Forums: Index > Wiki proposals and applications > Nukapedia The Vault merge formal vote

Following the outcome of the proposal merge guidelines, the vote has been restarted.

I've used both for a while as a lurker, with the occasional edit. I've already made my stance heard in TV's discord server. I am 100% behind the merge. There is no reason why we should have a split community. From a casual user's perspective (something i think could be overlooked); not only does this provide a better service to the end user but it also means the content would be of a much higher quality. I believe a merged site would also promote more active participation in editing. It is a lot easier to get involved if it is all in one place. The positives outweigh any negatives that might arise.— Zealous Champion, one of several users who commented on the blog post

Following the discussion on the merge between Nukapedia and The Vault, and a passed related guideline policy, the vote has been restarted.

It's been two weeks since the merge between our great Fallout Wikis began, following the enthusiastic response to Tagaziel's proposal presented by Jspoel in his blog post, announced on the front page and a site-wide alert notification. While we originally planned to vote once Wastelanders is released, we have been asked to expedite the vote to give the merge a sounder basis. We believe enough time has passed to formalize this step through a vote.

Summary of the merge thus far

  • The Vault editors have crossed over with minimal issues and have seamlessly integrated into our wiki
  • Numerous articles covering Fallout 76 and franchise-wide lore have been merged. Apart from enhancing our coverage, this unification also allowed an opportunity to review, source, and overhaul certain articles, including the removal of long-standing misconceptions and fanon inserted over eleven years ago; the Mister Handy article was the culprit and the issues have since been rectified.
  • Several thousand files depicting Fallout 76 locations and Atomic Shop assets have been already uploaded and are in the process of being placed in the appropriate articles on the wiki. Other assets include high resolution logotypes and faction insignia provided by Vault's users. Raw assets for Wastelad and other internal data have also been accessed and presented.
  • Templates are in the early stages of importation. One major example is Template:Interactions univ, which replaces the old system with an instantly readable list of character interactions. Feedback from other editors will help refine these templates even further.
  • Several hundred plan articles have been imported, with slight issues. These have been since rectified.
  • Overall, the merge has gone over smoothly, with only minute issues and a handful of disagreements.

Bureaucrat stance


Since the merge made a start three weeks ago, things have been gone as well as could be hoped for I think. Many, especially important faction/lore pages, have been revisited, and updated content has been implemented, with excellent referencing. What could have become a feared issue, as noted in the blog, is that we would face challenges/arguments between users from the Vault and Nukapedia, and to my welcome surprise, I've personally not experienced/seen much of it (I may have missed some from Discord). From hundreds of pages, notably also location pages, The Vault content has been combined with Nukapedia content, with little issue. Of almost all those pages, the content grew with referencing and great images. I understand that in Discord, there may be still some lingering concerns/personal issues. I even myself had a small issue earlier this week, but I feel it easily outweighs the greater good that's at stake here, namely a combined and strong as can be Fallout wiki, with a return to our roots. With Tagaziel as a professional stronghold with template/css/programming/asset expertise we will have a continued solid base to make content better and can also improve various layouts on the wiki. As I said during the split end of 2011, there's really no point in separating (again), we must settle possible differences and make the best of it, think positive, grab a hold of this unique opportunity and continue with the merge.


I think a merge seems very good. I have never been a fan of two wikis existing alongside each other with the same content, competing, when really joining forces would be the best outcome for both. Of course I have worries, for example whether simply giving someone rights may feel weird for some regular users, or that conflicts will arise regarding the content of articles, but generally, I think the net positives of a merge greatly outweigh the negative. It will not be an easy task, but I urge everyone to take part and help out in the process.


Richie will keep a neutral stance.


Please note that to prevent vote brigading, the decision will be made by the bureaucrats once a consensus is reached, taking into account the best interests of the broader Fallout community, active contributors, and other factors. As such, we also kindly ask for users to provide a rationale with each vote, to understand their stance in-depth.
Poll finished on 5:01 pm November 1, 2019 (UTC).
  • A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken.
  • You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section:
    • Use # {{yes}} ~~~ if you support the proposal.
    • Use # {{no}} ~~~ if you are against the proposal.
    • Use # {{neutral}} ~~~ if you wish to abstain.
  • Please do not edit other people's votes.


  1. Icon check I think my vote in this matter is obvious. I was one of the people who followed Ausir over to Gamepedia and helped keep The Vault alive over the past eight years, but after Curse became a part of the Fandom family, the only reason to stay apart disappeared into thin air. Rather than continue this artificial division and distribute the talent, unification allows us to tap into two pools of immense talent and create the definitive guide to Fallout and its lore. The merge thus far demonstrated the potential behind unification, combining major overhauls with much needed critical appraisals - from both Nukapedia and Vault editors. The content is better, the reliability is improved, and the discussions help create consensus that works and allows us to address contentious issues. Sometimes it means rewording, at other times cutting, and in the end, we all achieve our common goal: Making the ultimate resource for Fallout lore and gameplay data. On a personal note, it's also good to reconnect with people after growing and maturing. Now I know what I've been missing. Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 12:18, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
  2. Icon check See stance. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 14:33, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
  3. Icon check Despite some constant criticism in the discord, I'm in full favor of the merger. Nothing but good can happen for the Fallout fan community and importantly the end-user of either wiki. Combining each wiki's greatest strengths into one place is the best course of action in my opinion, and the quality of the articles that can now stand on either its gameplay content or lore content. Devastating DaveZIP ZAP RAP 16:09, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
  4. Icon check I made my point on the Discussion about the merge blog (linked in article) and stand by my silly name suggestion.LBraden (talk)
  5. Icon check Although there have been some rocky patches in the advent of the merger, for all things considered, it's gone very well. Like other votes here, I'm fully in favor of the merger, and hope it will bring new opportunities to everyone, old and new. As Tagaziel said, the goal of the wiki is to make the ultimate resource for Fallout lore and gameplay data. And with this merger and how things have gone thus far, I wouldn't have it any other way. JCB2077 (talk) 16:25, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
  6. Icon check I am fully in favor of the merger continuing forward. {{SUBST:User:Legofan/Signature}}
  7. Icon check I believe it is the smartest decision we can make at the moment. Id say we have reached the point where dividing and conquering is redundant, and for the betterment of all Fallout knowledge, we should unite. As Abraham Lincoln once said: A house divided against itself cannot stand. --Dankalor😳 16:28, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
  8. Icon check If I may, I found the Vault wiki to be a nice place as I found some information from that place rather intriguing, and I do agree more with what they have in store for the lore in comparison to Nukapedia which specializes more with gameplay. I think if they merged, we'd get a massive combination of both lore information to make people invested, while also having the elements from Nukapedia to know any tips and tricks that can help out if need be. So yes, I do think this merge would help out with the upcoming years. User: Scout Trooper 164 13:29, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
  9. Icon check this change will lead to the betterment of the wiki at the end of the day, with badmin rule being overruled and goodmins being pushed in to allow change after years of badmin abuse. Go team With love; Silent (˶◡‿◡)(´ ❥ `) (talk) 17:33, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
  10. Icon check I believe that a merge is in due order now. In the past, there have indeed been things keeping us apart, but a merge is better now to be sure. For one, this merger may very well be needed to salvage the complete wreck that has come about to the Nukapedia community. So far, this merger has already helped in my eyes, even if it has led to some internal distrusts; I believe the ends will justify the means. Nukapedia's community notwithstanding, the Vault also has plenty of its own community to offer, and I believe that the particulars of community dealings will be worked out in due time as well. As for the wiki space itself, there are obviously going to be disagreements on which wiki's policies are better, but that is why we have staff to decide. Combining both sources of information together again shall give us the best of both worlds if done properly. I, for one, have no problem with nice and long articles combining our full knowledge. Finally, I believe that much of the criticism of this merge has been highly on the technical side; "no real discussion," for example, despite the fact that most of those complaining about no discussion themselves did not comment on the blog post announcing this in the first place.... And as I have already addressed, I believe the discrepancies between wikis can be worked out in due course. I hope this goes as planned. |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 17:40, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
  11. Icon check lol at people pretending discussion wasn't happening when they chose to ignore the discussions that were happening. - Chris 4 Star Dragon Ball Edit 18:58, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
  12. Icon check The merge has been going very smoothly so far and is a great boon the the entire Fallout community. I see absolutely no reason why the merge should be canceled, stalled or otherwise. The content already added to this wiki by Vault members has been superb, with much more on the way. While there have been a few minor challenges, as brought up by many "no" voters, these are certainly no reason to put this on ice. As a very casual editor I've already seen and even participated in many of the discussions that brought us to this point. As Chris said, these users had ample chance to participate and did not. A lot of them are also support the merger but are voting "no" for reasons that you can read below. I understand their issues, but i feel that if you truely support this merger, you should be voting "yes" and writing your grievances here, as opposed to risking this entire endeavour upon misunderstandings and laziness. I vote "yes" and i would urge all others to do the same. Zealous Champion (talk)
  13. Icon check There's no question that the merge should take place. Fandom and Gamepedia are no longer entirely separate, and it's not efficient to build up two near-identical wikis about the same thing instead of focusing on just one. My personal involvement with the merge is minimal, but it's inaccurate to suggest that there has been "little discussion" about it already. There has been a dedicated channel about it on the Nukapedia Discord for three weeks, and it's been under discussion on the wiki as a whole for a month. The obsession many people here have with strict "adherence to policy" is misaligned and insignificant in the greater scheme of things. No amount of "prior discussion" is possibly going to change the fact that merging is messy—indeed, my home wiki of Elder Scrolls is the product of three major merges—but this is a transient issue. I think there have been plenty of opportunities for discussion already, and there is nothing stopping anyone from continuing to discuss it right now and in the future. —Atvelonis (talk) 20:17, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
  14. Icon check As just a Fallout fan and not the Wiki Manager, I think that though obstacles may exist and the road may not be entirely bump-free, merging a long-fractured community is better in the long run.
    ◄► Tephra ◄► @fandom 22:35, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
  15. Icon check My opinion is well known on the matter at this point. Acj1225 (talk)
  16. Icon check A merge sounds good, doesn't it? -- Extrinitus (talk) 02:04, September 30, 2019 (UTC)
  17. Icon check Quite frankly, I believe that there's quite a plethora of positive outcomes that could come out of the merge, along with the introduction of new staff, as well as the alterations of articles around the Wiki. Putting aside the negative outcomes (if any), I have to vote yes on this matter. UrbanAnge1 (talk) 07:30, September 30, 2019 (UTC)
  18. Icon check Why not, we're partway through already, no sense to pull out now especially when its going over better than I projected LovinglyGaslight (talk) 10:58, September 30, 2019 (UTC)
  19. Icon check I do agree that hearing about this earlier would be nice, but the potential benefit of the merger far outweighs those concerns. veryblackraven 15:50, September 30, 2019 (UTC)
  20. Icon check As a heavy contributor to The Vault, coming back from a long break to the news of a merge onto Fandom wasn't something I was too excited about. Getting assimilated into the Nukapedia side of things was a pretty quick wake up call that the years of parallel editing by our two wikis was an artificial challenge for both our editors and the people coming to either site for information. Working together on one platform saves us time, increases our talent pool of technical and lore information, and ultimately makes it easier for players of the games to find the content they want (which is the core of all of our missions in the first place). Let's make that content the best that we, as the Fallout wiki community, can. Brantmeierz (talk) 16:08, September 30, 2019 (UTC)
  21. Icon check I believe the end result of a unified wiki with all the Fallout wiki editors working together will be worth both the amount of time it will take and any disagreements that arise among users. I think the biggest challenge will be merging the communities, the people, not only to one wiki but to one idea, with time this will happen and it will be reflected in the quality of content. Enclave Soldier Elliott (talk) 19:21, September 30, 2019 (UTC)
  22. Icon check Just, yes. I'm too lazy to write too much. SoleSurvivor'sMinutemen (talk) 22:45 September 30 (UTC+3)
  23. Icon check but with reservations. Both wikis have issues with their content. Both have numerous instances of unsourced statements, speculation being taken as fact, non-canon sources being treated as hard fact and conflating of real-world statements with in-world canon/lore. Merging the two is only going to make these problems even worse. Shopuld the merge occur, there needs to be a thorough clean-up of content in the aftermath to deal with these problems. --Darthfish (talk) 02:42, October 1, 2019 (UTC)
  24. Icon check I see no reason for the merge not to happen now, so long as the issues raised during the discussion, and their solutions, are kept in mind. Aiden4017 (talk) 02:17, October 26, 2019 (UTC)
  25. Icon check I vote in favor of the merge, because I believe a more unified Wiki/Forum would be better for the community in the long run. However, I feel it is everyone's best interest if we head what the people voting no are saying, just because the Yes vote wins doesn't automatically make everyone change perspective. So I believe it is important to keep that in mind moving forward. LocalMaxTax (talk) 20:04, October 25, 2019 (UTC-8)
  26. Icon check I vote in favor because of all the reasons stated above.--Ant2242 (talk) 03:29, October 26, 2019 (UTC)
  27. Icon check sounds good to me. Jon the Don -JBour53 (Talk to my consigliere) 09:04, October 26, 2019 (UTC)
  28. Icon check It is easier for me as a modder to only have one source for information that doesn’t conflict with others. LeoTheLeopardNZ (talk) 18:19, October 26, 2019 (UTC)
  29. Icon check Consider this a tentative yes. I have concerns regarding the methods we've used thus far to merge content together, but on the whole I'm in strong support of this merger. As long as my bug sections remain in good condition. ---bleep196- (talk) 14:17, October 28, 2019 (UTC)
  30. Icon check We've talked out the major issues so far. Anything that hits us down the road will be easier to solve by focusing the minds of Vault and Nukapedia contributors on one centralized Fallout encyclopedia. Navy athletics Don't give up the ship! Bill the goat 18:59, October 30, 2019 (UTC)
  31. Icon check It's the best thing for the fandom as a whole but it would be disingenuous of me to say that I didn't feel a little strongarmed into it. I think the process as a whole has been carried out incredibly poorly and has sown a not insignificant amount of disharmony within the community (I personally have found it incredibly unpleasant). However, there is no benefit for the fandom in having a fragmented Fallout knowledge base so I am obliged to support this merge based on the principle of the thing. --L84tea Tea kettleWould you like a cup of tea? 06:57, October 31, 2019 (UTC)
  32. Icon check I believe the wiki merger will ultimately be beneficial for the everyone, regardless of whatever growing pains have been had thus far. It would be naive to expect no further trouble just because a vote passes, but the fact that both communities have had a decent voting turn out with most expressing an interest in coming together should at least be evidence of a willingness to try seeing this through. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 05:58, November 1, 2019 (UTC)
  33. Icon check I have stated my stance multiple times prior. Acj1225 (talk) November 1, 2019
  34. Icon check I support the joining of our two wikis in order to make one superior large wiki 1+1=1after all.W.I.G.T.A.I.H.T.W.B.M.G (talk)


  1. Icon cross Since this vote was started without any formal discussions, as required for an official vote, I'm going to have vote no. Maybe if there were actual discussions, things wouldn't seem so seemless to those ignoring others' issues. Paladin117>>iff bored; 16:02, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
  2. Icon cross No real discussion among the users of the wiki was made prior to this vote, if that happens I might change my vote, otherwise I'll have to simply say no. Dragão Carmesim Red hammer and sickle 16:13, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
  3. Icon cross I don't really oppose the merge, but in terms of this vote, Pally is correct. More discussions are needed before anything else happens, and they're discussions that should have happened earlier. AllYourFavorites! (talk) 16:17, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
  4. Icon cross I'm with Pally here. Second, I was waiting for a forum like this and the Nukacrats and Cursecrats decided it would be funny to skip proper voting process and jump to big guns. Just because a lot of people agree (or don’t mind) on the blog about something doesn’t mean you should go make the changes instantly, some people like me wouldn’t agree to this you know. We need an official voting process before we make changes, not the other way around. Its just not right; or fair to us ‘no voters’ who were against the merge. --Cassie The Rodio Girl I see you. 16:21, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
  5. Icon cross As others stated, little discussion. And the merge is not going over as smoothly as this forum is trying to suggest. I would like for their to be a merger between our communities, but let's actually discuss these things first and not jump ship without a life-vest. Try a merger later, actually discuss and plan for any issues that can occur (not just worry about things later), have mutual respect, take the best of both sites. Those'r my requirements for a "Yes" vote. Is that too much to ask for? Saxhleel12 (talk) 16:29, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
  6. Icon cross As others have stated, there was an obvious lack of planning and discussion with the people about this. I’m also not a fan of this vote not going through the proper channels before being voted on. This whole ordeal seems much messier than implied here. The rest of my opinion is per Sax. Laat the Survivor RangerSequoia (talk) 16:45, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
  7. Icon cross Like the others, I'm of the opinion that the merge is a great idea - but jumping into this immediately with little-to-no discussion prior to the vote, especially given the significant hiccups in the merging process that the Yes voters seem either unaware of or unconcerned about, is not something I can give a "yes" to. Mara and Paladin's concerns in the "comments" of this vote are my biggest issues. --DirtyBlue929 (talk) 17:00, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
  8. Icon cross If I may have the audacity to come back from the dead and harp my opinion on matters I've been completely ignorant of up until two weeks ago, Pally is absolutely right. Nobody can assume that there is nothing to discuss and go straight to a vote according to the regulations here. That a matter of this magnitude has gone to a vote without a proper discussion is beyond peculiar to me and is not the Nukapedia I remember. For what it's worth, I believe a merger is the right course of action, but I believe that deviating from protocol to do it disrespects all those who voted for, continuously adhere to, and agree with the many regulations that guide the content that all readers use. But if that is how the community wants to start off this merger, then they certainly can by voting yes here. I am voting no because I do not believe that to be the case based on my renewed two weeks of contact with wiki affairs. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 17:05, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
  9. Icon cross As many other people on this forum, I think the merge is a good idea, but due to a lack of a formal vote before the decision was made, I vote no. As for the people that are saying that the merge isn't going smoothly, they're not wrong. I've seen many an argument on discord about policies being ignored. Following these policies gives us credibility and thus it is of maximum importance to follow them. This lack of communication reminds of the time Laat was unbanned. Only one person was consulted about that action leaving the rest with a surprise without knowing what was going on. Many of us staff members were not against unbanning Laat but we were against not being consulted on the decision. It is clear that the higher-ups of this community need to consult with staff and the wider community on important decisions. I hope this issue will be left in the past soon. Jgrsoto Coat of arms of Puerto Rico 17:58, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
  10. Icon cross We need more discussion and community input. User:ThatRaidingRaider
  11. Icon cross Like I’ve expressed on discord, much more discussion is needed before a merge. I do hope to see a merge in the long run, but a change of this magnitude definitely needs more community input, discussion, and agreement on a variety of matters beforehand. Skysteam (talk) 01:50, September 30, 2019 (UTC)


  1. Icon neutral --ExplorerSmaily (talk) 22:17, September 29, 2019 (UTC)
  2. Icon neutral I disagree that the initial merge has gone as smoothly as purported and share a lot, if not all, of the concerns expressed by the no voters as well as those in the comments (which there is no need for me to rehash, although I shall if this is desired). However, not only do I support a merge in principle, I do believe that we are now too far down the rabbit hole to be able to climb back up, so I cannot in good conscience vote no. I also cannot wholeheartedly vote yes because I don't want to gloss over that 1) this process has not been as rosy as the description would have me believe and 2) the issues that are being raised by the 'No' voters are important ones which need to be addressed.
    Edit: I agree with everything Dekker has said below. --L84tea Tea kettleWould you like a cup of tea? 07:13, October 1, 2019 (UTC)
    Vote changed.
  3. Icon neutral Sorry I'm late. I loved the idea of the merge when it was first proposed, but was afraid it would be rushed so I suggested to take things slowly, especially the earlier stages: Introducing the new staff, getting to know each other, see how we work, and so on. Jspoelstra was skeptical of my idea because he wanted our fellow Vaulters to feel welcome more than anything. While I too want them to feel welcome, I think we should stop mixing up "making them feel welcome" with "not opposing them out of fear they will cancel the merge". Because we have been doing the latter, errors, inconsistencies, and policy violations have been imported all over and fixing them has been deferred to no-one and no time in particular. With this topic, those who have had negative or critical opinions are finally given the voice they wanted. The reason I have not expressed these feelings before was because I did not want to be "that guy" who opposed and delayed this great thing and got everyone hung up on little details. But with others expressing these feelings I see now that I wasn't the only one. Don't get me wrong, the merge is a great prospect for everyone, both editors and readers. But I feel that there is too little consistent vision and when I look at some page merges I simply feel very frustrated and demotivated, knowing that what I see will create a lot of work in the near future.
    At the start of the merge, Jspoel explained that the first few weeks would be a "trial" of sorts, after which we could always back down. That trial is now over, and I don't think we should back down. Right now we're postponing maintenance indefinitely, and any software engineer can tell you that's a bad idea. I think we should change our attitude and increase the quality expected of merged content. Those who merge pages should take more time to iron out inconsistencies, rewrite, rename, and so on in a holistic fashion. This will slow down the process but will be of great benefit to the quality and consistency on the wiki. The first next step would be to gather complaints and reconcile them. Then, while continuing to allow for discussions, we can continue the merge.
    You can't make everyone happy, but that is no reason to dismiss unhappy people. With Jspoel and Tagaziel as editing powerhouses I think we can pull this off, but we need a feedback loop in there, and that means that there will be confrontation.
    - FDekker talk 08:39, October 1, 2019 (UTC)

    I'm very glad to see that there are now clear guidelines that all users can refer to when they have concerns or doubts. They help with accountability and clarify the procedure for all parties. The way forward is together, and together we can figure this out. As before, while we have our differences, I don't think they are insurmountable if we work together.
    While I'm inclining towards a yes vote, I feel that my absence these past weeks has made me too uninformed to qualify for a vote. I don't have any particular concerns but then again I don't know if I should be having any. At least this vote is much more positive than my previous one!
    - FDekker talk 09:07, October 31, 2019 (UTC)
  4. Icon neutral The specifics of wiki-wide practices have long eluded me for years now so I don't feel qualified to vote one way or the other. I am only pleased to see the practice of having formal discussions before votes being implemented properly. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 03:13, October 26, 2019 (UTC)
  5. Icon neutral I still can't in good conscience give a "yes" given that the new guidelines don't really solve the issue of people ignoring the guidelines, but like I said in my initial "no" I think the merge is necessary and inevitable, and we've at least had time to properly discuss the issue this time around. --DirtyBlue929 (talk) 19:06, October 28, 2019 (UTC)
  6. Icon neutral Jinau (talk) 11:13, October 30, 2019 (UTC)


The merging so far has not been entirely seamless. There are some instances of articles being entirely overwritten (Vault). As well as other issues I see being introduced with imports:

  • Capitalization: Discussed with Tag earlier about Vault, which I still find to be up in the air. But things like professional titles or military ranks being capitalized when they shouldn't be is apparent. (Colonel, captain, president, overseer in the middle of a sentence without the name following to make it a proper noun.)
  • "Weasel words" conveying an opinion to readers instead of letting the reader form their own. (Curiously, strangely, obviously.)
  • Some grammar is being changed to British English over American English.
  • There have also been some speculatory statements being introduced (One can surmise...)

This seems more like the time isn't being being taken to proofread the edit and there's just copy and pasting going on. It's also snowballing into a larger workload of things that need to be corrected with each article receiving imported content. Great Mara (talk) 16:26, September 29, 2019 (UTC)

There's also many, many cases of the people behind the importing downplaying and ignoring other editors' concerns, with one editor saying that it's up to the "janitors" to find and fix the numerous errors in their imports. Heck, my first interaction with an importer was telling them that the hundreds of stubs they were creating was against policy, at which point he continued to make them anyway because he preferred them over policy. Paladin117>>iff bored; 16:47, September 29, 2019 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what are some of the people in here referring to as plentiful discussion? The single user blog with some 20 commenters? My adminship request had more time and participants than that did. Heck, basically all of our previous policy and user right forums have had more discussion than this merger has. That may be okay for some, but that's extremely odd for others. Especially given the very divided views on how this merger is going. And I'm questioning if some of the people voting are even aware of the seemingly constant arguments on discord over this divided views. Why can't this merger get a proper discussion and vote like literally every policy change since I've been a member here? Paladin117>>iff bored; 21:23, September 29, 2019 (UTC)

Declaring how to merge wikis and then merging =/= discussion on if to merge wikis

As linked by Atvelonis as an example of proper discussion of this matter (along with others saying enough discussion has occurred), I thought it prudent to point out my interpration that Jspeolstra's merging blog is:

  1. A user blog, not a proper discussion forum, and, more importantly and italicized for emphasis,
  2. An edict on what is going to happen and is currently happening, running in the face of and contrary to any semblance of a discussion or voting process.

If someone could explain to me how this process is remotely formal that would be immensely appreciated. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 22:05, September 29, 2019 (UTC)

Fandom's Stance

Fandom's stance on this merger is that it will fully support any merging venture, but the decision to go forward with it is entirely in the hands of the community.
◄► Tephra ◄► @fandom 22:35, September 29, 2019 (UTC)


I think it's important to note that most if not all of us opposition voters aren't actually opposed to the merge, we just feel that this sudden, seemingly unprompted vote to decisively finalize it, midway through the messy merging process, isn't the best idea. I'll admit I'm not active at all in the community discussion and wiki politics but from what I can tell this vote was called without going through any of the usual channels and caught a lot of moderators and major contributors off-guard. --DirtyBlue929 (talk) 23:02, September 29, 2019 (UTC)

Am I the only one oppose to this merge? I am oppose to it from the beginning, they decided to mix the two wikis into one before a proper decision was made. They even didn’t give us ‘no voters’ a chance to discuss about it til much later on after the merge happened. —Cassie The Rodio Girl I see you. 01:38, October 1, 2019 (UTC)
I'm opposed to a lot of things related to the merge itself. I agree with many of the things said about bad process and the total ignorance of our wiki's proper standards. And I believe that we must hold discussions about the right way to do this. However, at this point, I cannot in good faith vote no because the simple fact is that if we all voted "no" on this, the wiki would be in an even bigger mess than before. We don't want to sink the boat when we're trying to move it across the water...
But even though I am voting yes to the merge itself, I'm not by any means consenting to this atrocious process. If we've started this already, which we have, then we need to hold discussions about how to do it right. A proper forum will be made, whether the speed-editors like it or not. This ain't it.
I have seen people trying to use the argument that we need to speed through this now and leave the janitor-editors to fix it later. I say to hell with that. Do it right the first time, and hold discussion in a forum on how to do it right. |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 01:49, October 1, 2019 (UTC)
I agree. A lot of this has been presented to the wikis as a fait accompli which has left a bit of a bad taste, at least in my mouth, even if it is ultimately the best way forward for both communities and the fandom as a whole. --L84tea Tea kettleWould you like a cup of tea? 07:20, October 1, 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't the votes be reset?

With this vote forum taking place before a formal discussion and a lot of the votes reflecting that still standing, shouldn't this particular forum be abandoned and a new one made and linked to as a wiki-wide message instead? --The Ever Ruler (talk) 03:13, October 26, 2019 (UTC)

Oh, it was done this way because, like every aspect of this merge, it was rushed with little thought or consideration. I don't even know why the only choices for such a complex issue are Yes, No, or Maybe. I've asked about it before but got no answer. Heck, Fallout 4's controversial dialogue system had more options than this! (Although, like Fallout 4, some are ignoring it because they believe Yes will win no matter which option is picked) Paladin117>>iff bored; 19:13, October 26, 2019 (UTC)
There's no good solution here. Resetting the votes could be seen as trying to redo a vote that went "the wrong way". However, note that the voting was specifically paused to allow for more discussion and working out policies based on the merge thus far: Resuming the vote simply follows the conclusion of the process and the objections raised.
As for the available options, it's standard procedure. Far more complex and consequential issues, like membership in supranational organizations or constitutional amendments, are passed with yes/no votes. :) Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 20:42, October 26, 2019 (UTC)
Sounds like that's the kind of thing that gets brought up in the discussion forum prior to starting the vote. That is literally what it's there for... And we're not the United States Congress, so we don't have to do votes like that. Paladin117>>iff bored; 22:41, October 26, 2019 (UTC)

I know that the merger home page was updated just a couple days ago, which is a great start. There are, however, a few things that were discussed in the forums which have not been addressed. Merger specific, there's been no addition of two step verification form completed pages despite the general reception to this idea being positive, and so far as infoboxes are concerned, a few of the templates have not been updated to carry information present on the Vault but not currently supported by the Nuka' boxes. Terms like "keywords." It would have be nice if everything that was discussed in the forums was implemented prior to the vote being reopened.

As previously stated, my main concern is that without any way to actually import certain bits information, it increases the likely hood that something will be overlooked, ignored, or otherwise undocumented. Though there stands a chance something can be lost on any page, even something as simple to transfer as plain text or images, but wherever possible we should at least try to minimize the likelihood of unfortunate omission. If fat needs to be trimmed and an editor is making the choice to eliminate parts of either wiki's article because it is incorrect or poorly worded, then that is 100% understandable. If we're leaving meat on the bone simply because we can do nothing with it, then it should be addressed.

My main concern is that without the benefit of someone scanning specifically for errors, we literally have thousands of pages that would have to be rechecked at later date anyway. And, absent something as simple as a check mark, it would extraordinarily inefficient have editors performing follow ups en masse with no means of communicating that a page has been verified, potentially leading to a some pages being checked multiple times while others are never checked on at all.

I have no issue with whether or not the current page is used for voting rather than a clean slate, I already sent out notification to the /d users who voted to return and review their votes light of the forum, but before the timer was turned on or at least within a reasonable amount of time thereabouts, notification of intent to reopen the polls should have been sent out to the participants. Even if it is purely a formality, looking at a vote count of 28 to 11 (14 including neutrals), voters are typically sent a talk page message. With something so major, there should be no reason to have any silly mistakes or errors in the process that will lead to future grievance or calls for outrage. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 07:14, October 28, 2019 (UTC)

That is a very good point and I forgot to put that in. I've added it as the final procedural step, handing it over to a secondary user to proofread. I thought I added it. Apologies for the confusion.
I'll ping you regarding the keywords. The reason I haven't updated every template yet is because I'm not done with locations yet and I'd like to do it the right way, rather than start a dozen merger processes and then forget to implement them. I'll ping you regarding templates with missing documentation. :) Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 08:58, October 28, 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for any inconvenience, but could someone footnote any conclusions the discussion reached on the merger, the Discussion is quite vast and I doubt everyone will read every part of it in order to find what agreements were come upon LovinglyGaslight (talk) 22:13, October 28, 2019 (UTC)

There we go! Sorry for the delay, I'm not getting enough sleep lately. Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 11:50, October 30, 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge guidelines

The following guidelines were unopposed in the discussion and will form the merger's basis.

General principles

  • 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 channels

  • 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 for

  • 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.


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

Merging basics

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.


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 features

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 improvements

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.


Result pending, following discussion bureaucrats. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 16:26, November 2, 2019 (UTC)

The merge will be a pass, with 70% of the votes in favor. We feel we've addressed most of the (no-voters) concerns now with a discussion leading to guidelines which can be found here. We had liked to see some more support coming from it but hopefully that will come along the way onward now. There will be bumps in the road; but we must do our best to address/overcome them. Thanks to all for participating. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 18:01, November 4, 2019 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

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

Stream the best stories.

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

Get Disney+