yes TheBEASTisnear (talk) 10:48, October 17, 2017 (PST)
  15. Yes I feel that for items like the Gauss Rifle Prototype and Chinese Stealth Armor should have their own pages, while the paint jobs be confined to one page. What about the cannonicity of itmes like the Hellfire Power Armor?Ryker61 12:33 am, October 18, 2017 (PST)

Excluded votes

  1. Yes Absolutely - added by anon user, please sign in and vote again. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 17:57, October 16, 2017 (UTC)
  1. Yes KungFuMan316 (talk) 19:51, October 16, 2017 (UTC) - No edits before vote started Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 19:54, October 16, 2017 (UTC)

No Multiple pages, a single overview page is all we need.

  1. Paladin117>>iff bored; 20:38, October 15, 2017 (UTC)
  2. Yodamort (talk) 21:01, October 15, 2017 (UTC)
  3. User:Ianthebean Condense this garbage...it still may be trash, but at least it has condensed milk.
  4. Yes Thelucky38 (talk) it's better to have a big load of shit in one place then have it spread all over the place
  5. Yes Soviet (talk) It's mostly reskins, items with 1 location and no lore, and a bunch of other stuff that will only be stubs and can never be fixed. Soviet (talk) 13:45, October 18, 2017 (UTC)

Excluded votes

  1. Yes 2605:6001:F08E:9C01:301C:433E:2379:CA7 If each mod has it's own page, it will all be stubs, and there will be no way to fix it. There's just not enough content for each to have a full page. Maybe reconsider if they ever add an actual quest, or something with a lot of lore, but I see no indication of them ever adding something that needs its own page. 2605:6001:F08E:9C01:301C:433E:2379:CA7 02:15, October 16, 2017 (UTC)


Argh, no, please no comments, just vote. Agent c (talk) 20:33, October 15, 2017 (UTC)

You're not the boss of me. Paladin117>>iff bored; 20:38, October 15, 2017 (UTC)
I want to make one comment to everyone on the wiki, as I have with the last two votes, please vote with what will work best for the wiki, on the wiki. Leave personal sentiment for CC as a concept to one side. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 20:39, October 15, 2017 (UTC)
While I hope power armor skins (and other small mods) dont get their own page, I'd rather have this than one constantly increasing, messy page.

People are definitely going to create pages for the individual paints if individual pages is approved. There's zero doubt there. And the "one constantly increasing, messy page" is going to exist regardless of how this vote turns out because there's always going to be an overview page, like how we have Far Harbor (add-on) and Fallout 4 weapons. Paladin117>>iff bored; 23:33, October 15, 2017 (UTC)

CC content falls into the same rules as the other articles on the wiki: if there's not enough content to justify a page then we gather several articles on the same page. If solution 1 wins then we would have a single article for all the CC power armor paint jobs. --YOD ᕦ(ò_óˇ)ᕤ 23:57, October 15, 2017 (UTC)
"People are definitely going to create pages for the individual paints..." Would this be acceptable for a DLC, and if so, why should CC be different? Agent c (talk) 09:22, October 16, 2017 (UTC)
I would side with AGC here... Just because a lot of users would try to add a page doesn't justify its existence if we wouldn't allow it normally. Our set of rules here ought to be consistent. |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 12:17, October 17, 2017 (UTC)


Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe we are handling everything in CC as non-canon, even lore-friendly items, on the premise of "if they didn't add it to the game themselves, then clearly it wasn't present in the region at that time."

I kind of left discussion about canonicity out at the time of the first vote, because we seemed to pretty much be in agreement about where it falls in the realms of canon. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 07:51, October 18, 2017 (UTC)

That is my understanding. Treated as non canon until or unless canon status is confirmed. Agent c (talk) 14:30, October 18, 2017 (UTC)


I reckon we should probably make this official. All Creation Club content will have their own pages per normal page creation policy. These pages should probably be tagged with a non-canon tag. Do we have one that will work for this? Or do we have to make a new one? The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons.png 22:23, October 25, 2017 (UTC)

We have one now: {{CCC}} The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons.png 22:30, October 25, 2017 (UTC)
2mn faster than me. I was about to post:

The phrasing is a bit off but maybe it's fine for a native English speaker. --YOD ᕦ(ò_óˇ)ᕤ 22:33, October 25, 2017 (UTC)

Thank gawd its over. I hearby declare this to be a wiki holiday. The feast of Consensus. Agent c (talk) 22:34, October 25, 2017 (UTC)

Policy vote forum overview
PolicyContent policy
Amendment 1General/specific rule & BTS speculation · Vote · 30 December 2014 · 11-1-0; 9-3-1
Amendment 2Countries articles standard · Discussion · Vote · 2 August 2015 · 16-3-2
Amendment 3Attribution · Vote · 27 August 2015 · 13-0-0
Amendment 4Creation Club content · Vote · 25 September 2017 · 23-3-0
Amendment 5Creation Club article placement · Vote · 25 October 2017 · 15-5
Amendment 6Creation Club on mainspace · Discussion · Vote · 20 March 2018 · 15-5-2
Amendment 7Deleting Torn and Lionheart · Vote · 7 June 2020 · 12-0-0
Related topicsContent organization guideline · Article layout guideline