FANDOM


Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Discussion merge Nukapedia / The Vault
 
Gametitle-Wiki
Gametitle-Wiki


In light of the voting results on the Nukapedia The Vault merge formal vote, the bureaucrat team have decided to put the voting process on hold. Many no voters' complaint is that there hasn't been a proper discussion yet, in which everyone's concerns can be raised. With this discussion forum, we believe a much wider support base for the merge can be created. If you have them, place your concerns below. Following the discussion, the vote forum will be unlocked again, making it possible for people to reconsider their vote.

CommentsEdit

While I am a supporter of the merge, I think it is a great idea, it's clear some people are concerned with the quality of the content that is getting merged in, specifically making sure the content is following rules and is clean and it's being changed in the merge process to be so, not just copy and pasted without a second, hard look. I haven't personally witnessed these problems but I would just like to suggest that we should not only have a couple venues for communication where editors can ask about and/or inform how to merge certain content properly, but also provide clear direction to those venues. A forum post specifically for getting/giving merge help and the Nukapedia discord merger channel are great potential venues, it only needs to be made clear to content mergers that these resources would or already exist. Enclave Soldier Elliott (talk) 21:01, October 1, 2019 (UTC)


Voting was paused before I had a chance to fully consider my own voting preference and rationale. I whole heartedly support the idea of the two wikis merging together, and we, as both members of the Nukapedia and the Vault, will only benefit from the merger. Though, prior to this discussion having been opened up, it would have been with enough of a caveat to justify voting neutrally, at least for the time. The only flaws seem to be with the implementation not the idea, and I cannot make that point clear enough.

Both Dekker and Mara have already voiced the most common complaints I have seen from community members actively participating in the merger, and though I believe we all do expect there to be a little lag during the transition phase, there seems to have been a visible dismissal of many of these issues. The longer the merger goes on, the more these issues will compound, and I see no reason to allow for an otherwise avoidable scenario where there is an immediate need for an editorial project to correct these problems once the merger concludes. There are tens of thousands of articles that will need to be checked for new information, references, images, or other content present on the Vault that may not be present on Nuka, so this project is going to take a ‘’very’’ long time to complete in its entirety; shelfing concerns or simple advising users to “be bold” as they arise will likely leave such concerns, many of which are completely valid, to either be overlooked, solved inconsistently, and overall lead to additional problems.

My suggestion for an improvement to the current system is for a two-step verification on the checklists to prevent as many policy noncompliant edits or regrettable instances of page wiping and replacing. Whichever user performs the original check and edit can leave there mark as it currently sits, and a user who verifiably knows what they are doing can perform a follow up approval. Because there have been, unfortunately, some glaringly noncompliant pages merged, specifically regarding locations, transferred over by users who, by all accounts, should know better. This “weasel” language as Mara phrased it appears somewhat regularly on Vault articles and are being imported wholesale, when now rather than later is the best time to correct these issues which are minor as individual instances but will be a far greater inconvenience if given the chance persist several thousand times over. A secondary check would also prevent instances of wiping and pasting which could lead to valuable information being lost.

Based on the comments already present on the voting, it might also be necessary to reiterate the basic how’s and why’s since many of the “no” votes are not actually concerning a fundamental disagreement with the idea of joint wiki but rather with a lack of communication leading up to the merger. Might help put a few of their minds at ease.

My two cents anyway. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 21:28, October 1, 2019 (UTC)


As per both of the above, I believe a merge is certainly in due coming. But this certainly feels a lot like we're getting a fair amount of "merge the wikis now, fix it later"... I don't feel like that is a good thing to be doing. Some folks believe that it is more efficient that way. Perhaps it is, short term, but in the long term we could be creating some rather dangerous precedents for article quality if articles are haphazardly mashed without doing it right the first time. Now, this is not to say that every merged article is done poorly; far from it. Plenty of the editors working right now are doing the best they can to merge. But glaring examples of editors merging without a clear guide as to how articles need merged, and the exact policies up front for doing so.... give the impression that we need considerably more communication on a forum from the staff's opinions on how this should be done. |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 23:11, October 1, 2019 (UTC)


As expressed on Discord, on Skysteam's forum discussion, and in my initial vote, my main concern is with the lack of care for existing Nukapedia editing policies that some of the imports are taking. This concern is compounded by the anecdotes that some editors are approaching this merge with a "fix it later" or "someone else's problem" attitude. I have been assured now on multiple occasions throughout the process that NP content policies trump TV ones and, where there is a problem with that, due process will be followed to amend existing NP content policies. Evidently this stance has either not been effectively communicated or is just being ignored. If this is actually the stance that the merger is taking, then I would like to see the following:

  1. More specific guidelines on the project page to this effect - e.g. "When merging, ensure that the final content meets with the wiki's existing policies."; "Where there is divergence between the content policies of the two wikis, the Nukapedia content policy takes precedence." Content policies are what makes the wiki coherent and, even though I have not been here long, I can see that significant time and effort has gone into developing them. Choosing to just ignore them or "leave it to someone else to fix" is a piss-poor attitude to have, regardless of how much more valuable you consider your time to be relative to the "someone else".
  2. Where there is agreement that minor changes should be made to article layouts to accommodate sections which exist in TV articles (for example, a 'points of interest' subheading being included under 'Layout'), that the relevant guidelines are amended to reflect this.
  3. Where there are major changes to be made, that due process is followed in getting things changed, rather than there being a unilateral decision to make changes without documentation. We need to be able to point to evidence of a decision when someone gets sassy about "why are things like this it's so stupid".
  4. Exhortation Encouragement of merging editors to have a care when merging and not just copy-pasting the material. This is a once in a wiki-lifetime opportunity to pseudo-QA basically every single page on the wiki so we should really take the chance to.

I am also supportive of a double sign-off or a peer review on each merged article, ideally by a representative from each wiki. However, I appreciate that this probably calls for more editing resources than we have so I am content with having the above implemented.

Do this and my mind will be set more at ease with regards to the merger. Actually follow-through and we're really onto a good thing. --L84tea Tea kettleWould you like a cup of tea? 00:15, October 2, 2019 (UTC)


I agree with the idea of the merger, but I don't think it is being handled properly from an editing standpoint. While it has been said already, the issue is that some content is effectively copy pasted with no attention paid to corrections. This is especially obvious when the article includes references, as The Vault calls pages about terminal entries "Location terminals" whereas Nukapedia calls them "Location terminal entries", creating redlinks. Another problem is capitalisation, as articles for the same thing, but with different capitalisation (especially holotapes) show up as redlinks. It isn't the biggest of issues, and is relatively easy to fix, but it consistently happens when content is imported from The Vault. Aiden4017 (talk) 02:38, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

The redlinks are the most irritating thing to me because they are literally the easiest thing to spot and fix prior to publishing. These are very basic editing considerations which we seem to be okay with overlooking for some reason? --L84tea Tea kettleWould you like a cup of tea? 02:44, October 2, 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not difficult to type one word (entries) or simply check the links as you type them in. What really annoys me is that it's usually not even a full word, it's something as simple as Vault 94 G.E.C.K. recording vs Vault 94 G.E.C.K. Recording. Aiden4017 (talk) 06:30, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

  • I feel as if certain issues are being blow out of proportion, as I've been going through the articles being debated over in the Discord server, and all I am seeing are fairly minor issues that are dealt with on a daily basis, regardless of the merge. Everything being brought up, from capitalization to speculation, are common issues among the wiki, and these issues should be treated exactly as how they've always been treated since the respective guidelines & policies were created.
  • "...merge the wikis now, fix it later..." - I keep seeing this quote floating around as justification that the merge is on some sort of rocky road, when the fact of the matter is that only a single editor from The Vault has said anything like that, and it should also be noted that they are not a rights-holder that can attempt to force in that line of reasoning. Let's ground ourselves in reality here, and understand that a single editor's opinion on the merge, isn't reflective of the actual merge itself.
  • "...my main concern is with the lack of care for existing Nukapedia editing policies..." - That's a rather harsh breach of the good faith rules that this wiki employs. As any new editor can attest to, Nukapedia has a rather vast and extensive set of guidelines & policies that can be intimidating for anyone trying to jump into the article-space. Not every editor from The Vault is going to immediately be able to understand and memorize the differences in rules on Nukapedia, and it's as simple as pointing them in the right direction whenever their habits carried over make an appearance. If the behaviour continues, get someone involved to act as a mediator, and hash things out personally rather than beating around the bush.
  • Red-links, by their very nature, are an incredibly important part of building a wiki, and I'd rather not see a stigma against them created; especially when red-links are easy to track down and build upon by any editor interested in tackling our maintenance categories. Even Wikipedia finds red-links useful, and the link provided is a good read for those looking to understand the concept better.
    • OT: As for the discussion forum itself, I welcome any chance to discuss the merge more in-depth, and I hope to see people getting involved with this forum as work continues around the wiki. Ultimately, though, I do believe that the only way we'll be able to understand what needs to be done, and how to improve the processes involved, is by actually going through with the merge and learning as we go. Talking is nice and all, but learning from hindsight is a better teaching tool than hypothetical scenarios that may or may not happen. 寧靜 Fox 07:11, October 2, 2019 (UTC)
Both Aiden and I are referring to issues that we are already seeing repeatedly in the imports, so I at least would appreciate not having these concerns dismissed as "hypothetical scenarios". --L84tea Tea kettleWould you like a cup of tea? 07:24, October 2, 2019 (UTC)
To reiterate, I still can't see as to how these issues are any different than what happens on the wiki almost daily, regardless of the merge. They are issues, and I am not disputing that - but they are minor issues, and do not require extensive discussions, votes, nor legislation to deal with, rather than speaking to people on a personal level about their editing habits.
That appears to be our main deviation in thinking on the matter. Personal interactions vs impersonal legislation, which we already have way too much of. 寧靜 Fox 07:37, October 2, 2019 (UTC)
I would like to point out that in my intial comment I'm not talking about redlinks in terms of there being no articles, I'm talking about links that, while correct on The Vault, do not link to the corresponding page on Nukapedia. Again not hypothetical, this is happening constantly. Aiden4017 (talk) 07:33, October 2, 2019 (UTC)
I felt it necessary to point out that red-links are important, as while I understand the point you were making, you were still putting an emphasis on red-links, rather than just addressing the issue as nothing more than a lack of research before linking.
There was a time on Nukapedia where red-links were ostracized, which is the only reason I'm going out of my way to make note on the matter. 寧靜 Fox 07:37, October 2, 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to add that it's hypocritical to say that we should "learn from hindsight" and then say that there's nothing we can try to do to resolve these issues which are being raised with the benefit of hindsight. I've suggested some practical and unobtrusive ways to address some of the more basic concerns which have been expressed, what is the problem with implementing them? --L84tea Tea kettleWould you like a cup of tea? 07:36, October 2, 2019 (UTC)
Where did I say that? You seem to be attaching words to what I've said that are in no way indicative of what I'm trying to get across. 寧靜 Fox 07:38, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

"Talking is nice and all, but learning from hindsight is a better teaching tool than hypothetical scenarios that may or may not happen" implies that we're here just to talk in hypotheticals. I am learning from hindsight, and in hindsight the project guidelines for the merger should have been more explicit with regards to 1) that merged information should continue to adhere to the relevant wiki's content policy and 2) that it's not just a copy-paste job, you should check what you're merging to ensure that, at the very least, the links are working. Again, I've suggested a really quite easy way to allay some of my concerns, yet seemingly these suggestions are being dismissed along with the concerns. Yes, sure we deal with these "small issues" all the time but not in the this volume. There is no way we can keep up with a patrol log like this when it's not one but 20 links which need to be fixed in a single edit. --L84tea Tea kettleWould you like a cup of tea? 07:48, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

I apologize if that is the way I came across. As I also noted, I welcome further discussion on the merge as we continue onwards, as there are certainly going to be issues that need to be addressed. My criticisms lie solely in the more minor issues being brought up, which are not really what I'd call merge-related, and are, instead, common mistakes found on the wiki, that should be dealt with just as we've been dealing with them for years.
  • To address the more serious concerns, for example the copy/pasting, that is something that needs to be amended. I'm not sure yet if there's more than a single example of an editor doing this so far, but it is something that doesn't need to be happening if not necessary, even from just a single source.
As a veteran editor, I can't say that I agree with you about the volume claim. I've been around for multiple game releases, and the merge is going at a much slower pace than what we've seen compared to new content being released - with the exceptions of Shelter and 76. This is extra work, yes; but if the claim is being made that it's too much to handle, then we genuinely have a serious problem on our hands regarding the number of editors able to keep the wiki running. I'll be editing soon as well, so I'll be doing my part in keeping the RC up-to-date. 寧靜 Fox 07:57, October 2, 2019 (UTC)
The minor issues we are commenting on are occurring disproportionately in imported articles, so yes I daresay they are merge-related even if they're not particularly sexy issues. Again, I have suggested something straightforward which neither creates red tape nor seeks to antagonise incoming editors. You have yet to acknowledge or address this, instead choosing to focus on minimising what I, and other people, consider to be issues. Yes, they may be minor in the grand scheme of things but it sure doesn't feel good to have them dismissed like that. I've been told to empathise with the new and unfamiliar situation that incoming editors are facing but maybe that empathy should go both ways. --L84tea Tea kettleWould you like a cup of tea? 08:08, October 2, 2019 (UTC)
Then I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this matter. I am aware that these issues are happening, and they will continue to be amended as necessary - but I can't say that I see these issues as anything more than minor annoyances that are an every day part of life when working on a wiki.
I haven't commented on that yet, because I just got back home from work, it is 3 in the morning, and I still need to think on those matters more heavily before I officially comment on them. I am not obligated to respond to every single last idea brought up here at the same exact time, and I can't say that I appreciate your disparaging comments towards me, all because I am not responding to you in the exact way in which you wish me to. I will reply to you on your ideas when I am ready to, so calm your horses. 寧靜 Fox 08:17, October 2, 2019 (UTC)
In the interests of concluding this section, you chose to engage with me at a time which was less suitable for you and that is not a decision that is on me. I do not apologise for trying to engage back with you at the same time as I presumed a timely response was more desirable than leaving it for a few days. Obviously I have said my piece on Discord and I think you and I are at peace with the conclusion. Thanks for your further reply about my suggestions, I will respond in the appropriate section. --L84tea Tea kettleWould you like a cup of tea? 23:03, October 3, 2019 (UTC)
Unlike a major content release, however, this project is entirely one taken on at will, and is, by no means one which requires the same levels of time crunch. There should be no rush nor reason to dismiss "common" mistakes as being acceptable en masse if they can be mitigated or avoided. One of the main problems as I understand it quite literally is more minor issues and a willingness, as shown here, to dismiss the problem as a non-issue. Rather than allow sloppy work now, which will inevitably require a mop up later, assuming it is even caught (not everything is as easily diagnosable as red links born from differing naming conventions). And this conversation largely epitomizes the concerns of everyone above and on the voting page, a tacit "sure someone else can fix it later" rather than addressing it now. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 08:11, October 2, 2019 (UTC)
There's seems to be a bit of a disconnect that I'm noticing here, with how people are perceiving my thoughts on the matter. I may consider many of the issues brought up as minor, but in no way am I suggesting that they are acceptable. As I have stated a few times over now, these issues are to be dealt with as we've been dealing with them for years now. The merge is not some unique beast where the guidelines & policies are warped and dolled out differently.
What I want to see happening, is the editors making these mistakes, being spoken to personally, on the wiki, not the Discord, and having the relevant rules being made crystal clear. When it comes to the more minor issues being brought up, I see my suggestion as being much more successful, than indirectly tackling the issues by tacking them onto the merge discussions/vote. 寧靜 Fox 08:21, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

( It is not a matter of perception, it is a matter of articulation. If your feelings differ from your voiced opinions, feel free to clarify, but if your justification for dismissal and condescension are that you are too tired to take the time to write a more thoughtful, "official" reply then it falls on deaf ears. Leon, you literally entered the conversation, incorrectly interpreted a complaint and talked down to on the user who raised the issued, and after having the problem explained to you, decided to cop out because you are tired and by no means obligated to respond. Then why respond at all? Quite frankly, you are coming across as a dick. In the span of around an hour, you have singlehandedly managed to embody some of the worst of the problems which have been raised.

I have no issue with speaking to individual editors, especially if they are frequently committing the same errors. That may very well be the only solution in some cases, but these are not random fans who were hoping to contribute some new information to the wiki but are unfamiliar with Nuka polices. These are very much editors, not random anons and one off users. So I would argue that more information upfront and clearly presented would be merited as well, as I would hope editors are capable of reading and understanding the rules. Would be quite difficult to make it this far otherwise. The point of this discussion, at least so far as I am concerned, is to highlight the issues and bumps along the way which should be caught and corrected now, rather than months or years from now. And preemptive troubleshooting as a result of greater discussion is exactly the kind of benefit that the merger should have received prior to starting the official vote. I believe we both agree the merger is a great idea, but where we seemingly differ is that I believe its implementation thus far has not been so smooth as to say it is satisfactory to move on without at least attempting to address the already present issues. And alienating the very users with an apparent, even if unintentional, disinterest does nothing to foster a positive relationship between anyone. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 09:02, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm getting tired of the buzz-words you and Sax share between yourselves to use against me at every opportunity possible. Just because I disagree with someone, doesn't mean I'm being dismissive. Just because I disagree with someone, doesn't mean I'm being condescending. I am allowed my opinion, just as everyone else is, in the time-frame that I see fit. And whether you want to accept it or not, I take every opinion I see into account, and I've been discussing them extensively with people such as Tag.
You accuse me of coming across as a dick, yet you are the one entitled enough to suggest that I not comment until I am able to comment on everything, you suggest that I embody the worst of the problems being brought up which is downright nonsensical and a personal attack, and you suggest that I have no idea what I'm talking about, dismissing the issues brought up here without even understanding them, when I have stated over and over and over and over again that these issues do need to be addressed, but in a personal way that involves directly talking to people, instead of passive-aggressively inserting editor-conflicts into the merge discussions/votes. If you want to keep inserting your personal issues with me into your replies, then I'd highly suggest you take them to my talk-page, instead, and leave your more objective thoughts on this forum, instead.
Back onto the topic, I do not agree with your thoughts on the matter. As someone who has personally jumped between the two Fallout wikis, and has worked on many other large-scale wikis as well, discerning the differences in rules between communities can be incredibly difficult, and are almost always exponentially more extensive than the rules you'd see on, say, /d. Members of the The Vault migrating over to Nukapedia, should be treated exactly as new members still adjusting to the environment, and that includes making them aware of the guidelines and policies as necessary. In the end, being able to read/understand the rules has little to nothing to going through a re-adjusting period to break old habits. 寧靜 Fox 09:30, October 2, 2019 (UTC)
If you are tired of the way people react to you, I would suggest better evaluating your interactions with others to determine why multiple people have come to the same conclusion and what traits of yours have led to your predicament, but your aside has no place in this forum. I am certain that Sax can speak for himself, but he is not here and has not aired any specific grievances or concerns regarding the community discussion aside from the fact he, along with many other voters, believe one should occur. Any pre-existing issue you have with him, is an issue you have with him and is not one relevant to this conversation in the slightest.
I can assure you that I did not choose buzz words. In response to users voicing concerns, you arrived to tell them the concerns were of no consequence no more convincingly than it would have been to tell them the earth is flat. Feel free to chose which ever word you believe to have the least baggage: dismissal, disinterest, lack of concern, indifference, etc. I am not pointing out some vague notion or a behavior never once exhibited; I am pointing out the nature of your participation in the forum thus far. For reference, one need only look to the above comments. There is nothing I can say to make my case more so than you already have done. My opinions on this matter are my own, and when relevant to the conversation, I will share them at my discretion. Should you feel the need to continue any discussion relating to our interactions, you know where my talk page is.
Re-adjusting to old habits is hardly the only issue, unless I should take your meaning to be that editors from the Vault habitually leave broken links without taking the time to check them, add superfluous "weasel" words as Mara put it, and are more interested in the speed at which a task is performed rather than the quality of the final product. As I said, taking the time to speak with individual editors is a good idea, but I do not believe it is the end all be all solution. But what most definitely is not the solution is telling people who voice concerns about ongoing issues that the problem will be sorted out by someone else later or that any attempts to lessen and relieve the damage are futile. To that point, this is not a personal attack on you or own who you are, but rather it is a critique of your comments, and no one's comments, yours and mine included, are beyond reproach. No matter how uncomfortable it may be to hear. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 10:39, October 2, 2019 (UTC)
We're going off topic here and this barely serves any purpose for the topic at hand now. I'd suggest stopping it here and now.
- FDekker talk 11:29, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

On one hand there are issues such as leaving unnecessary red links, which I can't help but think shows a lack of care, and on the other hand there are issues such as creating hundreds of stubs, which is against our current policy. Now I'd be the last editor to say that anyone would need to know all policies by heart. My point is more that I agree that it's usually best to speak to people personally to discuss errors, but some errors occur so often that it's not an individual problem but one more deeply embedded into this merge. We need to have 1) clear guidelines for what is and is not acceptable, so that we can point people to these guidelines if we think they make an error, and 2) have the courtesy to talk to each other individually for smaller issues or suggestions. These guidelines could be placed on the wiki merger project page, for example. I would hope that this is sufficient to prevent these issues, but if this is not enough we can always follow Dyre's suggestion to create a review process.
- FDekker talk 10:15, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

Having a helpful tips section on the project page, where those signed up have to sign-off on having read them all, seems like a fairly good compromise solution to me. And even if there are members making similar mistakes yet haven't signed up, they can always be linked to the project page as well to get a general idea of where to look to improve their editing on Nukapedia. 寧靜 Fox 10:21, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

As I have stated elsewhere, I firmly support the merger. While there have been a few bumps along the way, I feel the problems that have arisen are very minor in the grand scheme of things. I do, however, have concerns regarding branding. We are very likely to get an influx of traffic around the release of Wastelanders. We should have a name, icon and site theme settled before then. I feel this is a part of the merge that has been somewhat overlooked. Should the votes end in favour for the merger, we should have a community discussion regarding these. Zealous Champion (talk) 03:42, October 3, 2019 (UTC)

Comprehensively addressing the issuesEdit

Rather than respond to every single comment and thus keep this discussion going in circles, I'd like to address the issues raised. This might be a lengthy post, so please stick with me (and if you're responding, do so in a comprehensive fashion, so that this may continue to be a constructive discussion, rather than turn into a back and forth; everyone wants the merge to happen, we're here to work out a solution). Also, keep in mind that I'm speaking as someone who has professionally worked on wikis for six years

General pointsEdit

  1. Policies: Although some users feel differently, there is simply no real material difference between the policies. The Vault has directed little attention to updating policies, with the focus being on revising and generating content. The exception are Referencing guidelines, which can be readily imported to establish a common standard for references. Other perceived differences are simply a case of Fandom having an explicit statement of what is taken as implicit on Gamepedia. Harmonization is trivial and we have replied in this spirit to the discussion raised, agreeing with Skysteam's points raised.
  2. Technical debt: The formatting differences between the two wikis are not major and are mostly up to conventions. Both sites have a decapitalization policy, for instance, but due to different priorities (referencing and rewriting over maintenance), this has not been implemented as consistently as possible. This is where aid would be very welcome, especially from editors concerned about it. Other issues, such as different naming of terminal pages ("terminals" vs. "terminal entries") is a matter of me running a bot every now and then to automatically correct the links; I haven't done it yet because the focus is on bringing it in the first place. Similarly, location infobox functionality imported from Gamepedia for Fallout 76 will require a bot run once the import is complete (and would also cover converting "terminals" to "terminal entries").
  3. Reference grouping: Given that the Bible and non-game sources are unclear when it comes to their canonicity, I figured that this can be addressed by simply leaving it up to the reader to decide, with the wiki not trying to act as arbiter of canon (since that's not our job). This can be seen on eg. Sino-American War, where references are grouped together according to source: Released games, which are the only thing definitively canon (except for two games), are simple numbers, while outside sources are grouped and clearly identified as coming from the Fallout Bible and Game Guide.

SpeculationEdit

Some users have regularly attacked The Vault and its editors for "allowing speculation". This is not true. Some conventions exist to make linking easier (eg. differentiating between the VB02 variant in Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas and the one introduced in Fallout 4), but speculation is not permitted. That's why the focus is on making sure as much information as humanly possible is referenced (we once had twenty-odd references for the Enclave, simply because someone on a talk page argued it was just the name for the oil rig; this has since been removed for sanity).

The problem is that there is no real point of reference for determining what speculation is, and so it is used by some users as a bludgeon to win arguments, rather than a scalpel to improve the quality of articles. To counter this, I propose we adopt a simple method of determining what's speculation and what's not:

  1. Is there a reference for the claim?
  2. Does the reference support the claim?
  3. Is the reference contradicted by other references?
  4. Are any assumptions necessary to accept the claim?

Notably, this also requires us to be judicious and pay attention to facts. For example, while a great many fans assume power armor is tank-like or was meant to replace tanks, this is not reflected by any sort of source, barring an ambiguous statement in the Fallout Bible which is hyperbolic (like the Fallout 2 intro and its imaginative claim of continents falling beneath boiling oceans). The same goes for any advanced power armor lore or claims it was invented purely by the Enclave (which are not backed by any sources in the games; the only lore on that subject is a half-sentence in the not so reliable Fallout 2 Official Strategies and Secrets).

ContentEdit

The first priority for a wiki should always be information and accuracy. The form in which that information is presented is of secondary concern. The merge should focus on bringing the quality parts of both sides. This does mean stripping parts or even entire articles. The only concern should be quality, rather than which site's wording to use. To quote Wikipedia's guideline on content ownership:

All content—articles, categories, templates, and other types of pages—is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or how high-standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page. Also, a person or an organization that is the subject of an article does not own the article, and has no right to dictate what the article may say.

We are all here to create the ultimate guide to Fallout and that means making sweeping changes and overhauls as much as necessary to improve the quality of the articles. This is especially important with Fallout, as many articles have an immense accumulated technical debt, to use FDekker's phrasing. For example, the Vault article, which is cited as an example of overwriting. Importing The Vault's article wholesale was the only option, as the local article was only cosmetically different from the article eight years ago. It has been barely updated despite the release of two full games in the meantime. The current version has been imported from The Vault for the simple reason that it has overhauled that eight years old article and greatly expanded the contents to cover Vaults in detail (increasing the word count by 60% - from roughly 3200 to 5300 - with a total sum of 122 references in contrast with the previous 11).

Dealing with technical debt isn't merely capitalization or linking corrections - it also means wholesale evaluation and overhauling of existing articles. Our only concern should be quality and focus on being the ultimate guide, without being attached to what came before. This will also allow to eliminate dubious content on both sides, including things everyone assumes to be true just because they've been around for years (like the Mister Handy article, which prior to overhauling included my and Ausir's entirely fan-made division of Mr Handy models, completely ignoring sources).

For the purpose of determining how to overhaul, we can follow a simple checklist:

  1. How old is the article, i.e. how long since it had a comprehensive overhaul and rewrite?
  2. Is the article referenced? Can it be referenced without the need for an overhaul?
  3. Is an improved version readily available on either side?

As usual, keep the focus on quality, especially when it comes to old, old articles that haven't been updated in years.

Participation Edit

Finally, something of note: Given that nearly everyone wants the merge to happen (at least nearly every editor and administrator still actively making edits and improving the wiki), the best way to ensure that the merge happens the right way is to get involved and actively edit the articles and bring content over. There is a lot of things to do and the more people participate - by editing, merging, streamlining, referencing, everything that moves forward - the sooner we will get it done, and the fewer problems we will have.

In general, this is what six years of being a wiki manager taught me: Activity and editing is good, especially with big projects. We all have the same goal in mind - the ultimate guide to Fallout - and lending a hand in achieving this goal is the best possible way to achieve that.

SummaryEdit

Seriously guys, we all want the same thing. Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 10:41, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

I agree that the policies are virtually the same, but complaints about differences in policies are really complaints about the differences in how strictly these policies are applied. As you say, this becomes apparent when looking at capitalisation. Initially I would have said that not fixing capitalisation is an act of carelessness or sloppiness since I think it should be trivial to follow for experienced editors, but if I hear Leon then I'm wrong about that and some form of aid is indeed needed there. Tag/Leon/Vaulters, what is the best way we can help with this? (This also goes for referring to the player character as "they"/"them" by the way.)

As for the bot fixing terminal links, how often do you run this bot? I don't think it's acceptable to have an unnecessary red link like that on our page for, say, a week. Those things need to be fixed quickly as to not disturb our regular readers. We can't make this place look like a mess with red links and missing templates. It's good to hear that the technical debt is resolved quicker than I initially thought. Perhaps it's an idea to write down the procedures on how this is done so that others can verify that the problems they see will indeed be fixed in time, allowing them to concentrate on other issues?

I really like the references on the Sino-American page by the way! Looks really really good and organised. ❤

For speculation I agree that there is no objective standard that can tell us what counts as speculation. As far as I have seen the wikis have similar standards for speculation. I think the difference we have is with regards to original research; NP has virtually none while TV has quite a bit of it. For example, it renames "post-cryogenic syndrome" to "post-cryonic syndrome", identifying vehicles based on their real-world counterparts, adding interpretations to events, and so on. I'm not saying that this is especially good or bad, just that this is a difference in attitude between NP and TV, and I think it needs to be reconciled somehow.

I also agree that the merge means that NP's articles will be updated, and that some parts will be overwritten or thrown out during the merge. Ultimately, this comes down to trusting that the merger has made the decision on what to retain and what to throw away carefully with the right (applications of) policies in mind. I think that the issue regarding original research I mentioned above is the main stopper here, in addition to a potential lack of trust in the merger's capabilities.

The ancient users among us will know each other from before the split and will naturally trust each other and know each other's capabilities, but this is not true for new users. Yes, everyone wants the merge, but we all need to work on communication and mutual trust.
- FDekker talk 12:53, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

Three weeks into the merge, I'd like to summarize what's been done, and given the hundreds of pages that have been changed, I feel there's been done a good job, and ok, some content may have been overwritten, but it's done with care, been proofread before with many references added. The bulk of the importing has been done by Vault users Tagaziel (location pages) and Dave, and I've mostly formatted them, solving red links. I don't think we need to worry about these. Also, mostly only the background was updated there, and the notable loot. What more that has been done are many faction pages (and new, related pages), and correct me if I'm wrong, but they've been rewritten on the Vault, and the largely replaced the content on Nukapedia. Some may say, there must still be some good content there, but combining such huge articles is very time consuming and difficult, and we don't have unlimited manpower. So I'm ok with that for the flow and continuation of the work. What could be done, and is practical, is leave a summary comment with these imports. And leave another checkbox mark in the progress table so that another user can verify it. I'd like to note that help, especially from the more experienced members, would be much appreciated. We're just starting the merge, and there will continue to arise issues in the future (pages where we may have the better content/gameplay), but we must have faith that they can be solved along the way. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 14:16, October 2, 2019 (UTC)
I plan on adding much, much more when on later, but I have to ask a serious question first: Are we on some kind of deadline that nobody wants to mention? Is the Vault getting deleted at the end of the year or something? People seem to be acting like an additional week or two's worth of work is going to somehow kill this entire project. Checking your work before submitting it isn't hard. Paladin117>>iff bored; 17:09, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by “harmonisation is trivial” or which of my points you agree with, but I will say that I have been a staunch advocate for merging Vault-Nukapedia polices... which even just from the past two weeks on the discord, I can see are definitely different in certain areas. Skysteam (talk) 21:17, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this means either, and it seems like the point of that previous forum you created were largely ignored. Paladin117>>iff bored; 21:39, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, now that I am home, I can address Tag's post. Also, I've gotten to used to reddit, so I will be formatting it like this.

Policies: Although some users feel differently, there is simply no real material difference between the policies.

In that case, we have different approaches on how to interpret our policies, which is arguably worse.

Other issues, such as different naming of terminal pages ("terminals" vs. "terminal entries") is a matter of me running a bot every now and then to automatically correct the links; I haven't done it yet because the focus is on bringing it in the first place. Similarly, location infobox functionality imported from Gamepedia for Fallout 76 will require a bot run once the import is complete (and would also cover converting "terminals" to "terminal entries").

Wouldn't it make more sense to run right now, on the Vault, then import the already modified content, versus leaving tons of broken articles for who knows how long? It would be faster, easier, and more convenient for basically everyone.

Some conventions exist to make linking easier (eg. differentiating between the VB02 variant in Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas and the one introduced in Fallout 4), but speculation is not permitted.

Wouldn't "Vertibird (Fallout 3)" and "Vertibird (Fallout 4)" accomplish the exact same thing without having to make up a fan designation?

No one, no matter how skilled, or how high-standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page.

But for many, this is exactly what you are doing when you replace a page that hundreds have worked on for a version that you prefer.

For example, the Vault article, which is cited as an example of overwriting. Importing The Vault's article wholesale was the only option, as the local article was only cosmetically different from the article eight years ago. It has been barely updated despite the release of two full games in the meantime. The current version has been imported from The Vault for the simple reason that it has overhauled that eight years old article and greatly expanded the contents to cover Vaults in detail (increasing the word count by 60% - from roughly 3200 to 5300 - with a total sum of 122 references in contrast with the previous 11).

I wouldn't call 720 edits "barely updated." I also highly doubt it was the only option, most of the word count seems to be in the giant references section, and I also question the higher quality part given the cluttered images throughout. We don't usually (or ever) have several galleries scattered throughout the page. I can also tell you that there are other pages being replaced wholesale, and they are not always high-quality replacements.

Also, I've been told by several people, including admins and staff members, that part of the agreement was that wholesale replacements would not happen under any circumstances. So either they're wrong or people are ignoring the agreement. I've been nice enough to ignore those people's suggestions of just mass reverting it, but it's still questionable as hell. Paladin117>>iff bored; 21:39, October 2, 2019 (UTC)

I’m going to have to agree wholly with Paladin on these points. Skysteam (talk) 22:39, October 2, 2019 (UTC)
Agreed as well, especially on the final point. An agreement for no wholesale replacements was partly what has led me to support this in the first place. Does it take a lot of work to merge big articles like Vault, when one side has much more new content? Yes, it does take a lot of work indeed. But the hours spent by other editors on such articles shouldn't be thrown away just so we can speed through this faster. |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 02:12, October 3, 2019 (UTC)

  1. Deadline: There is no formal deadline, but there's a lot of changes coming up with the upcoming Wastelanders and the less we accomplish now, the harder it will be down the road, especially for users who do the bulk of the editing.
  2. Policies: This has already been covered. We've had a few disagreements on Discords, but these are matters of interpretation. Again, given that The Vault agrees with Skysteam's points and the idea of using Nukapedia's policies for the most part, while adding The Vault's referencing guidelines, I don't see how the point has been ignored. I feel that artificially padding out discussion when the sides are in agreement is detrimental.
  3. Content: I'm sorry, Paladin, but I feel like you've completely ignored my point and have not examined the examples provided. I've spent nearly an hour writing the response, examining the history, and checking how old the contents of the Vault article were. I've showed you direct examples that the body of the article remained virtually unchanged since 2011. I see you also did not check the word count on your own - I specifically did not include the references - which feels like deliberately mischaracterizing the changes, and you are furthermore adding a direct threat about being "nice enough to ignore suggestions of mass reverting."
If we are to remain civil, then I ask you not to threaten to abuse your powers, especially in a vital discussion. It sets a bad precedent and may be suggestive of arguing in bad faith.
  1. I do agree on the bot, however. I'll probably run in on The Vault pretty soon.

Right now we are running into the issue of ownership. Rewriting and overhauling articles is perfectly in line with wiki culture and the article does incorporate all the information that was already included there before and more. Insisting that the precise, specific wording that was there for eight years must be retained is a classic example of ownership. Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 07:07, October 3, 2019 (UTC)

Before I respond to anything else, when the fuck did I threaten to abuse my powers? Paladin117>>iff bored; 11:05, October 3, 2019 (UTC)
With your remark about mass reverts and now casual use of profanity. I have been civil. You are needlessly aggressive. Please behave in a manner consistent with the user conduct guidelines, specifically the section about intimidating behavior. Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 12:06, October 3, 2019 (UTC)
First, I can curse whenever the fuck I want and so can anyone else. Second, as far as I'm concerned, you're the one being aggressivs with your random accusations. Third, I don't see how "your fellow staff members and Vault admins told me to revert you, but I didn't" qualifies as a threat. It's literally the opposite of a threat. And finally, absolutely anyone can revert something, so I couldn't abuse my powers in that scenario even if I wanted to. Paladin117>>iff bored; 12:28, October 3, 2019 (UTC)

I have made a simple request for you to maintain a level of civility in the discussion and to refrain from being needlessly aggressive. From the context, a random, casual mention of mass reversions is something that appears intimidating at a glance. If you feel you are becoming emotionally involved in what's supposed to be a productive discussion between actively editing contributors, then I feel we both would be best served by taking a break for now. Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 12:48, October 3, 2019 (UTC)

You've also yet to explain your very serious allegation. Paladin117>>iff bored; 12:54, October 3, 2019 (UTC)

Vault comparisonEdit

I'm adding a comparison of the 2019 and 2011 articles below. Differences between the 2011 and 2019 version have been highlighted in bold. Fragments moved around over the eight years are noted in italics.

This is what I mean by the body of the article remaining virtually unchanged over the last eight years. Aside from minor updates and a lot of editorialization (The true nature of the vaults epitomized the insidious nature of the government at its most callous, a running theme in Fallout that the American government was unconcerned with the wellbeing of its people even in absolute crisis. The innumerable loss of life caused by making so few vaults, and their intended use as social experiments, and toying with what little remained of the American population highlights this. Worse, if the Enclave met setbacks, failed or were rendered incapable of recolonizing the world, it appears there was no backup plan to utilize the vaults to replenish humanity. for example), the article is the same as in 2011.

You can compare it with the current version, which takes that old article and expands each section greatly, eliminates weasel words that Mara despises and focuses on sourcing the statements and organizing the information in a professional manner. Sections have been rearranged and greatly expanded, while integrating all the information that was already present in the article eight years ago and improving the referencing standard - the old article included inline mentions such as "the automated narrator [...] states" or "Three Dog claims", which are not how references work.

Essentially, if the article was to be improved, it'd have to be rewritten to bring it to spec and strip eight years of technical debt. The end result would be the same. Take any section and compare it. To pick an example, inline mentions of Vault power sources that have two examples have been replaced with a robust breakdown of all known power sources. Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 07:21, October 3, 2019 (UTC)

Comparison
Lead 2011 2019
Lead A Vault is a type of subterranean installation designed by Vault-Tec. Officially, they were designed for the sole purpose of sheltering up to one thousand dwellers from a nuclear holocaust. But in reality, they were actually used as a secret experiment for the government. A vault is a type of subterranean installation initially designed by the Vault-Tec Corporation, later constructed in collaboration with RobCo Industries.[1] Officially, they were designed for the sole purpose of sheltering up to one thousand citizens each in the event of a nuclear holocaust; however, in reality, they were a series of secret experiments orchestrated by the United States government.
History/Background Commissioned by the United States government as part of Project Safehouse, Vault-Tec built 122[1] such Vaults over the country. However, when the storm of nuclear war came in 2077, the Vaults were sealed without many of their dwellers due to the Cry Wolf effect training drills had on the populace.

The first Vault was built in Los Angeles, intended to demonstrate the viability of such a facility. The demonstration Vault was built beneath the city, within its limits and unlike other Vaults, wasn't part of the experiment. Most Vaults were completed by 2063, except for Vault 13, which was the last one to be completed.

Commissioned by the U.S. government in 2054 as part of "Project: Safehouse," also known as the "Societal Preservation Program," the Vault-Tec Corporation constructed 122 vaults across the country.[2] However, at the onset of the Great War in 2077, most vaults were sealed without many of their intended inhabitants, a result of the “cry wolf effect"[3] that previous training drills had on the populace.

The first vault was constructed beneath Los Angeles, and was intended to demonstrate the viability of such a facility. Unlike subsequent installations, this demonstration vault was not part of the ulterior experiments behind Project: Safehouse, and wasn't meant for anything more than a demonstration. By 2063, most of the vaults had finished construction, with the exceptions of 13, 76, 114, 118 and 88. Vault 112 is the last known construction on record, completed in June of 2074.

Overview The Vaults were one of the most expensive shelters in the pre-War world, as according to the Vault Dweller's Survival Guide for Vault 13 (otherwise known as the Fallout manual), the intended budget for that particular installation was 400 billion dollars, and by the end of its construction reached 645 billion (although it should be mentioned that this is likely a price inflated to modern day prices; there are advertisements for vehicles in Fallout 3 loading screen slides with prices saying "'Only' $1,000,000," leading to the assumption that the 645 billion dollar price tag would not be comparable to modern day prices). The Vaults were located in various locations, and little information is available as to why those particular sites were chosen, although the most logical conclusion is that they were simply located away from predicted nuclear strike priority targets. As such, very few of them have reinforced entry shafts.

Each Vault was designed to hold one thousand occupants at any given time, although hot bunking was required at maximum capacity, and equipped with all facilities and supplies needed by them to survive in isolation for the designated time. According to the Vault 101 PA System, the life support system could work for over 900 years without failure. The facilities and supplies included complete construction equipment, hydro-agricultural farms, a water purification system, defensive weaponry to equip 10 men, communication systems and surface monitors, social, and entertainment files (for total duration). Waste management was conducted by burning trash on scheduled "burning days". Larger incinerator receptacles were used for the destruction of human corpses. In addition, some Vaults received one or two G.E.C.K.s, intended to help the inhabitants repopulate the post-nuclear world after the All Clear signal is sent following the conclusion of the social experiment.

Different types of power sources were utilized for the Vaults. Vault 13 relied primarily on geothermal energy, with backup power available from a General Atomics Nuclear Power generator, and could sustain one thousand inhabitants for two hundred years. Vault 8 on the other hand, relied on an inefficent nuclear reactor[2], which, while enough for Vault City to emerge, could only support a relatively small, highly advanced settlement, and in 2241 was nearing its capacity, after which further growth would be impossible.

All vault dwellers wear blue-and-yellow jumpsuits, although the design varied between different Vaults. The typical vault dweller living in a properly maintained Vault could expect to live an average of 92.3 years[3].

Needless to say, most Vaults in the experiment failed and had results completely different than those advertised, such as the creation of Super Mutants. Even those who exited successful Vaults seem to suffer from xenophobia and agoraphobia, or fears of strangers and open places; notable examples would be Michael Angelo, who doesn't dare leave the Strip even for inspiration, the Boomers who shoot artillery at anything that comes close to them, and the Vault 101 citizens, who still don't exit the Vault even after the Lone Wanderer opens its door (if he chooses to do so.) Notable exceptions would be the Vault Dweller, the Lone Wanderer and Butch DeLoria.

It should be noted that due to scaling, the size of Vaults in games shouldn't be taken at face value - none of the Vaults which can be entered in the series have enough space or facilities to actually house 1000 people (or rather 500, as hot bunking system is in effect at maximum capacity). However, many doors within in-game vaults are inaccessible, which allows for the possibility that the vault is far larger than the areas the player can access.

The vaults were some of the most expensive shelters in the pre-War world. According to the Vault Dweller's Survival Guide for Vault 13 (otherwise known as the Fallout manual), the intended budget for that particular installation was 400 billion dollars, and by the end of its construction reached $645 billion (although it should be mentioned that prices in the Fallout setting are highly inflated; in Fallout Tactics there are gas station signs listing regular gas at $1450.99, and there are advertisements for vehicles in Fallout 3 loading screen slides for "Only $1,000,000."). The vaults were located in various locations, and little information is available as to why those particular sites were chosen.

Each vault was designed to hold one thousand occupants at any given time, although hot-bunking was required at maximum capacity, and equipped with all facilities and supplies needed by them to survive in isolation for the designated time. According to the Vault 101 PA System, the life support system could work for over 900 years without failure, and the odds of a vault failing were 1,763,497 to 1. In addition, the PA system also stated that the average life expectancy in a properly maintained vault is 92.3 years.[4] The facilities and supplies for Vault 13 included complete construction equipment, hydro-agricultural farms, a water purification system, defensive weaponry to equip 10 people, communication systems and surface monitors, social, and entertainment files (for total duration). Waste management was conducted by burning trash on scheduled "burning days." Larger incinerator receptacles were used for the destruction of human corpses. In addition, some vaults received one or two G.E.C.K.s, intended to help the inhabitants create a viable civilization in the post-nuclear world after the All Clear signal is sent.

Different types of power sources were utilized for the vaults. Vault 13 relied primarily on geothermal energy, with backup power available from a General Atomics nuclear power generator, enough to sustain the vault for two hundred years. Vault 8 on the other hand, relied on an inefficient nuclear reactor,[5] which, while enough for Vault City to emerge, could only support a relatively small, highly advanced settlement, and in 2241 was nearing its capacity, after which further growth would be impossible.

All vault dwellers wear blue-and-yellow jumpsuits, although the design varied between different vaults.

Needless to say, most vaults in the experiment failed and had results completely different than those advertised. Many who exited successful vaults seem to suffer from xenophobia (fear of strangers) and/or agoraphobia (fear of open places); notable examples would be Michael Angelo, who doesn't dare leave the Strip even for inspiration, the Boomers who shoot artillery at anything that comes close to them, the Vault 101 citizens, who still don't exit the vault even after the Lone Wanderer opens its door, and most of the Vault 81 citizens, who are wary of outsiders after Overseer McNamara opened the vault to trade with wastelanders. Notable exceptions would be the Vault Dweller, the Lone Wanderer, James, Butch DeLoria, Doc Mitchell, Rylee, Susie Mack (In the Out of the Vault random encounter) and the Sole Survivor.

Layout

Entrance The entrance houses the Vault's only connection to the outside world - the airlock. (With the exception of Vault 19 and Vault 87)

VaultComputer A Vault computer

Closed from the inside by a reinforced high-security door and from the outside by a massive, gear-shaped four-foot thick vault door (which Three Dog claimed "weighs, like, thirteen tons"), it's the only means of entering or leaving the Vault, although secondary entrances or exits may have existed in some Vaults. Vault 87 had two additional entrances reachable through Lamplight Caverns. Security codes are required to both leave and enter the Vault, and they are usually only known to a handful of people within the facility. Most vaults have a console located on both sides of the entrance, which opens the Vault door via a lever. Passwords were entered into the console likely through the speaker or via some sort of wired connection from a Pip-Boy.

The automated narrator of the the Vault-Tec vault demonstration in Washington DC's Museum of Technology states that the doors had a projected 2% failure rate in case of a direct hit by a nuclear missile. So far, the only known vault to have been hit directly (or very nearly) by a nuclear weapon is Vault 87. According to the terminal of Vault 87's overseer, the blast caused the vault's main door to completely and utterly fail, apparently damaging it "beyond repair." Though this could be considered merely a one-in-a-million freak accident and falls with that extremely small "2%", it is more likely an indicator that Vault-Tec's failure rates were completely fabricated.

Fo1 Vault 15 Townmap

Vault 15 townmap

Most Vaults use a Seal-N-Safe Vault Door Model No. 343[4] to secure the airlock, however, some older Vaults (such as Vault 101) use a different, more crude blast door model. Vault 8, the control Vault, had also a second, much larger, blast door built, that secured the entry hallway leading to the entrance to the Vault.

In addition, the Entrance level also houses the Emergency Medical Lab complete with an Auto-Doc. A Vault medic was required to be present at the EML 24 hours a day. The lab had the equipment to treat nearly all injuries and illnesses, ranging from simple bruises to irradiation.

Living Quarters

Standard pre-War design of the living quarters was that of a single room with a sanitary annex. Vault 13 had one hundred living quarters, and at maximum capacity, ten people would be assigned to a single living quarter, in a hot bunking system. A standard level had 20,000 square feet of usable area.

The lights used in the Vaults used Simu-Sun technology, making it feel just like the outdoors, with only a fraction of a sunburn risk. The lights in Vault 101 were kept on all the time to prevent a Radroach infestation.

New Entertainertrons were used to play holotapes, and used as a slide projector in the classroom of Vault 101.

Command Center

Overseer lower levels

Vault 13 Overseer Command Post

Command PostFOBOS

A Secret Vault Command Post

Heart of the Vault, the command center was where the Overseer's seat was located. The operations center, apart from the seat of power, included the computer lab, where the water purification system was located, and an armory, where the Vault's arms were stockpiled. A security guard was posted in the command center at all times, to ensure that the armaments are properly secured, and handed out only to people possessing the proper clearance from the Overseer.

Apart from that, the level also contained the computer core (with the Vault's AI monitoring the shelter 24/7), housing data processing units, a library playing an important role in educating vault dwellers and information, a meeting room for the dwellers and the primary store room, where the most important supplies would be stored.

The Overseer is also able to see anyone inside the Vault with the Eye-on-you cameras.

Equipped with dual 5mm miniguns in some Vaults, the Overseer's command post can be considered the last line of defense in case the Vault security is breached.

In Secret Vault, there are several command posts for the various locations. The command posts mainly contain buttons to control things like locking of doors and laser protection.

Differences

Vault 29 (Van Buren) was outfitted with a ZAX AI, which replaced the Overseer.

Vault 12 had its Overseer's room sealed due to the fact that the main door of the vault was doomed never to close.

East Coast Vaults (87, 92, 101, 106, 108, 112) use a different, older door mechanism (as evidenced by extensive rusting and meager safety precautions). The East Coast Vaults employ an opening mechanism that is contained entirely within the Vault itself, pulling the door inwards and simply rolling it to one side. The doors seen on West Coast Vaults, however, pull the seal outwards and use an external clamp to slide it aside.

East Coast Vaults lack storage rooms in the Overseer's office; they are instead located near the Atrium.

The Vault-Tec Secret Vault had an entirely different layout than other vaults.

The vaults are all very similar in their basic functions, but sometimes were constructed according to different designs. The vaults of the New California area differ from those constructed in the vicinity of Washington, DC, the Commonwealth, and the Mojave area.

Due to scaling, the size of vaults in games shouldn't be taken at face value. None of the explorable vaults in the games have enough space or facilities to actually house 1000 people (or rather 500, as hot-bunking is used at maximum capacity). However, many doors within in-game vaults are inaccessible, which allows for the possibility that the vault is far larger than the areas the player can access.

Entrance

The entrance houses the vault's only connection to the outside world - the airlock (with the exception of Vault 19, Vault 87, Vault 88 and Vault 118).

VaultComputer A vault computer

It is closed from the inside by a reinforced high-security door and from the outside by a massive, gear-shaped, four-yard thick[6] vault door, which Three Dog claims "weighs, like, thirteen tons." For most vaults this is the only means of entering or leaving. Most vaults have consoles located on both the inside and outside, both of which require a security code to open the outer door. These codes are usually only known to a handful of people within the facility so as to prevent unauthorized exits.

The automated narrator in Washington DC's Museum of Technology states that the vault doors had a projected 2% failure rate in case of a direct hit by a nuclear missile. The only known vault to have been hit by a nuclear weapon is Vault 87, and according to the logs of its overseer, that blast damaged the door beyond repair. This could have been merely a "lucky shot" falling within the 2% failure, but it seems more likely that Vault-Tec's strength projections were incorrect or defined failure as allowing the inside of the vault to be damaged or irradiated.

Fo1 Vault 15 Townmap

Vault 15 townmap

Most vaults use a Seal-N-Safe Vault door Model No. 343[7] to secure the airlock. Some older vaults, such as Vault 101, use a different, cruder blast door model. Vault 8, a control vault, had also a second, much larger, blast door built, securing the entry hallway leading to the entrance to the vault. Vault 111 and Vault 118 are the only known vaults to feature an elevator leading to an underground area where the gear shaped door is located already secure in the hill it was built in.

The entrance level also houses the Emergency Medical Lab complete with an Auto-Doc. A vault medic was required to be present at the EML 24 hours a day. The lab had the equipment to treat nearly all injuries and illnesses, ranging from simple bruises to radiation poisoning.

Living Quarters

Standard pre-War design of the living quarters was that of a single room with a sanitary annex. Vault 13 had one hundred living quarters, and at maximum capacity, ten people would be assigned to a single living quarter, in a hot-bunking system. A standard level had 20,000 square feet of usable area.

The lights in the vaults used Simu-Sun technology, making it feel just like the outdoors, with only a fraction of a sunburn risk. The lights in Vault 101 were kept on all the time to prevent a radroach infestation.

New Entertainertrons were used to play holotapes and used as a slide projector in the classroom of Vault 101.

Command Center

Overseer lower levels

Vault 13 Overseer Command Post

Command PostFOBOS

A Secret Vault Command Post

At the heart of the vault, the command center was where the overseer's seat was located. The operations center, apart from the seat of power, included the computer lab, where the water purification system was located, and an armory, where the vault's weapons, ammunition and armor was stockpiled. A security guard was posted in the command center at all times, to ensure that the armaments were properly secured and handed out only to people possessing the proper clearance from the overseer. The overseer is also able to see anyone inside the vault with the Eye-on-You cameras.

Apart from that, the level also contained the computer core (with the vault's AI monitoring the shelter 24/7), housing data processing units, a library playing an important role in educating vault dwellers, a common meeting room, and the primary store room, where the most important supplies would be stored.

Equipped with dual 5.56mm miniguns in some vaults, the overseer's command post can be considered the last line of defense in case vault security is breached.

In the Secret Vault, there are several command posts for the various sections. The command posts mainly contain buttons to control things like locking of doors and laser protection.

Differences

Vault 29 (Van Buren) was outfitted with a ZAX AI, which replaced the overseer.

Vault 12 had its overseer's room sealed due to the fact that the main door of the vault was doomed never to close.

East Coast vaults and Mojave vaults (3, 11, 19, 21, 22, 34, 51, 63, 75, 76, 81, 87, 88, 92, 94, 95, 96, 101, 106, 108, 111, 112, 114, 118) use a different door mechanism than on the West Coast/California. These vaults employ an opening mechanism that is contained entirely within the vault itself, pulling the door inwards and simply rolling it to one side. The doors seen on West Coast/California vaults, however, pull the seal outwards and use an external clamp to slide it aside.

East Coast and Mojave vaults lack storage rooms in the overseer's office; they are instead located near the Atrium.

Vault 0 (Fallout Tactics) and the Secret Vault (Fallout Brotherhood of Steel) had an entirely different layout than other vaults.

Vault 76 has a unique vault door exterior design, having a prominent plaza with Vault 76 signage around it, rather than the concealed entrances seen on most other Vault’s.

Vault 81 has an entire wing that is cut off from the rest of the vault.

Vault 111 and Vault 118 both have an elevator exit leading to the surface just outside the airlock.

Vault 114 can be found inside Park Street station.

Vault 118 has a parking garage and is under Cliff's Edge Hotel.

The Commonwealth, Appalachia and Maine vaults are painted in a yellow and blue shade, while Washington D.C., California and Mojave vaults are a dull metallic gray. Also, the Commonwealth, Appalachia and Maine vaults' hue is the same as the traditional vault jumpsuit, compared to the lighter blue seen in D.C. and the Mojave.

True purpose

Officially, the Vaults were nuclear shelters designed to protect the American population from nuclear holocaust. However, with a population of almost 400 million by 2077, the U.S. would need nearly 400,000 Vaults the size of Vault 13, while Vault-Tec was commissioned to build only 122 such Vaults. The government, and Vault-Tec, never really believed an actual nuclear war would occur; the real reason for the existence of these Vaults was to run experiments on pre-selected segments of the population to see how they react to the stresses of isolation and how successfully they recolonize Earth after the Vault opens.

The Enclave, responsible for the experiment (officially known as the "Societal Preservation Program"), considered themselves prime candidates for recolonizing the world after a nuclear holocaust and to this end commissioned the construction of their own shelters, isolated from the Vault network. The purpose of the Vault experiments was to help prepare the Enclave for either re-colonizing Earth or colonizing another planet if Earth turned out to be uninhabitable.

The total number of vaults is a government secret and has been lost; there were the aforementioned "public" vaults, which numbered 122 and an undisclosed number of "private" vaults. Information on whether Vault-Tec was an international corporation and were there vaults made by them in other parts of the world, or were they strictly U.S. based, cannot be released due to Vault-Tec and US Government regulations[5]

Of the 122 Vaults, only 17 were control, meaning that only 17 were made to public expectations, all others were designed to include a social experiment, sometimes with a select few of the inhabitants observing the occupants.

The few Vaults that survived intact for more than 80 years came to serve another, unanticipated purpose: they were an excellent source of pure human stock, uncontaminated by the mutated airborne strain of FEV and prime candidates for conversion into super mutants.

Officially, the vaults were nuclear shelters designed to protect the American population from nuclear holocaust. However, with a population of almost 400 million by 2077, the U.S. would need nearly 400,000 vaults the size of Vault 13, while Vault-Tec was commissioned to build only 122 such vaults. The government, and Vault-Tec, never really believed an actual nuclear war would occur; the real reason for the existence of these vaults was to run social experiments on pre-selected segments of the population to see how they react to the stresses of isolation and how successfully they recolonize Earth after the vault opens.

Gametitle-VB The following is based on Van Buren and has not been confirmed by canon sources.

The Enclave, responsible for the experiment (officially known as the "Societal Preservation Program"), considered themselves prime candidates for recolonizing the world after a nuclear holocaust and to this end commissioned the construction of their own shelters, isolated from the vault network. The purpose of the vault experiments was to help prepare the Enclave for either re-colonizing Earth or colonizing another planet if Earth turned out to be uninhabitable.

Gametitle-VB End of information based on Van Buren.

The total number of vaults is a government secret and has been lost; there were the aforementioned "public" vaults, which numbered 122 and an undisclosed number of "private" vaults. Information on whether Vault-Tec was an international corporation or strictly U.S. based, cannot be released due to Vault-Tec and United States federal regulations.[8] That said, Vault-Tec seems to have constructed some vaults in Canada. In a letter sent to a rejected DC citizen the company offered to provide a list of "Vault-Tec facilities with available accommodations, in exciting locales such as Oklahoma and newly-annexed Canada."

Of the 122 known public vaults, only 17 were control, meaning that only 17 were made to public expectations. All others were designed to include a social experiment, sometimes with a select few of the inhabitants observing the occupants.

While some vaults had 'noble' goals, such as to eradicate disease (Vault 81) or improve the human genome (Vault 75), they had incredibly unethical methods of doing so, often exposing their inhabitants - often fatally - to some danger specific to certain vaults to research the effects.

The few vaults that survived intact for more than 80 years came to serve another, unanticipated purpose: they were an excellent source of pure human stock, uncontaminated by the mutated airborne strain of FEV and prime candidates for conversion into super mutants.

The true nature of the vaults epitomized the insidious nature of the government at its most callous, a running theme in Fallout that the American government was unconcerned with the wellbeing of its people even in absolute crisis. The innumerable loss of life caused by making so few vaults, and their intended use as social experiments, and toying with what little remained of the American population highlights this. Worse, if the Enclave met setbacks, failed or were rendered incapable of recolonizing the world, it appears there was no backup plan to utilize the vaults to replenish humanity.

Results In terms of providing safety and security for their inhabitants, most of the Vaults were complete failures. However, as noted in the Penny Arcade Comic, the Vaults were never really intended to save anyone. There was simply not enough time, money or resources to build enough shelters to house more than a fraction of the population. While the "control vaults" did function as advertised and open on schedule, most were actually intended to explore and observe how societies adapt (or fail to adapt) to various challenges and restrictions. These social experiments were performed on live and mostly unaware subjects, monitored by Vault-Tec researchers in separate facilities, and undertaken at the behest of what would become the Enclave as part of a massive feasibility study of how to best re-colonize a barren Earth or, if necessary, other planets.

Most of the Vaults seen in the games were non-viable 200 or even a mere 80 years after the War. While Vault 13 might have lasted until its scheduled opening date of 2277, the unplanned failure of the Water Chip forced the Overseer's hand and set subsequent events in motion. If Vault 101 was truly intended to stay closed "forever", its failure was inevitable; the only question was how long, and what form the change or disaster would take. Many other Vaults were abandoned because of unlivable conditions, or saw the residents driven violently insane by the procedures inflicted on them. Some of these continue to pose a hazard to the unwary who wander in from outside, looking for loot or a place of safety.

Despite all of this, the experiment may be considered a success in terms of the data collected... data that was much more important to the Vault-Tec and Enclave scientists than a few hundred thousand lives, most of whom would have died anyway if not for the Vaults.

In terms of providing safety and security for their inhabitants, most of the vaults were complete failures. However, as noted in the Penny Arcade comic, the vaults were never truly intended to ‘save’ anyone; there was simply not enough time, money or resources to build enough shelters to house more than a fraction of the population. While the “control vaults” did function as advertised and opened on schedule, most of the vaults were actually intended to explore and observe how societies succeeded or failed to adapt in response to various challenges and restrictions. These social experiments were conducted on live, (largely) unaware subjects, monitored by Vault-Tec researchers in several separate facilities, and undertaken at the behest of the future Enclave as part of a massive feasibility study of how to best resettle a devastated Earth or, if necessary, colonize another planet.

Most of the vaults seen in the games were non-viable 200 or even a mere 80 years after the War. While Vault 13 might have lasted until its scheduled opening date of 2277, the unplanned failure of the water chip forced the overseer's hand and set subsequent events in motion. If Vault 101 was truly intended to stay closed "forever," its failure was inevitable; the only question was how long, and what form the change or disaster would take. Many other vaults were abandoned because of unlivable conditions, or saw the residents driven violently insane or wiped out by the experiments inflicted on them. Some of these continue to pose a hazard to the unwary who wander in from outside, looking for loot or a place of safety.

Out of all the vaults, only the control vaults were a success, with all experimental vaults failing in one way or another. There are however exceptions; Vault 101 while an experimental vault technically failed as it was never meant to open; Vault 3 is another exception as technically a control vault, it failed as all the residents were massacred by the Fiends; Vault 81 is the last exception, as its experiment was sabotaged from the start by the overseer, so it instead acted like a control vault.

Despite all of this, the experiment may be considered a success in terms of the data collected - data that was much more important to the Vault-Tec and Enclave scientists than a few hundred thousand lives, most of whom would have died anyway if not for the vaults. However, it is unknown if this data was recovered/used, as there is no reference in the Fallout universe of the Enclave receiving/collecting the data or Vault-Tec existing in the post-war world.

List of known Vaults, Other installations using Vault-Tec technology Separated into a separate article.
Appearances

Vault 12, Vault 13, Vault 15 and the LA Vault appear in Fallout.

Vault 8, Vault 13 and Vault 15 appear in Fallout 2.

Some Vaults were mentioned by President Richardson - some of them had not enough food synthesizers, others had only men in them, yet others were designed to open after only 6 months[12].

A malfunctioning Vault with unknown number and location appeared in the Van Buren tech demo. A Vault 69 advertisement appeared in the Van Buren concept art.

Vault 29 and Vault 70 were to appear in Van Buren, the canceled Fallout 3 project by Black Isle (year 2253).

Vault 101 appears in Fallout 3 alongside Vault 87, Vault 92, Vault 106, Vault 108, Vault 112, and the DC demo Vault (year 2277). Vault 76 is mentioned in a Pentagon terminal, but it doesn't exist in the game. A Vault 77 jumpsuit can also be found in Paradise Falls, but the Vault does not exist in the game.

Vault 3, Vault 11, Vault 19, Vault 21, Vault 22, and Vault 34 appear in Fallout: New Vegas.

Vault 0 appeared in Fallout Tactics, is designed to "monitor and control" other Vaults, maintain the geniuses of the pre-War United States in cryogenic stasis and improve Wasteland conditions with a robot army.

Secret Vault appeared in Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel, it was designed to protect high-members of Vault-Tec and used to research the latest technologies and the Forced Evolutionary Virus.

The other Vaults present in this article were mentioned in Chris Avellone's Fallout Bible or Penny Arcade's comic strips.

Vault 12, Vault 13, Vault 15 and the Los Angeles Vault appear in Fallout.

Vault 8, Vault 13, Vault 15 and the Unfinished Vault appear in Fallout 2. Some vaults were also mentioned by President Dick Richardson - some of them had not enough food synthesizers, others had only men in them, yet others were designed to open after only 6 months.

Vault 87, Vault 92, Vault 101, Vault 106, Vault 108 and Vault 112 appear in Fallout 3. They are also mentioned in a Citadel terminal entry.

Vault 3, Vault 11, Vault 19, Vault 21, Vault 22 and Vault 34 appear in Fallout: New Vegas. Vault 17 is mentioned by Lillian Marie Bowen.

Vault 75, Vault 81, Vault 95, Vault 111 and Vault 114 appear in Fallout 4.

Vault 118 appears in the Fallout 4 add-on Far Harbor.

'Vault 88 appears in the Fallout 4 add-on Vault-Tec Workshop.

Vault 76 appears in Fallout 76. It was previously mentioned in a Citadel terminal in Fallout 3, and also in its add-on Mothership Zeta in an alien captive recorded log, as well as at the very beginning of Fallout 4 by the newscaster.

Vault 63, Vault 94 and Vault 96 also appear in Fallout 76. Vault 29 is mentioned in the holotape Last day of school.

Vault 51 appears in the Fallout 76 add-on Wild Appalachia.

Vault 0 appears in Fallout Tactics.

The Secret Vault and the Vault prototype appear in Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel.

In Fallout Shelter, players select a three-digit number to name their new vaults, ranging from 000 to 999.

Vault 77 appears in the webcomic One Man, and a Crate of Puppets, and a jumpsuit from it can be found in Paradise Falls in Fallout 3.==

Vault 1 appears in the Van Buren tech demo.

Vault 29 and Vault 70 were to appear in Van Buren, the canceled Fallout 3 project by Black Isle Studios.

A Vault 69 advertisement appears in Van Buren concept art.

Vault 74 appears only in the Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas modding tutorial on the G.E.C.K. wiki. It was also included as cut content in Fallout: New Vegas.

Other vaults present in this article are mentioned in Chris Avellone's Fallout Bible, Penny Arcade's comic strips, cut content, or other canceled Fallout games.

Behind the scenes The vault experiment was an idea created by Tim Cain during the initial stages of Fallout 2 development.

Icon cut content The following is based on Fallout 2 cut content and has not been confirmed by canon sources.

Vaultcontrolroom

Vault control room

The developers intended for the player to first encounter information about the Vault Experiment as they read the Vault 8 records in Fallout 2. They could discover a classified file (opened with a successful Science skill roll) explaining the purpose of Vault 8 was to be a "control Vault," designed to hold 1000 people and open at a designated time. This file was intended to foreshadow the discovery of the true and sinister purpose of the Vaults.

The player was also intended[13] to apply his Science skill to the central computer in Vault 13 to obtain a history of Vault 13, the Overseer's involvement in the Vault Dweller's expulsion, and even worse, the true purposes of the Vaults. The Overseer was conscious of the true purpose of the Vaults as social experiments on a grand scale, and consequently drove out the Vault Dweller because of fear he would ruin the experiment... or uncover it.

Icon cut content End of information based on Fallout 2 cut content.

The vault experiment was an idea created by Tim Cain during the initial stages of Fallout 2 development.

Icon cut content The following is based on Fallout 2 cut content and has not been confirmed by canon sources. Vaultcontrolroom Vault control room

The developers intended for the player to first encounter information about the Vault Experiment as they read the Vault 8 records in Fallout 2. They could discover a classified file (opened with a successful Science skill roll) explaining the purpose of Vault 8 was to be a "control Vault," designed to hold 1000 people and open at a designated time. This file was intended to foreshadow the discovery of the true and sinister purpose of the vaults.

The player was also intended[2] to apply his Science skill to the central computer in Vault 13 to obtain a history of Vault 13, the overseer's involvement in the Vault Dweller's expulsion, and even worse, the true purposes of the vaults. The overseer was conscious of the true purpose of the vaults as social experiments on a grand scale, and consequently drove out the Vault Dweller because of fear he would ruin the experiment... or uncover it.

Icon cut content End of information based on Fallout 2 cut content.

Sources Most of the above comes from:

Fallout Bible #0

Vault Dweller's Survival Guide

Vault Locations v34.129 holodisc

Most of the above comes from:

Fallout Bible #0

Vault Dweller's Survival Guide

Vault locations v34.129 holodisk

Comments, continuedEdit

Responding to Paladin's last points, the redlinking while merging from the Vault to Nukapedia isn't such an important issue, most of them are solved by me and Dave anyway, two birds with one stone, see how the page looks, formatting while solving those links, creating new pages and such. You won't see that many new red links for a merge on such a large scale. In fact, Tagaziel also solved many with his automated creation of the Fallout 76 plans. And you can't expect the run the bot on The Vault, they would want to keep the content intact as is, in case the merge wouldn't work out.

About the Vault page, you're allowed to replace content if you improve it, and Tag feels he has done that. Ok, here he did it wholesale, but I think this particular one he spent a great deal of time on The Vault, and done with care. Also, if you look at merging such large articles, is like I said earlier, very difficult and timeconsuming. What is to stay and what is to go? You soon will lose the oversight of it all I'm sure.

About the wholesale replacements, I personally haven't said it is forbidden, but at first instance it is not desirable to do so. To be replaced content should be read first and compared with the new one. I think that happens on a large scale with the smaller articles, as I mostly see sections replaced that aren't that hard to browse through before. And for the flow of the sentences, you'll just have to pick the best content. Other wholesale replacements I'd have to be pointed to, but I'm sure they're pages that have been cared for over at the Vault. (Also can't keep track of everything myself...)

Note about the tone I see in the latest comments, please keep it civil, we don't have to swear. This is a positive thing guys, merging, all the Fallout forces in one place, the community can only get better with this at hand. If we all can keep positive and constructive it will turn out better in the long run. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 15:03, October 3, 2019 (UTC)

Funny, he baselessly accuses me of abusing my powers (which is a reconfirmation-worthy event), but I'm the bad guy for a Precision F-bomb. And while you may not have forbidden overwrites since they started, you did say they were forbidden in your user blog. So, is there really no rules during this whole thing?
Ok, you're right, I said it in my blog about the overwrite, slipped my mind. What I can say is that this was before the merge started, we didn't know yet what was to expect. Practice has caught up with the ideal theory I think, combining the best of both worlds. Sometimes it's just too hard to combine content, and you have to choose. From what I've seen, it's been mostly Tag's (extensive) rewrites over at the Vault, he has wanted to keep his work intact there. Like said elsewhere on this forum we probably need to agree on some written rules where the Nukapedia content is somewhat more protected from overwrite. We can do that with leaving summary comments, also with a double check column in the progress page. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 17:30, October 4, 2019 (UTC)
When I get home, I can look up some of the dozens of overwrites, but until then I can tell you that one was on the Broken Mask article, which replaced the original content with a poor, plagerized version of Piper's newspaper article. Paladin117>>iff bored; 17:19, October 3, 2019 (UTC)
The problem, is that you even brought it up in the first place - you casually threw out that if you wanted to, you could start mass-reverting along the merging process, and that you only haven't done so because of how "nice" you are being about the entire matter.
Where I come from, that's what we'd call an attempted power play, and I feel like it's only over the Internet that someone would be surprised over being called out for attempting to assert their authority in such a way.
This is a collaborative project, and that sort of behaviour can easily be seen as intimidation, regardless of your true intentions. 寧靜 Fox 18:39, October 3, 2019 (UTC)
Nope, that was just me listing facts. Multiple people, including you, have said they should be reverted but it was decided against, because I wanted to avoid the resulting arguments. Paladin117>>iff bored; 18:42, October 3, 2019 (UTC)
I don't want to get involved in any personal drama here but Paladin absolutely did not threaten mass reverts: "Also, I've been told by several people, including admins and staff members, that part of the agreement was that wholesale replacements would not happen under any circumstances. [...] I've been nice enough to ignore those people's suggestions of just mass reverting it, but it's still questionable as hell." He could have worded it better and I agree that this is descending into personal attacks on both sides, but he was clearly saying that he's opposed to other people's attempts at mass reverts. --DirtyBlue929 (talk) 01:58, October 4, 2019 (UTC)

If that was his intention, then sure. However, after being aggressive both here and on Discord, including casual use of profanity when practically nobody else does so, the random, casual mention of doing mass reverts did appear intimidating to me and I replied as such, in an attempt to keep the conversation focused and productive.

This is also because I believe people holding administrator rights should be held to a higher standard of behavior and user conduct, as examples to the community how to do business. Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 08:42, October 4, 2019 (UTC)

While it might not have looked pretty, I'm under the impression that Pally had every right to be as angry as he was. |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 15:02, October 4, 2019 (UTC)
So, my cursing is evidence of my abusing power, even though I did not curse until after you falsely accused me? Paladin117>>iff bored; 17:53, October 6, 2019 (UTC)

Response to L84teaEdit

Sorry for the somewhat arbitrary header, but I wanted to fully address some earlier points that aren't quite as relevant to the discussion going on above:

  1. I think having an exhaustive etiquette guide on the project page itself, is a good idea. It's something that I think should be discussed by the project leads, and put into effect as soon as possible. I see this as a much better alternative to pushing out redundant legislation that'll stick around long after the merge.
  2. In this case, Nukapedia's guidelines & policies are sufficient. When it comes to the layout, I think the only thing I'd like to see come over from The Vault, is our usage of the 'Synopsis' section, which I may go ahead and start a vote for soon to get it done and over with.
  3. With there being thousands of articles that need to be migrated over, many of which are major lore articles, I'm not sure what can be proposed here. If you or anyone else has ideas on this matter, then I'd love to hear em. But personally, I'm drawing a blank on how to effectively do this without bringing the merge to a near stand-still.
  4. I agree. It should be made painfully clear to everyone involved in the project, to put love into their contributions. I think we can circle back to #1 on how to help get things rolling with that.
  5. I can't see any harm in having a double sign-off. I haven't really seen any arguments against that, so I imagine we can just go ahead and make that a thing on the relevant pages. 寧靜 Fox 18:49, October 3, 2019 (UTC)
It is wild to see my name in flashing lights in a header. The etiquette guide is really the main thing I'm asking for. Just something more explicit on the project page that says "This is how we do it" rather than the very vague generalities which are there currently. Again, I've never asked for more legislation, just that we more plainly articulate what is already there.
I agree that NP policies are sufficient but again that this needs to be articulated in the project guidelines. Documentation on template changes are important because new sections have been added to infoboxes which aren't covered in the documentation that make it hard to answer questions if they come up (or for new editors to understand what the hell everything does). As a basic example, a 'keywords' field has been added to the location infoboxes which is great. However, because the documentation wasn't simultaneously updated, when someone asked me about them, I had to check the Template source and then sort of backwards engineer what I thought it might be and hazard a guess, but then we had to ultimately wait for a response from Tagaziel to be sure. Keeping the documentation updated will help streamline the process and also reduces key person risk.
When I say "major changes", I mean with regards to changes in article structure/layout, stylistic changes etc etc. Please do not conflate my concerns with those which have been expressed regarding lore decisions and CONTENT. My concerns are with regards to readability, consistency and other boring things like bad redlinks and capitalisation which you may think are minor, but I consider to be the basic foundations of a wiki that someone wants to read. --L84tea Tea kettleWould you like a cup of tea? 23:03, October 3, 2019 (UTC)
I have the same concerns as L84tea, and also agree that an etiquette guide is a good first step in dealing with them. I never aimed to get new legislation created, just to bring up a lot of the small stuff that I thought was being overlooked. Aiden4017 (talk) 02:32, October 4, 2019 (UTC)

I believe we are on the same page here. So two things:

1. What do you think of the guidelines I propose for content? Here's a quick copy, you can scroll up for a more detailed explanation:

  1. How old is the article, i.e. how long since it had a comprehensive overhaul and rewrite?
  2. Is the article referenced? Can it be referenced without the need for an overhaul?
  3. Is an improved version readily available on either side?

This is a basic checklist I've used thus far. For instance, with Vault 51 the checklist indicated there was no need for me to bring over the GP contents, as the differences were marginal and AllYourFavorites did a tremendous job of collating data. As such, I only added content from Layout and the illustrations of the various areas of the Vault (still wish someone would take a shot of the Overseer's office, I'm notoriously bad at Battle Royale games).

2. The same goes for eliminating speculation:

  1. Is there a reference for the claim?
  2. Does the reference support the claim?
  3. Is the reference contradicted by other references?
  4. Are any assumptions necessary to accept the claim?

This would help establish a common framework that can be applied, so that "Speculation" isn't used as a bludgeon in arguments, but a scalpel to improve articles.

I apologize for any problems I might have caused with the new sections. I thought I updated the documentation, but apparently I forgot about it. I'll get right on it. Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 08:42, October 4, 2019 (UTC)

Updated. Also, my reply to FD's larger post up top, before I decided to take a break and return with a fresh head:
I generally try to fix capitalization and other errors as I come across them (redlinks are telling). In some cases it is frankly easier to make redirects, as some references were made quite complicated and I spent a good couple of minutes updating them on the Nutritional Alternative Paste Program page. The best help would be to check substantial edits and overhauls, and fixing what we might miss. We're only human after all. :)
I ran the bot already and it fixed the links - or should have - and also updated the categorization and added licensing for all the location images imported to the wiki. We should be good for now and I'll try to pay more attention to these affairs going forward. You're right, fixing this stuff up will save us work down the road, even if the software fights us sometimes. The Sino-American War page I'm proud of has been a tenacious beast, as minute changes in the reference structure caused issues I had to fix with a fine-toothed comb. Ah well.
Regarding speculation, I would love to know what you think about the framework proposed above. In regards to IFV and post-cryonic syndrome, I've been led to believe that NP has a similar policy. As User:Great Mara discussed with User:JCB2077 regarding the service rifle, the fact that it fires an intermediate cartridge disqualifies it as a battle rifle despite it being based on the AR-10. As such, what the artists call an APC would actually be an IFV by virtue of the weapons it carries (capable of ferrying troops and providing fire support, rather than just ferrying troops as with APCs), while the PCS Private Dobbs experiences would actually be post-cryonic syndrome, as the proper term for cryopreservation of humans is cryonics. I think this just needs clarification.
As for content guidelines, yeah, the content will be expanded and elaborated upon. The aforementioned Sino-American War article is a good example, as all the information that was there has been preserved and integrated into a much expanded article, providing a detailed breakdown of the war, its causes, and events throughout. Similarly, the Vault article also integrated what existed before - as I started with roughly the same article that was here - and expands them greatly to become a comprehensive, well-sourced overview, including a detailed background for the Vaults, including the construction and finish dates, power systems, and so on and so forth. We all have the same goal: Creating the ultimate wiki and the guideline should only be Quality, with a capital Q.
And there's no argument from me regarding communication. I try to be available as much as possible on Discord, answer questions, resolve conflicts - within my meager capacity - and so on and so forth. Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 09:11, October 4, 2019 (UTC)
I would like an additional question/guideline along the lines of "Have you proofread the article and checked that it meets the Fallout Wiki:Editing guidelines? Obviously this is a tick and flick but at least it gives the provision that at least notionally people have proofread the article for at least readability. If the style guides are effectively the same then this shouldn't generate too much work and just be a nice chance for people to proofread articles which may not have been read in their entirety for awhile. Like I've said previously, this is a good opportunity to get to QA basically every article on the wiki, so why not use it?
I forgot to address speculation. I have less of an opinion on this because in-depth explorations of Fallout lore are not my forte and I don't really get a bee in my bonnet about that sort of thing. As long as things are referenced in a manner that does not require mass explanation to understand and, of course, not based on conjecture then I have no complaints. I am not well-informed enough to know anything about this claim of "The Vault allows speculation" beyond what I have heard from others. My gut instinct is that the newsy, more editorial style of writing used on The Vault can give the reader the impression that things are speculative; whereas Nukapedia takes a — drier is not the word — generally less editorialised approach to writing articles which make them sound more authoritative. It is why I prefer the latter writing style for a wiki. --L84tea Tea kettleWould you like a cup of tea? 10:59, October 4, 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that works for the content! I think it could also be combined with what Dyre mentioned, the two-step verification (though it would require a second pair of eyes to proofread; unless we trust we can do our job well and people who overhaul the wiki really do have the best interests of it and the content at heart). Having a checkmark would definitely help - we do these at the company and they help standardize things and ensure they're done immensely. Even skimming through the text can help, as I know I have a tendency to slip up with tenses (present instead of past), especially with large articles.
QA on basically every article is what I'm aiming for too, yes!
The speculation thing is why I propose the checklist to eliminate. You're right about the styles. I'm to blame for it, since I'm a firm believer in articles that are not only informative, but also fun to read (without veering too far into purple prose, of course). This can create the impression of being speculative, but it's mostly just writing to make the text flow better without repetition. Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 14:00, October 4, 2019 (UTC)
As previously stated, I reaaaaally like the two-step verification process. Based on past completed projects, the big ones all had a peer review column so it makes sense for what will be the biggest project ever to include peer review as well. --L84tea Tea kettleWould you like a cup of tea? 03:51, October 5, 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, but I took the weekend off to focus on my wife and son. The original intention of mine was to have a double-verification system, and there is a field for final check in the merger tables. I think the problem was with me communicating the purpose of that field, so I accept all the blame for it. Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 07:39, October 7, 2019 (UTC)


Proposal merge guidelinesEdit

Following the comments concerning the merge, below our suggested guidelines to follow when merging pages. We did our best to listen to all the comments, and use them in these guidelines. If you have remarks, please make them constructive.

General principlesEdit

  • Brush up on formatting styles by consulting the editing guidelines. It’s a brief document that touches on many of the fundamentals and is the standard we apply to the content.
  • Assume good faith. If someone drops a paragraph or edits a sentence incorrectly, it’s not evidence a grand conspiracy, but just human error. In these cases, just correct it or add information you believe was omitted, and maybe give the editor in question a heads-up.
    • Be civil and courteous when talking to other editors. Profanity, aggression, and other intimidating behavior have no place on the wiki, regardless of the user’s standing or edit count.
  • Get involved! The best way to ensure the merge between the wikis is a successful one is active editing or otherwise supporting active editors with positivity and feedback.

Communication channelsEdit

  • We have been using a dedicated chatroom on the Nukapedia’s Fallout Shelter Discord server, freely available to all thus far. #merger-workspace and #editorial-bullpen are two of the primary means of communication, clarification, coordination, and other affairs related to the merge.
  • Use article talk pages as well to highlight potential improvements or content accidentally omitted during the merge. For clarity, make sure to explain the proposal in a bit of detail, so that a decision can be reached with due speed and attention.

Things to watch out forEdit

  • When working with content from The Vault, whether merging or proofreading, be sure to:
    • Ensure consistent decapitalization, especially with note and holotape names. This goes double for references.
      • In some cases, decapitalization is a judgment call, especially with some location places (e.g. Tygart Water Treatment Plant and Tygart water treatment plant; this depends on whether the editor considers it a proper noun or not). In doubt, go with what the name is on Fandom.
    • Tagaziel will run a bot to replace “terminals” with “terminal entries” at regular basis. The bot is dumb, though, so it might skip the odd link. If this is the case, update the link.
    • Some notes exist in multiple parts (eg. scattered journal pages). If a redlink exists to one part, update it with a redirect to the collected pages or to link to the collected pages.

ProceduralsEdit

The exciting part begins here! This section is intended as a general guideline for the merger past this point.

Merging basicsEdit

The key consideration here is quality. As The Dyre Wolf noted in the forum, valuable information should not be lost in the merger for any reason. When deciding what to merge, you can use the following checklist as reference:

  1. Check whether the article exists on both sides. If it’s missing on Fandom, import it, otherwise:
  2. Read the content of the Nukapedia page that will be merged.
  3. Check which article covers the series up to Fallout 76.
  4. Check whether the article is referenced (according to the referencing guidelines).
  5. Check whether a page is entirely rewritten on The Vault, saving the time when overhauling the page on Nukapedia.
  6. Mark the page as merged on the merger page; a second user can then proofread the ported content.
  7. Leave a summary comment when saving a merged page; also when proofreading the content.

If an article is missing, it can be ported over directly, proofreading it so that it conforms to the current standards. Otherwise, a merge is necessary. In general, it should be possible to build around existing content (see Sierra Madre vending machine, where the existing background content has been expanded with Vault's references and content), adding new content cumulatively. If it's impossible, make the necessary edits.

Conflicts between users on a merged page should be discussed between each other to come to an agreement. If Nukapedia and The Vault content is considered equal of quality, the better referenced article trumps the less referenced one. When articles are without references, the Nukapedia content is preferred when the content is of equal quality.

SpeculationEdit

In case a claim is uncertain and could constitute speculation (eg. that the Brotherhood attacked Redding to destroy NCR's gold reserves), follow the following checklist:

  1. Is there a reference for the claim?
  2. Does the reference support the claim?
  3. Is the reference contradicted by other references?
  4. Are any assumptions necessary to accept the claim?

Keep an open mind here. For example, while a great many fans assume power armor is tank-like or was meant to replace tanks, this is not reflected by any sort of source, barring an ambiguous statement in the Fallout Bible which is hyperbolic (like the Fallout 2 intro and its imaginative claim of continents falling beneath boiling oceans). The same goes for any advanced power armor lore or claims it was invented purely by the Enclave (which are not backed by any sources in the games; the only lore on that subject is a half-sentence in the not so reliable Fallout 2 Official Strategies and Secrets).

Importing featuresEdit

The Vault has added several features that rely heavily on MediaWiki code and templates. If you plan on importing them, make sure to update the template documentation to help other users figure out how the template works and how to keep it updated. If a user updates the template, but forgets about the documentation, politely remind them of it (reverse-engineering them is an issue).

Note that in some cases, the functionality of the template has been already replicated by hand. In these cases, discussing how to proceed with other users is recommended.

General improvementsEdit

Other improvements that can be imported include:

  • Grouping references as on the power armor and Sino-American War page, to establish a more granular referencing system (i.e. what comes from released games and what from non-game sources).
  • Separating notable loot by type as on eg. Camp Venture, to aid navigation.
  • Layout improvements will be suggested by The Vault in the time to come, they will be discussed with the community.

RemarksEdit

Will the final version of this be made available on the project page? --L84tea Tea kettleWould you like a cup of tea? 23:10, October 16, 2019 (UTC)

That's the idea, yes. :) Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 06:03, October 17, 2019 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.