FANDOM


Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Creation Club content policy
 
Gametitle-Wiki
Gametitle-Wiki


We now have Bethesda's curated content, paid mods, coming out. And the first article was made for one today. We deleted it. My question is this: How do our policies stand up to this new type of content? As they are written, is this content worthy of inclusion on the wiki? Is this proper? Do we need to revisit our policies to adapt to this new type of content? Should it be on the wiki? I'll grab my helmet and let you all fire away. Get popcorn folks, this should be fun. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 21:41, August 30, 2017 (UTC)

In order to fight off stagnation, any wiki community needs to adapt with the times, or they can slowly and painfully die off. With editing become more and more of a niche interest, as the initial wiki hype has officially begun to lose momentum, I think it will be important to recognize other aspects of our covered content.

Modding is a very important part of the Fallout community, and we are in a unique position, here, because Fallout also happens to be one of the most popularly modded games in gaming history.

I have never understood why we've never embraced the modding community before, and it only makes sense to finally begin including them, and creating relationships with other communities such as The Nexus. 寧靜 Fox 21:47, August 30, 2017 (UTC)

Include the fact that it exists, because it's something they sell related to the game. Don't include the mods that are on the creation club, however. If we decide that this "paid DLC" is canon, as DLC generally is, that would make stupid stuff like "horse power armour" canon. Would TES wiki consider "Dwarven Mudcrabs" canon? Yodamort (talk) 22:12, August 30, 2017 (UTC)

Pretty simple for me: Beth pays for development of content and sells that content = we cover it. We might add a non-canon tag, but yeah. That being said, I'm not sure whether we should cover every character, location, quest etc. from every mod, or whether we should do it 1 page per mod. - Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 21:51, August 30, 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Peace'n Hugs. Add them, but don't consider them canon. If a mod has more than one entity (npc, weapon, location, etc), keep them all on one page. Skysteam (talk)

Hell, I hadn't even thought of canonicity yet. The more I think of this, we are going to need to clearly decide what our policy on this is going to be, how much do we cover, how we cover it, and it's canonicity -  The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 22:01, August 30, 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we just add everything Fallout related. (No Morgan Yu armo, Modern Furniture, etc.) Skysteam (talk)

I'd say cover it if it's part of creation club, as it is all mods, however, identify it as non-canon unless Bethesda gives us some reason to believe that it is canon. - Richie9999 (talk) 22:45, August 30, 2017 (UTC)

Why are we making this hard?

  1. No mods are considered canonical or semi-canonical. I honestly can't believe that this needs to even be said, as I thought it would go without saying.
  2. All mods get a single article, with very few exceptions. Project: Brazil, is a perfect example as to what an exception should be, and is enough of an example to set a very distinguishable precedent.
  3. While mods can have linkage to standard articles, our normal article-space cannot include linkage to mods, unless there is verified background information, confirming that there is an actual link between official content, and mod content.

寧靜 Fox 22:52, August 30, 2017 (UTC)

Mini-DLC is in no way an official or accurate description of CC Content. It is an analogy used to justify slapping a price tag on the files. This is not cannon, nor was it part of the series' evolution, as cut content and canceled games are. I see no reason why it should be covered. The fox guy has a good point about Project Brazil and other high quality mods potentially having a place on the wiki, and how it can stave off the impending doom of the Fallout drought, as well as forge ties with other communities. I'd suggest a process where, at the agreement of a certain number of users, a mod can be put up to vote and included in the wiki as non-cannon Fallout content. Or we could establish a parallel wiki that covers mod content, such as the Fallout + Wiki™. Soviet (talk) 01:28, August 31, 2017 (UTC)

A parallel wiki, of sorts, defeats the purpose of trying to bring more attention to this specific wiki - sort of like how our role-playing sister-wiki hardly brings any new attention here, and sort of like how the Discussion Forums hardly bring any new attention here. 寧靜 Fox 01:39, August 31, 2017 (UTC)
I suppose the first thing to do is not get the cart before the horse. We need to make a decision if the stuff from the Creation Club is allowed by our existing policies or not. For those of you who are not familiar with it, the important line is this:
All content needs to relate to the games as delivered by the developers; user modifications are not covered by this wiki.

So are they "user modifications" or not? Depending on the answer to that we then have to decide if we will cover it. If the answer to that question is yes, and we want to cover it, we have to change the policy. Only then do we need to bother with answering HOW we will cover it. -  The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 02:17, August 31, 2017 (UTC)

I think for now we should just have a single creation club page, and try to treat that page in line with how we treat JES' mod or the restoration patch. If that page becomes completely unmanageable then significant sized mods - story/quest etc might warrannt a seperate page, but new hat/gun/skin would not. Agent c (talk) 02:38, August 31, 2017 (UTC)

Most of the current content seems to have been made by BGS. Following a strict interpretation of the policy, some Creation Club content is included and some is not. There's some way to view the file name, which has a code for the author in it (BGS=Bethesda, don't know the others), but I don't know how. I think we either need to throw the content out, saying it's not intended as part of the Fallout universe, I.e. not related to how the games were delivered, or include all of it, under the logic that the mod author's partnership with Bethesda makes them part of the development team. Soviet (talk) 02:50, August 31, 2017 (UTC)

I would propose that the best option would be to make a single Creation Club page, listing all Bethesda-endorsed mods (but not giving them individual pages). If I made the page, I would basically have a description of what CC is on the top of the page, and below that, a giant table (sort of like this one: Fallout 4 keys), with a short description of the mod, its title, and a mod image/logo for each entry. I believe that creating individual pages for each mod is completely unjustified by this wiki. And I would like to emphasize the word wiki here: Especially with Fandom trying to make us choose trending Reddit posts to put on their website... I strongly reject the notion that we are a "wikia" in any way loyal to Fandom or the community policies that their site entails. No. We are a wiki. A wiki like ours must remain pure; it should only feature individual pages for content either a) made by Bethesda or Interplay (e.g., Van Buren); b) registered by Bethesda as official canon (e.g., Fallout 1/2); or c) made by someone who worked for Bethesda (e.g. Sawyer's RPG). Making individual pages for fan created content is beyond the scope of this wiki. It belongs to wikis for fandom, like Fallout roleplaying wikias. I do not believe we should be one of those "wikias". We should make one page for the concept endorsed by Bethesda (Creation Club), and list the mods from it there; but I believe that is where it must stop. Otherwise we trigger a slippery slope, allowing massive hordes of community content to be pushed for on our site. NomadMC (talk) 12:22, August 31, 2017 (UTC)

I'd go along with Peace. It's created of approved by Bethesda, so it should qualify to be covered here. Similar to Fallout Shelter, with a non-canon tag. From what I've seen here, there's some considerable content to be expected; an overview won't be sufficient. I'd choose for seperate pages, people are also waiting for new content here I believe. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 19:16, August 31, 2017 (UTC)
The way I see it, sanctioned goods is sanctioned goods. Some of this is being created in house and the remainder under the Dev watchful eye for content. I'd be inclined to go with a blended overview/article setup with these (skins would be fine to have an overview article, full new weapons would be justified to have an article).
Beyond that, would be looking to include CC credit prices at release on these articles too? I'm sure a lot of people would be interested in the cost of these items. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 20:50, August 31, 2017 (UTC)
Yes, of course, price needs to be included. Easily enough we can create a parameter for it in the infobox. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 20:53, August 31, 2017 (UTC)

I agree with those saying those content need their own page, since they are officially sanctioned by Bethesda as opposed to the free mods that aren't sanctioned. So what's the verdict? Eddo36 (talk) 04:54, September 6, 2017 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+