Fallout Wiki
Fallout Wiki
Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Creation Club revisited

I'm late on launching this off, apologies.

Now we have had our agreement to maintain CC articles for a few months and the opportunity to see how the beast has evolved, I think it is time to revisit the policy.

At present we are being given clear signs by the larger, generally more invisible element of the community that policy isn't quite right. For example, users believe that Tunnel Snakes Rule! has components that should be mentioned on both Tunnel Snakes and Wally Mack pages. To me this makes sense as it is non-canon information that would be of interest to others.

The way I see the policy as is, is that it was an attempt to acknowledge CC, but bastardise it at the same time. This actually counter-acts our core policy of complete, factual information.

Can anyone think of a compelling reason why we should have a policy that seeming flies in the face of our core principles? If not, I would like to pass motion that we cover CC in the same manner as everything else: relevant information is in the relevant places

Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 08:56, February 13, 2018 (UTC)

First, I'd like to argue in favour of covering CC content. CC content is different from mods because "Most of the Creation Club content is created internally", and "All the content is approved, curated, and taken through the full internal dev cycle; including localization, polishing, and testing". This means that CC is arguably canon (though I prefer considering it non-canon) (and the DOOM weapons are obviously not canon), but is at least held to a far higher standard than your regular mod. Bethesda considers CC to be an opportunity for the community to cooperate with them in creating more official content.

But I'd also like to point out issues that we'd have to deal with if we'd decide to cover all CC content everywhere.
First there's the problem of whether we want to add information that is obviously very much non-canon to the main pages. Imagine CC content that gives Piper a new gun that shoots zombie puppies or something and a whole quest around it. Do we add that to Piper's page? Is that really part of her background?
The second problem would be contradictions and inconsistencies between different pieces of CC content. If two pieces of CC content gave the same character different stats, how do we add that to the page? And how about different backgrounds? What if they only conflict partially, do we try to merge them into one consistent story?

I'm in favour of adding limited information on CC content on main pages, provided that it is surrounded by messages indicating their non-canon status.
- FDekker talk 09:31, February 13, 2018 (UTC)

I’m on board with Dekker. Info added might be important enough to mention, but still warrants a Van Buren-esque non-canon warning. Skysteam (talk) 11:44, February 13, 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, I presume this is solely referring to this vote, which was deemed to be a consensus against the proposal. Given the objections on that page, perhaps if it were worded differently, such that links to CC content were not permitted in the main article text, but were treated similarly to the "behind the scenes" sections in some articles, you might get a different result.
It would be nice if CC could be treated as canon, and incorporated into the main article text, but I can't imagine that working for two reasons:
  1. Given that the amount, and nature, of future content is unknown, it would be dangerous to have a blanket rule that all CC content be deemed canon, for the reasons FDekker mentions above.
  2. It's probably just gonna annoy people who, for whatever reason, aren't prepared to shell out the cash to pay for this content. There was a fair amount of hostility when Bethesda first annouced this, along the lines of: "I already paid for the season pass, and now you want more money for the 'complete experience'?"
I wonder if there would've been this much resistance had the CC content been free. I don't recall there being any arguments about covering survival mode. ;-) Aya42 (talk) 11:57, February 13, 2018 (UTC)

This topic is certainly difficult. After all, the way I see it, not only is CC content not canon, it's actually beyond the point of non canon content because the mods in question were never even in development to become potential canon content. Some of us have suggested we place simple non canon disclaimers on pages and the content under those. I'm of the opinion, though, that because of the possibility of "Piper zombie gun" scenarios (and the mods already here actually aren't far off), we would need something stronger - we would need to facilitate wiki users who don't even want to see that content on the page, period. Thus saying, I would suggest adding some kind of click-to-open section format - something that basically says "Creation Club content related to <pagetitle>" with a [Show] button or a ⇩ dropdown symbol to click on to open the paragraph, kind of like the system we use to indicate items in the same category as another item at the page bottom. I dunno. Point is, I don't think we should resign to merely putting this into the existing systems of "canon" and "not canon". This topic has been debated for quite awhile now, and I think there's good reason behind it - it needs to be discussed, because the existing options we have aren't enough. Maybe that's just my opinion, but I'd really like to see more suggestions of entirely new systems for dealing with this stuff. |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 13:17, February 13, 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to raise part of what you said selerately below Aya, canon status needs a discussion of its own. You are right about the policy you found. CC vote felt like a half hearted attempt to acknowledge, yet bastardise CC at the same time as opposed to a proper policy.

Dekker: this is fairly new territory for us all, but considering Bethesda are aiming for complete compatability, the odds of content conflict are likely to be non-extant. Unless we see something that is problematic, I wouldn't worry too much. Two mods that cause a character separate stats is likely to be something they would handle their end.
Nom: we can't please everyone. There are people who probably don't want to see VB or FOBOS content, but in order to be factual, it is there. Like with spoilers, if it is tagged they have the option to skip it. CC is different in how it is produced, but I'd rather avoid ourselves being seen as opinionated in the debate by treating it with hidden sections. People will complain that they have to go to the extra effort and it makes it look like we are expressing a personal view. We said we cover it and to me that means we do it properly instead of finding way to burying it. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 13:27, February 13, 2018 (UTC)
I should note I'm not suggesting altering the page format already in place for CC. I find no objections there. Rather, I suggest that if we decide to start covering related CC information seriously on mainspace pages related to those CC pages, that we create a new non-canon formatting device, such as a "spoiler code" paragraph in effect, to cover it. |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 13:32, February 13, 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That is fair enough, but it would have to extend all non-canon/semi-canon excerpts, including VB, FB, FOBOS, FOS etc etc. It is a bigger piece of consideration than just CC as we need to remain consistent to avoid appearing biased against CC. Best way to avoid bias is to not bury information specifically to one subject. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 14:53, February 13, 2018 (UTC)


Aya actually raises a good point above and I think it should be dealt with as part of this discussion. Is CC non-canon or semi canon? Part of Bethesda's objective was integration with the game they with. However some of the content we have seen (such as the BFG), are clearly non-canon items.

For the time being I'm ok to treat it as non-canon. If we see developments in the future that canonises items we can move to a semi-canon state in the future. All it will take is a tweak of a template. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 13:27, February 13, 2018 (UTC)

To reuse an argument I've used before, I'd think that the canon status of CC content simply should not be equalized with non canon content because of original intent. What I mean by that is that non-canon items, such as Van Buren, were at minimum orginally intended to be a part of the greater Fallout universe. For an example, JSP's Star Wars - Fallout 1 mashup pic on his profile was never intended to be canon - and as far as I can tell, neither was CC content. In other words, when we grant something "non canon" status, we imply that the original intent of that item was to be a part of Fallout canon, at least at its original conception. After all, we wouldn't simply take JSP's noted image above and make a "non canon" section about it on the Fallout 1 page. Now, whether you think that makes CC content "semi canon", or "less than non canon" as I do, take your pick. But I don't think they are equals. |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 13:44, February 13, 2018 (UTC)

I agree that Van Buren and CC are non-canon in different ways. But "non-canon" simply means "not canon": Adding a banner saying that the following content is "non-canon" does not imply that the contents were ever meant to be canon.
I don't think we should consider CC canon, because some things are obviously very far from canon. We could choos to mark some content as canon and other as non-canon, but where do we draw the line? We simply don't know whether it was intended as canon.
- FDekker talk 14:46, February 13, 2018 (UTC)
Hence why I suggest we dispose of the topic of "how canon is it" entirely and make a new format for the content (where it appears on non CC pages). I don't see anything particularly wrong with just making a "spoiler" code format - or whatever the case may be - just something that indicates we consider CC to be different from both mainspace content and up-to-this-point non-canon content. I don't consider it to be a bias issue; to the contrary, I do want to see CC content covered, as we are a Fallout wiki, and our job is thus to cover all Fallout related materiel in some way. That we would use a different section for covering CC content on non-CC pages is no more biased than the special section we use for covering non-canon content on canon pages. Perhaps it's not entirely necessary; perhaps we will use nothing more than a new non canon stamp. I'm not offended by that, since it is non-canon, after all. But I would nonetheless find CC to be a category of non-canon different enough to justify a new non-canon stamp design. |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 15:52, February 13, 2018 (UTC)
Although I appreciate the point that it is different to non-canon games, if I were a reader flicking through random pages I would question why we are hiding this particular piece of information and not other non-canon items. The tags we have function to tell people "if you're after lore fact, skip this section". Non and semi-canon are essentially additional flavouring we have been given to suggest this could have beem, or most of this is affirmed by the rest of the series. I'm going to skip back to nom's point of original intent, to say there is no original intent would be to assume Bethesda's intentions for what is or isn't passed at vetting. Beyond a couple of items that Beth put in from their other franchises (done in a way that it can mostly be ignored from a lore argument mind) there has been nothing I would note as not being feasible from a lore perspective. Raider makes their own variation of PA? Why not. Slocum Joe's coffee has been revived? We found the recipe for buzzbites in the base game, makes sense other blueprints are knocking around. I don't think there is enough grounds to make it something special, without it looking like we hold a personal bias. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 17:59, February 13, 2018 (UTC)
I'm satisfied with the current non-canon tag as it is used now (you can also end CC sections with it). I'm in favor of linking to CC content on mainspace pages like locations, where it's missing at the moment I think, with related quests. It's had a rough start, but Bethesda makes some CC-content freely available on a regular basis so more people will install it, and look for information on the wiki. Jspoel Speech Jspoel.png 18:39, February 13, 2018 (UTC)
Adding them to mainspace pages would be good, however I don't know if they should all remain on the non-canon tag. Most of them clearly fit with the lore, some items from past games like the chinese stealth armor, classic 10mm, tunnel snakes outfit and hellfire armor to name a few. Bethesda is releasing the CC content, which already sets it apart from Mods, most of it isn't lore breaking at all. I don't really see a reason to keep it non-canon. I've never used Mods on any Fallout game because I want the immersive feel of the natural world, but I have picked up most of the CC stuff, solely because I don't consider them mods, more like mini paid DLCs. Rebel427 ~ I'll be your huckleberry 23:51, February 13, 2018 (UTC)
Basing a mod off of previous games does not make it canon. While the existence of Chinese stealth armor is canon, the fact that it is in the Commonwealth is not. And we can't pick and choose which mods are and aren't canon, they either all are canon or none of them are. So, if the tunnel snakes in the Commonwealth are canon, so is Morgan Yu and his space suit. Paladin117>>iff bored; 00:18, February 14, 2018 (UTC)
Chinese spies and a submarine are already in the Commonwealth, so saying stealth armor would be around too isn't far fetched at all, unlike Morgan's space suit. There's a difference between the mods and something that fits with the existing lore. Raiders finding Hellfire armor, a little bit of a stretch, but the armor already exists in the games. I was meaning some of it should be canon, but you're saying if we do that then why not add all of the CC items? Some of them just don't fit with the world and should remain non-canon. Or we could at least add a section on main pages like the behind the scenes for CC items. Rebel427 ~ I'll be your huckleberry 03:48, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

( Yeah, except who is it that gets to decide which mods are and aren't canon? Because there are things way more ridiculous than Morgan's space suit in the Fallout series. Paladin117>>iff bored; 03:56, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Ya that's a good point, like the Zetans and entire DLC set in a space ship. I don't know though, perhaps would could vote on the various CC items in a polling system way? That way everyone would get a vote, and if it's batted down then oh well. Rebel427 ~ I'll be your huckleberry 04:05, February 14, 2018 (UTC)
You mean voting per CC content whether it's to be considered canon or non-canon? I don't think that's a good idea, because it would require us to speculate on what is and isn't intended as canon. Additionally, any discussions resulting from such a vote are not useful because there is no correct answer; there is only what the majority thinks is right.
No, instead I agree with Paladin that we should choose between canon and non-canon (or semi-canon) and apply that to all CC content equally. I think the DOOM-related content clearly shows that it should not be considered canon, and for it to be considered semi-canon I think we need more than "but it would fit in the lore (in my own speculated way)" and "but Bethesda created it".- FDekker talk 12:22, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

So what should/shouldn't be included

I think for now leaving it as non-canon should be fine. There are some good arguments for moving to and not moving to semi-canon, we can debate that more above. I want to move back to the main point of why should we treat it differently. Someone said limited information, but what should that limited information be? For me it would be:

  • Lore connections:

In 2287, Wally Mack lead the Tunnel Snakes to the Commonwealth, and set up shop in an old metro station. He made the decision to retain the nuclear waste barrels inside, with the view they would grant the Tunnel Snakes super powers. Unfortunately, this resulted in the group turning into feral ghouls.

The above shows how it can be done that makes it clear that this is CC information.

Any objections? Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 22:18, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

On the Wally Mack page? Maybe just make a copy of that page to a sandbox page, apply whatever changes you think people are least likely to object to, link it in here, and see what people think. If most people are okay with it, then just blat it over the original. Aya42 (talk) 23:00, February 14, 2018 (UTC)
No objections from me. |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 15:35, February 15, 2018 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Not just weapons in notable loot, other (quest) items too. Jspoel Speech Jspoel.png 21:59, February 15, 2018 (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