Fallout Wiki
Advertisement
Fallout Wiki
Forums: Index > Wiki proposal votes > Creation Club content vote

The topic of Creation Club content has stagnated and we really need to wrap up and get moving on the matter. We're probably all sick of votes at present, but I think its time to at least poll the options.

In order to get the best outcome I'm going to break the key policy points into individual votes. Once we have the key points down we draw up the policy with a final vote for ratification. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 12:05, September 11, 2017 (UTC)

Key points

  1. Do we include CC content?
  2. If yes, do we condense to one article or individual pages?
  3. Do we just include content made Bethesda (BGS filename) or extend to all?
  4. Do we include CC links in base/add-on game articles?

I've left the question of canon off at this juncture. We seem to be in consensus that it is non-canon.

Poll

Do we include Creation Club content on the wiki?

Yes

  1. Yes 123123abcabc (talk) 12:51, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
  2. Yes It's still from Bethesda. Jspoel Speech Jspoel.png 15:17, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
  3. Yes It's Bethesda-endorsed, so yes. NomadMC (talk) 15:40, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
  4. Yes --YOD ᕦ(ò_óˇ)ᕤ 15:47, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
  5. Yes Bethesda released it = Official content, no doubt about it Jackiboy Logo.png (talk) 19:56, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
  6. Yes As I said before, Bethesda sanction goods are Bethesda Sanctioned goods. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin
  7. Yes Pete Hines calls the CC content "mini DLCs, not mods", so we can consider it canon, even though is a pile of BS. Glauber0 Howdy! 14:50, September 12, 2017 (UTC)
  8. Yes It's officially sanctioned, so I think it should be included. Shaka1277 (talk) 21:40, September 12, 2017 (UTC)
  9. Yes3 - DisgustingWastelander (talk) 21:32, September 14, 2017 (UTC)
  10. Yes - Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 21:52, September 14, 2017 (UTC)
  11. Yes Paladin117>>iff bored; 22:00, September 14, 2017 (UTC)
  12. Yes User:the wandering mercenary83.71.80.55 22:30, September 14, 2017 (UTC) gives people overview on the pros and cons of the CC mods in the future
  13. Yes --The Courier NCR for life (talk) 22:31, September 14, 2017 (UTC)
  14. Yes User:the wandering mercenary 83.71.80.55 22:32, September 14, 2017 (UTC)
  15. Yes Yeah it should be covered. It's terrible content but it is content and it is content that people will have questions about and will look to this Wikia to answer. User:JBour53
  16. Yes But only if on a single page with links out, but no links in from articles. Otherwise no. And then only as a exclusion to the existing no mods rule, which still remains. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons.png 23:20, September 14, 2017 (UTC)
  17. Yes Overseer X (talk) 23:21, September 14, 2017 (UTC)
  18. Yes Skysteam (talk) 00:04, September 15, 2017 (UTC)
  19. Yes Preston Freaking Garvey (talk)
  20. Yes Seeing how it's paid content like a DLC I think they should be included. Rebel427 ~ I'll be your huckleberry 02:35, September 15, 2017 (UTC)
  21. Yes It still is Fallout content, endorsed by Bethesda and technically made by people in their employment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBESTisnear (talkcontribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~!
  22. Yes Not that much different from an add-on like GRA, in my opinion. --Skire (talk) 10:00, September 15, 2017 (UTC)
  23. Yes Bethesda endorsed content deserves a page. AllYourFavorites (talk) 12:24, September 15, 2017 (UTC)

No

  1. No I know they call it official content. I just don't feel it is. Yodamort (talk) 19:41, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
  2. No They are still "Mod Content" and should not be covered.Xa3talkContributions 21:35, September 14, 2017 (UTC)
  3. No User Talk:Pedro Washington They're a disgrace. Also can we stop voting on things so I can stop struggling to vote on mobile. This really sucks.

Abstain

Do we condense to one article or individual pages?

Single page for all mods, with exceptions to in-depth content will be counted towards Single page in the case of no clear majority.

Single page for all content

  1. Yes 123123abcabc (talk) 12:51, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
  2. Yes One page for all. I believe a large table will suffice. NomadMC (talk) 15:42, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
  3. Yes Yodamort (talk) 19:43, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
  4. Yes Create one page for each CC content would be overkill Glauber0 Howdy! 14:41, September 12, 2017 (UTC)
  5. Yes Agreed. Just a ton of tables etc. As it stands there isn't the capacity for any significant quest mods etc. Shaka1277 (talk) 21:40, September 12, 2017 (UTC)
  6. Yes While I don't know how many more items will be added, I don't think more then one article is needed to cover this. There is basically no information to be added about the individual items as they are not part of any quest or story. I also think it is very important to state that this content is not canon, because it isn't, right? DisgustingWastelander (talk) 21:29, September 14, 2017 (UTC)
  7. Yes If they are going to be covered keep it all on 1 page as an overview. They're Mods and should not get their own pages. Xa3talkContributions 21:37, September 14, 2017 (UTC)
  8. Yes With the file size limits, there will be no big mods. One page should suffice. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons.png 23:20, September 14, 2017 (UTC)

Single page for all mods, with exceptions to in-depth content

  1. Yes Agent c (talk) 22:00, September 14, 2017 (UTC)
  2. Yes Paladin117>>iff bored; 22:00, September 14, 2017 (UTC)
  3. Yes This makes more sense. How are you going to make a whole page out of a pip boy skin? User:JBour53
  4. Yes User:The wandering mercenary
  5. Yes Skysteam (talk) 00:04, September 15, 2017 (UTC) Makes sense. Some bigger mods might need their own page.
  6. Yes Preston Freaking Garvey (talk)
  7. Yes AllYourFavorites (talk) 12:24, September 15, 2017 (UTC)

Individual mods get individual pages

  1. Yes One page can't cover the mod enough, needs seperate pages. We can add a non-canon tag at the top of the page. People will want to know more than what can be shown on an overview page. Some pages can be condensed like paint jobs, backpack variants and furniture. Jspoel Speech Jspoel.png 15:17, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
  2. Yes The page will get rammed eventually if we don't go this route and disambiguation down the line will be a nightmare. Sakaratte
  3. Yes Wouldn't even be surprised if some mods would need multiple pages... - Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 21:53, September 14, 2017 (UTC)
  4. Yes --The Courier NCR for life (talk) 22:32, September 14, 2017 (UTC)
  5. Yes Rebel427 ~ I'll be your huckleberry 02:36, September 15, 2017 (UTC)
  6. Yes Considering the mods would include new locations, characters, etc., it only makes sense to cover them as we would any other add-on material released through the devs. Either we don't cover it at all, or we cover it comprehensively. --Skire (talk) 10:00, September 15, 2017 (UTC)

Do we include all CC content (not just BGS)

Yes

  1. Yes 123123abcabc (talk) 12:53, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
  2. Yes I don't see why would pick and choose which mods to cover. A mod not made by BGS is basically the same as Fallout: New Vegas. Paladin117>>iff bored; 22:00, September 14, 2017 (UTC)
  3. Yes If we're gonna call them "not mods" then we gotta call them all "not mods". The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons.png 23:22, September 14, 2017 (UTC)
  4. Yes Skysteam (talk) 00:04, September 15, 2017 (UTC)
  5. Yes Preston Freaking Garvey (talk)
  6. Yes Rebel427 ~ I'll be your huckleberry 02:36, September 15, 2017 (UTC)

No

  1. No I'd rather leave this covered, but still condensed. Including non-BGS material is unnecessary. (Bethesda Game Studios, by the way JSP.) NomadMC (talk) 15:44, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
  2. No Yodamort (talk) 19:44, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
  3. No Glauber0 Howdy! 14:47, September 12, 2017 (UTC)
  4. NoShaka1277 (talk) 21:40, September 12, 2017 (UTC)
  5. No Xa3talkContributions 21:39, September 14, 2017 (UTC)
  6. No This is where I draw the line. Even if all content is reviewed/approved by Bethesda, I'd prefer if we only cover content actually made by them. --Skire (talk) 10:00, September 15, 2017 (UTC)
  7. No We don't include content made by regular modders on Bethesda.net, so I don't see how it would be any different here. AllYourFavorites (talk) 12:24, September 15, 2017 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Yes It there other CC content than what's created by Bethesda? Jspoel Speech Jspoel.png 15:17, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Although external content is oversighted by Bethesda Devs all the way, some of the non-Beth content may fall into the Fanon realms. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin

Do we include CC links in base/add-on game articles

Yes

  1. Yes With a small CC icon preceding the text as we do with add-ons. Jspoel Speech Jspoel.png 15:17, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
  2. Yes Yes, such as [Creation Club#Insert-Mod-Name-Here]. NomadMC (talk) 15:44, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
  3. Yes Why ignore sanctions goods, even if we disagree with the principle of their existence. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin
  4. Yes 100% agree with Jspoelstra here. If it's flagged, it's fine. Shaka1277 (talk) 21:40, September 12, 2017 (UTC)
  5. Yes Skysteam (talk) 00:04, September 15, 2017 (UTC)
  6. Yes They are technically not Mods as it is Paid content published by Bethesda, I refer to them more as DLC than mods. Rebel427 ~ I'll be your huckleberry 02:38, September 15, 2017 (UTC)
  7. Yes As long as it's flagged as Creation Club and non-canon, then I don't see a problem. AllYourFavorites (talk) 12:24, September 15, 2017 (UTC)

No

  1. No Too much work for it enough people. The number of CC mods will only grow.
  2. No 123123abcabc (talk) 12:52, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
  3. No --YOD ᕦ(ò_óˇ)ᕤ 15:47, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
  4. No Yodamort (talk) 19:44, September 11, 2017 (UTC)
  5. No Xa3talkContributions 21:36, September 14, 2017 (UTC)
  6. No Paladin117>>iff bored; 22:00, September 14, 2017 (UTC)
  7. No Agent c (talk) 22:01, September 14, 2017 (UTC)
  8. No Never. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons.png 23:22, September 14, 2017 (UTC)
  9. No That would muddy the water way to much. Keep official content and mod content as separate as possible. Great Mara (talk) 02:01, September 15, 2017 (UTC)
  10. No Things could get messy, given the large amount of mods that might be expected down the road. Even though I think we should cover CC content, keeping them separate from the "main" content is probably best. --Skire (talk) 10:00, September 15, 2017 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Neutral Glauber0 Howdy! 14:47, September 12, 2017 (UTC)

Comments

I'm going to add a bit of clarity to the BGS content. From what I understand, creation club content produced within Bethesda is marked with BGS (Bethesda Game Studio, I presume). Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 15:25, September 11, 2017 (UTC)

I'm in favor of adding the CC content as if it was another add-on's content, with all the respective categories. Although I think we shouldn't CC content like armors, weapons... on the FO4 dedicated pages (FO4 weapons, FO4 armor...) since the CC content is likely not canon and it cannot be purchased in one bundle like the base game and its official add-ons.
BGS = Bethesda Game Studios --YOD ᕦ(ò_óˇ)ᕤ 15:47, September 11, 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why there is a vote for this? These are still "Mods" even if they're Bethesda approved they're still Mods. Am I not seeing something everyone else is?Xa3talkContributions 21:42, September 14, 2017 (UTC)

It's still Bethesda sanctioned content. Single page seems to be the favorite at the moment. I don't think such an overview page can hold all the information the items have, and there will come more content, so it won't get any better either. Jspoel Speech Jspoel.png 21:45, September 14, 2017 (UTC)
To my knowledge, the only thing we have in policies regarding mods (from FW:C) is: "All content needs to relate to the games as delivered by the developers; user modifications are not covered by this wiki." Since these are technically delivered by the developers and not user mods, then there is no real contradiction. --Skire (talk) 09:48, September 15, 2017 (UTC)


Result

Just checking with the other crats now. Although most of the vote is straight forward, just want to check how we're dealing with 3. Agent c (talk) 22:15, September 19, 2017 (UTC)

We did discuss this in the Town Hall meeting, but with no resolution. The Crats are considering again, and we're also considering a second compromise solution too. More news when I have it. Agent c (talk) 19:52, September 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
Advertisement