Talk: Fallout canon

This talk page is only for discussing improvements to the page "Fallout Wiki:Fallout canon."

• For general discussion or to share stories about the topic of this article, please visit our discussion boards.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) after each of your entries.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Do not edit other people's entries.

For general conversation on this topic, please visit our discussion boards.

Canonicity

This article states Canon as being officially part of the Fallout universe. I'm thinking official is the wrong word here, as it would accept everything as canon, The canon is more agreed then dictated, don't you think? Dan 08:16, 13 Feb 2005 (GMT)

No. I haven't played Tactics or BOS, but here's an example of why certain things are not considered canon. In Fallout, the nations fought over the dwindling levels of oil available during the game no one drove cars because fuel was gone. However, in BOS they had the the main characters driving a car. Which is not possible because fuel was not very accessible by the time of the Great War.

It's parts of those games that hugely conflict with Fallout. Fallout 2 is accepted because most of the thing sin there are pop culture references or jokes. Which is different from saying the grass is pink which it clearly isn't. -- (Middle Man 01:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC))

Who defined this?

Who defined this? I understand "Fallout" and "Fallout 2" stance, since they are standard canon definition. I know there are number of plot holes in Tactics which made it inconsistent with Fallout 1 and 2, but most of the other elements fits in the world. Obviously one can claim to be a purist and enforce even the minute style, that is just waste of time. (Please give explanation on the method current system was determined.)

As a note, the person in Fallout 3 teaser wore a BOS armor. Knowing that Fallout 3 occurs on the East Coast, I'd say that it is probably based off some elements of the Tactics plot. --Voidvector 10:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Remember the Vertibirds from Fallout 2 that the old Brotherhood could get? The people from Black Isle (like Chris Avellone or J.E. Sawyer) didn't consider Tactics to be canon and for some time, their word was official on that issue. Anyway, I've planned on writing a more elaborate article on the question of canon and inconsistencies between the games for some time, but I never got around to doing that. And yes, this is a delicate issue that the current stub doesn't do justice to. Some people consider Tactics and FO:BOS to be canon, while others don't, some consider Van Burent to be canon even though it wasn't published and others don't, some consider the words of Tim Cain or Chris Avellone to be canon while others rely only on information from the games themselves. Ausir 10:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Excerpt from "canon" banners:

• Template:FOT: "[Fallout Tactics] is not considered part of the Fallout canon by many (but not all) people. Some of it can however be considered semi-canon if it does not contradict canon sources."
• Template:JES: "It is not known whether any of [J.E. Sawyer's Fallout RPG] will be treated as canon in future Fallout games, but it might be treated as semi-canon if it does not contradict canon sources."

To Fallout Tactics, it is pretty much a flat out "no". To JES RPG, which isn't even an official game, it takes a "may be" stance. There is some lack of objectivity in here. Based on the wording of those templates, JES RPG seems more canon than Tactics. --Voidvector 14:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out, I fixed it. Ausir 14:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, a lot nicer now. --Voidvector 19:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Bethesda Software's take on canon

I'm not saying this should be included now because Fallout 3 isn't released yet, so we don't know for sure their version of things. But this should be included at some point because they are the current holders of the franchise. We already know they are not taking Tactics and BoS as canon, so that could be included as well at some point. Just figure I post a point of it. -- (Middle Man 01:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC))

Fallout Tactics mentioned in Fallout 3

If you ask Scribe Rothchild in Fallout 3 about the Brotherhood, he will tell you there is a Brotherhood of Steel organization in Chicago that has gone rogue (basically the Fallout Tactics storyline). This should confirm Fallout Tactics' canonicity in terms of Fallout 3.--Voidvector 07:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I asked Emil Pagliarulo and he said that they don't consider all elements of Tactics canon, just high-level events that don't contradict Fallout and Fallout 2. Ausir 08:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

So that means tactics is semi canon https://youtu.be/biqqobPm-h8 (Kelis98 (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC))

Chris Avellone

Wouldn't hurt imo to give an example of C A being wrong about canon. That one kind of seems loose to me. But then, I am indoctrinated by the Wikipedia 'cite everything' rule. VvAnarchangelvV 16:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Vault 77

is the Puppet Man canon or not? (i think he is) 194.76.29.2 13:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

He is - the Vault 77 jumpsuit appears in Fallout 3. Ausir 13:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Van Buren elements in F3

While Van Buren is not considered canon, some minor elements were incorporated in Fallout 3 - Ausir could you poit those elements for me, please?--dotz 21:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The ones I noticed were Hei Gui stealth armor (in the add-on), the T-45d power armor designation and the Enclave symbol (it was in the JE Sawyer PnP, but it was based on Van Buren, and could have been used in some VB concept art too). Ausir 23:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I seems Chinese soldiers remnants motive appeares also.--dotz 08:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Another reference to Van Buren, this time in Operation: Anchorage:

"This armor appears to be a more recent prototype of the same HG stealth armor captured from enemy infiltrators at the Hoover Sabotage."

Ausir 22:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

I don't know how Fallout wiki works, but most wikis are made to be neutral sources of information. So, for example, the bit about fallout 2 being considered inferior is not only biased, but also totally useless. Just say that the events in fallout 2 are copacetic to the general story line and be done. 24.247.156.217 10:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

We aren't enforcers of failed policies like NPOV. "Pretty neutral" is enough. Besides, as a fan wiki, this has to reflect the opinions on the fanbase, not conveniently omit facts whenever they collide with the opinion of the current IP holder. _Tagaziel ^(call!) 11:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Van Buren and canon in general

I feel that no part of Van Buren should be taken as canon as it was an unreleased work (officially). Being that it wasn't released, thus unfinished, then the story wasn't (officially) polished, thus un referenceable for canon or comparison. If Bathesda took some elements and implemented them into Fallout 3, then only those elements are canon.

Also another note about Canon, Fans should keep in mind that the timeline of the stories is over hundreds of years after the great war, Things referencing the past can get stretched and exaggerated in that time ( being human thier record keeping can be embellished as no one is infallible) such as some elements seeming to contradict canon, could in fact be Canon embellishments, or things that got changed over the centuries through retelling ( such as the formation of the brotherhood could be embellished to add to the mythos) so to call something non canon because it isn't exactly as it was in the first game could be wrong, as it is simply this generations embellishment of the story (capital wasteland is cut off from western brotherhood in Fallout 3, so they have oral tradition due to not being in contact with the core brotherhood). It is small things like this, or a regional brotherhood chapter making up thier own rankings that show the humanness of the characters or factions. if stuck directly to what some fans call canon, you would end up with automatons that parrot everything in every game with no originality.

I also find the idea of a car being driven as non canon as laughable, as the same fans are seeing nothing wrong with the idea of vertibirds operating. (may be wrong on power source, if i am then this last thought can be redacted)

in summation, canon doesn't need to be an exact parroting of what came before, if embellishments and stretching of the events that occured before come up, then that is that generations canon, as that is what is widely believed at that time and place.

I am just glad that the fallout universe hasn't fallen into the trap of KotOR, where some idiot wrote a book making the main character male canon. if there is a gender choice in a game, then the sex of the main character should never be made canon. --75.61.64.118 22:57, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the hero of Fallout 1, the Vault Dweller, is canonically male according to Fallout 2. Ausir^(talk) 23:04, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Ausir for straightening that out, though I would have liked some feedback on the rest of what I wrote, it was good of you to reply anyway.--75.61.64.118 02:06, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

Ok, i'd say 99.96 % of fallout new vegas is cannon, but I could have sworn I saw a M4 type gun and a colt .45. That can't possibly cannon, can it? Next with all this stuff about oil in the fallout time line, all the cars in fallout 3 do not use oil, so what's the big deal? 2nd I was looking through the wiki for cool info and I saw that either fallout tactics or fallout bos had weapons that appeared to be pink, yellow and blue, easter bunny's weapons stockpile? No, seriously, why are they pastel colors. this is post apacalyptia not dora the explora. Also, can someone explain what happened to harold, really? Oh ya, and to all those people who want to rp like a real person in fo3, it's harder than it sounds(much easier to do in tes iv).

Well, even Fallout 1 has one modern gun, the Desert Eagle. Ausir^(talk) 03:09, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'd say the Desert Eagle is a cannon. Oh, canon. right. Anyway, petroleum is used for far more purposes than just gasoline. We can start with the manufacture of plastics, and continue on through the lubrication of most large machinery. Even nuclear powered cars would still need some kind of oil to keep everything moving, even if it was just in the form of transmission fluid. Digital Utopia (talk) 07:49, June 20, 2014 (UTC)

Might I?

If its okay with all of you, I'd like to remove the "canon, not cannon!" picture. It's rather unnecessary and I'd like to remove, If i'm allowed.

I think it's funny myself (well, I put it there), and it's a common misspelling. Ausir^(talk) 17:30, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Never mind then.

Add Fallout: New Vegas' Wild Wasteland perk to unknown canon and cut content to non-canon?

Or would such an operation be deemed unnecessary? --Solar Storm 19:35, September 7, 2011 (UTC)

Fallout Online

It is included here, but Fallout Online still is listed as an unknown canon source.

After the legal issue being settled, I'm wondering if someone higher up can handle this situation appropriately.--The Ever Ruler 15:06, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel canon status

Is there an actual source for Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel being non-canon? I've seen plenty of people claim its not canon, but I've never once seen a source to confirm this. Kalrot (talk) 20:00, August 14, 2012 (UTC)

A canon choices article?

Is there an article or a section in an article that determines all the canonical choices in the Fallout Universe? As well as probable canon choices such as the choices made for the good endings? If not, why not? --Christengo (talk) 22:56, July 13, 2013 (UTC)

All our articles reflect the canononical choices, except where noted otherwise. As for probable, we'd consider that speculation. However the ending slides pages are probably a good spot to start. Agent c (talk) 22:57, July 13, 2013 (UTC)

Don't think there's a need for a specific article that reflects all the canon choices so long as it's implied in the articles on the quests and endings that have certain choices made hunh? Meh...if you technically say so. --Christengo (talk) 04:32, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

Order of precedence

I need an order of precedence for canonicity. Here's my first stab at it, this is going by canonicity first, date second:

• FO1
  • FO1 mentioned only content
    • FO1 cut content
    • FO1 test content
• FO2
  • FO2 mentioned only content
    • FO2 cut content
    • FO2 test content
• FO3
  • FO3 mentioned only content
    • FO3 cut content
    • FO3 test content
• FNV
  • FNV mentioned only content
    • FNV cut content
    • FNV test content
• FOT
  • FOT mentioned only content
    • FOT cut content
    • FOT test content
• FOBOS
  • FOBOS mentioned only content
    • FOBOS cut content
    • FOBOS test content
• FE
• FOT2
• FB
• VB
• FOBOX2
• V13

Seems the most logical way to do it, to me. - ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 23:18, January 18, 2015 (UTC)

What is the order of precedence for, resolving disputes or for article display? Agent c (talk) 23:26, January 18, 2015 (UTC)

Specifically, article display for the overview pages I'm working on. The Gunny   23:37, January 18, 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion would be then:

• Canon games, by order of release date
• Non Canon released games, by order of release date
• Unreleased games, and other commentary (bibles, etc) by date order (First release or first acknowledged date perhaps?.

Agent c (talk) 23:39, January 18, 2015 (UTC)

That's mostly how I went. With the possible exception of the last ones. The Gunny   23:47, January 18, 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can figure out, the order of the canceled games, ordered by the beginning of development, goes: FX - 2000, FOT2 - 2001, VB - 2003, FOBOS2 - 2004, V13 - 2008. Fallout Bible would go in about 2002.  The Gunny   19:21, February 28, 2015 (UTC)

Fallout 4

How is fallout 4 Canon when it contradicts pre-existing lore? —Preceding unsigned comment added by A drunken whaler (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

One could equally ask "How is pre-existing lore canon when it contradicts Fallout 4?". I think there are too many different views to declare just one version as canon. Hopefully the contradictions are not too many. --Alfwyn (talk) 14:34, January 17, 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Bible be down as semi-canon?

Bear in mind that I haven't posted here in a while. Elements of the bible were incorporated into 3 and NV, as the article states. That alone should make it semi-canon. Additionally, realistically, everything in there is canon unless otherwise overridden OR until such a time that BethSoft officially states it to be non-canon. Can anybody shed some light on why it's here? Thanks. Shaka1277 (talk) 21:38, July 31, 2016 (UTC)

The Fallout Bible was moved to non-canon because its author, Chris Avellone, declared it to be non-canon. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 21:59, July 31, 2016 (UTC)

Seems you're right: https://twitter.com/chrisavellone/status/101700464676044800 Thanks for clarifying that. Shaka1277 (talk) 14:26, August 1, 2016 (UTC)

According to this it is semi canon https://youtu.be/biqqobPm-h8 (Kelis98 (talk) 12:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC))

Fallout Shelter now has narrative with inclusion of quests

Currently it says on this page: "Fallout Shelter, while produced by Bethesda, is not canon as it has no narrative and focuses solely on gameplay and cameos. " Well with the inclusion of quests, FOS does have a narrative now right? Though the game is still non-canon, should this page should be updated to include that FOS does have narrative? Eddo36 (talk) 03:42, March 5, 2017 (UTC)

Fallout 76?

Where would Fallout 76 fit in the canon? Would it fit at all?Eeddgg (talk) 02:52, June 17, 2018 (UTC)

Todd's deliberate muddying of canon through unreliable sources

I've seen Todd Howard say in an interview that he deliberately withholds detailed truths about the worlds Bethesda creates from his writers, forcing them to fill in the blanks in ways that are as inconsistent as a human civilization's word-of-mouth tends to be. Thus, things you are told, or things you read on terminals, may be canon insofar as they those things are truly said in the game(s), but they do not necessarily reflect the absolute truth.

Whether Todd offers this up as an excuse for things like the inconsistent origins of Jet in the series, or as something he really does deliberately, it seems like it's a good thing to note in terms of judging between separate stories within one game or even across games. I feel like a lot of time people want to choose which second-hand "fact" is the intended truth, whereas the emphasis should be on mentioning all such facts with context and letting the reader take it in and do their own mental gymnastics.

That does seem to be the actual intent: no information is 100% reliable, but across all stories, you should be able to get the general gist of what really happened. Only what you witness firsthand is 100% reliable.

I can dig up whichever interview had this quote if it's considered useful. I think it might have been in one of the two documentaries released after 76 was announced. Felice Enellen (talk) 23:50, September 12, 2018 (UTC)

Fallout 76 canon or not?

This issues seem to only have been raised once here and that was before the actual release of F76 with no replies. Currently Fallout 76 is listed as a canon game. My question is: Why? Is it solely listed as canon because it was released by Bethesda and is the most recent game? Has Bethesda made any statement regarding whether it is canon or not? If it is retcon or just outright rewriting of established canon?

If there hasn't been a statement from Bethesda so far, I would argue as to classify Fallout 76 as semi-canon instead, similar to Fallout Tactics. Regardless of how the game was/is perceived many of the subjects present in Fallout 76 from the Enclave to the Brotherhood of Steel and various of their armors like the Enclave Hellfire armor which as per Fallout 3 was only created some years prior to that games timeline, so it canonically shouldn't exist in F76. Those factions and other subjects like the power armors mentioned before or the super mutants of Appalachia had no canon reason to be present in this game and openly contradict Fallout canon (even the one from Bethesda games). They were solely included because they could be, as a marketing strategy to create more interest in the game, or even just as a way to recycle assets from Fallout 4. Then comes F76's BR mode, Nuclear Winter, which from a lore based point of view doesn't even warrant any thought as to whether it is canon or not. It's simply a gamemode that is or was currently popular in the Video Game Industry.

Therefore I'll argue that Fallout 76 should be placed in the semi-canon category for the time being (if not outright non-canon).

Fallout 76 is indeed canon, and for the same reasoning that Fallout 2 is canon, because it is a canon game, and has not been dismissed as being non-canon as Tactics, BoS, and Van Buren were. Tactics is fully non-canon, so there's no real point to saying it is. As for things like the Enclave Power Armor, it's been established that the Enclave are creatively sterile, and simply steal or make very little improvements to Pre-War technology, from Vertibirds to Power Armor to Energy Weapons. While things like Super Mutants, Power Armor, and canonity would fall under general discussion, it's fully explained as to why they're there. Nuclear Winter also has its basis in lore, both via terminals and out-of-game sources. In short, it's a fully canon game, which can only have the supposed non-canon elements argued for or against as much as Fallout 2's special encounters or any pop-culture reference in a Fallout game.JCB2077 (talk) 13:43, January 16, 2020 (UTC)

about fallout shelter online

It was only published by bethesda , seems like non-canon,but it hasn't appeared on this page yet,can anyone help? (my english isnt so well, need help) Fallout中文維基行政員 - 史塔克大人 18:26, April 7, 2020 (UTC)

Word of god status

The article doesn't explain the status of word of god. Is bible WOG? Elaboration needed. Raptormoses (talk) 13:43, September 15, 2020 (UTC)

Not a policy page

This is not a policy page and should not be treated as such. This doesn't show up in the policies and guidelines, doesn't have the same prefixes that the policies have, and as far as I have been able to find was never voted on to be a part of policy.

On another note, the page as it is currently is contradicted by the official statements of multiple Bethesda representatives. Correcting this page for those statements would be considered under clarification and would not have to be voted on since we as the wiki do not decide what is and is not Canon. To assume that we should be making that decision is not only false but is also against the policies of guidelines for everything to be accurate.

Also there was only a single user edit that wasn't an admin and it was for clarification purposes which is allowed. The block should be removed. -Eckserah ^{Head Dataminer} 03:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The policy has been discussed at length and is a framework on which to base our writing. It does not contradict any statements by Bethesda, nor makes any claim that supplementary or dependent sources are canon, but simply provide additional context and are overriden by whatever's in published games. It also represents the standing practice of limiting "non-canon" to elements cancelled or explicitly ejected from the continuity, as not in the gray area of "might be/might not be".

Thank you for your feedback regarding the lapse in placement. This will be corrected shortly. Tägäżïël 08:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

You ignored the first part of what I said. We as a community never voted on this being a policy. This needs a vote to actually make it a policy as according to our own policies. We are supposed to be as clear and accurate as possible and the constant use of weasel words like dependant, supplementary, and Non-game (reminder we have games that are non-canon) to confuse the readers also falls against our policies. We've had multiple people attempt to make things clear only to be blocked by a single user who acts like they get to make the decisions for everyone on the wiki. The community is who gets to decide things and no single person ever needs to be consulted before an edit is made. Our policies and guidelines say things like "be bold" but then editors are punished for being bold or even attempting to fix things that according to our policies are wrong. I want to see proof that this was voted in as a policy before the vote to modify the page that last happened. I also demand that the lock be removed since it was placed for the sole purpose of the person who added it being able to make changes as they see fit and not for any sort of actual protection against vandalism (since there was none). I'm so damn sick of seeing the same things day in and day out when readers even come in and try to make things clear only to be pushed away because it doesn't fit with how a single person feels about the situation. I basically stopped editing because I'm so tired of all of this. -Eckserah ^{Head Dataminer} 09:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it was voted in by us as a community. I thank you for your feedback, but the vote was clearly about establishing it as a policy, and it wasn't properly added due to an oversight.

The policy was created to avoid confusion and the extract exists to be posted on pages to make the status of sources clear and accurate. I believe that this exhausts these criteria. Thank you for your feedback. Tägäżïël 10:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The vote was to replace a policy that was not actually a policy in the first place. It never says anything about establishing it as a new policy. The vote was for overhauling that specific page in the assumption that it was originally a policy. I'm looking for the vote that established it as a policy in the first place, not the vote that attempts to use misleading wording to make people think it was already one. The vote you linked says over and over that it's about overhauling the current policy on fallout canon which means the vote was misleading in the first place if the fallout canon page was not actually policy.

You talk about making things clear, however the policy itself is not actually clear. It describes things that are undeniably not Canon as supplementary and dependant which is entirely misleading. Considering that multiple people have attempted to make it actually clear but have all been stopped by a single person, I can only assume that person has some sort of agenda they are trying to push. Even if this was a policy page, clarification according to our existing policies is allowed without the need for a vote. "Any editor is free to edit policies and guidelines to improve clarity and readability. However, changes to the actual content or meaning should only be done with community consensus." from the policies and guidelines page. The current terminology is wildly ambiguous to the point that people don't want to come edit here because they can't make sense of it.

A good example is the items in the atomic shop. Even if they appear in game or in other games, the specific items in the atomic shop themselves are not Canon while the instances in the game and in other games are, yet the wording for atom shop stuff was made ambiguous to the point that people actually think the atomic shop items are canon. We are supposed to make things clear for the reader and not push our own agendas, but up until now speculation and inferences that as editors are not ours to make have been all over the place. Not to mention that when we usually attempt to remove that we get push back from the same few people. When I can't get people to even look at the wiki because of the amount of incorrect info or pure headcanon that shows up, then you know that there is an issue. -Eckserah ^{Head Dataminer} 12:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The policy is clear. It establishes that the canon is the games themselves is the only binding source. Based on your feedback, I've moved one half sentence to make it even more clear. If someone cannot understand a simple English sentence stating that "Canon sources encompass released video games and are the only binding source for the current IP holder", the problem is not on our side. Tägäżïël 12:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The policy is not clear and you know that. You're even making it more ambiguous. There is no supplementary, there is no dependent, and there is no core canon. There is only canon and non-canon. The wording you keep pushing is constantly confusing to people and is just as bad if not worse than the whole semi-canon stuff that we had before. The fact that you keep wanting to use "Non-game" for refs instead of "non-canon" when we have refs that are games but are not Canon also makes things confusing for people. Can you explain your rational on how the current wording is clearer than placing things in just a canon and non-canon category?

I'd also appreciate it if you stopped making changes on a page that you specifically locked. Not to mention that the changes you're attempting to make are in the guise of "clarification" as were the changes that were made before, but because you specifically did not like them as shown by the edit summaries you decided they needed to be reverted. As an admin on this wiki you are supposed to be for the community first and not attempting to run it like you own the place. All users on a wiki are supposed to be considered equal yet there have been multiple examples of rights holders that act like they have to be consulted for everything. One of the things our policy says is to be bold and yet no one is able to actually do that because when they try they are told they are wrong even if they actually aren't. I came here to try to help make this place better and stop spreading disinformation, but me and others who are trying are constantly fought on it. We need to stop making up terms and use what we actually know when it comes to this. -Eckserah ^{Head Dataminer} 12:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

An the page makes that clear. It also makes it clear that this is a policy for authoring articles, not a ruling on canon, because we don't do that. Similarly, we don't rule that certain categories are non-canon, no matter how much you push for it. Thank you for your feedback. Tägäżïël 12:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Then let me ask you this, if we don't rule on what is and isn't Canon how can you justify making categories that denote how much anything fits into canon? We have the ruling on what is canon and by elimination whatever is not in that list is non-canon. There is no such thing as dependant or supplementary canon, they are just terms being used to denote that something is not in Canon and those terms in themselves actually imply that what is under them have differing levels of canonicity. The page does not actually make the distinctions clear at all. The page has terms and wording that is specifically built to mislead people and it has been doing a damn good job of that which is a massive problem. It is not in our power to classify things like we currently are when it comes to canon. We have what is canon and what is not Canon and that should be the only distinctions that we make. We record, we do not decide, judge, or force categorization ourselves since we do not have that authority. We have been told specifically "the games are the Canon" and therefore anything that is not the games is not Canon. The term for something that is not Canon is non-canon. If you read the descriptions that are there for supplementary and dependent you'll notice that neither explicitly states that they are not Canon. In fact dependent goes out of its way to specifically say that it's not non-canon. There is no gray area in this there is only black and white, Canon and not Canon. -Eckserah ^{Head Dataminer} 13:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

We don't make any rulings and the rules imply nothing of the sort. This is a page that, in the lead. Establishes this is simply a framework for authoring articles. Since you have no interest in discussing the matter, instead throwing baseless accusations around, I will not be replying further. Have a good day. Tägäżïël 16:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I am entirely willing to discuss this matter, however you are contradicting yourself. In your own terms "This is a page that, in the lead, establishes that this is simply a framework for authoring articles". Our articles need to be as accurate as we can make them according to our policy. Since we are deciding the framework of classification of article information then we should also be as clear as we can with that information. We already say what is canon in this page, and yet you say that we don't rule on what is and isn't Canon. We even have a non-canon section already, which is why this is confusing for the reader as a way to classify things. I'm open to other terminology, but the current unclear seperation of canon and non canon points to (with the specific information that many conversations with you have shown) a bias that you seem to currently be unable to overcome. You have been actively refusing to hear any arguments as to why this is confusing, to the point that you will attack others for trying to show you the actual reasons why this is a problem. I don't care about the terminology, I'm just sick of readers being confused about what is and isn't Canon according to Bethesda, when we are trying to be a source of all of that information and accurately catalog as well as categorize them. I gain absolutely nothing from my proposed changes other than knowing that people who read the information on the wiki will have the most clear and concise information we can provide. People sometimes forget that no matter how much of a pain it may be for us editors, the content and information that we provide should always be tailored for the reader as per our policies. Also as a final note. If something isn't written in a policy, it doesn't matter if it's been done a certain way for a long time. That method is not a rule even if people refer to it as an "unwritten policy". Change doesn't have to be bad, you just need to be able to have an open mind about it. -Eckserah ^{Head Dataminer} 19:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

1. The wiki has a priority to be accurate. That means being comprehensive and including broader context provided by non-game sources.
2. Supplementary sources provide said context. They're clearly explained that they aren't binding and released game take precendence.
3. In fact, the page and the excerpt clearly state what's binding. The separation is very clear and explained in the very first section.
4. If a small subset of people cannot read simple English sentences without entering a state of confusion, this is not our problem.

I have not been refusing to hear any arguments, and I have engaged them for a long while. However, at this point you have demonstrated a clear refusal to entertain even the slightest notion of not doing things as you demand they be done, for - as you said above - your own peace of mind. Tägäżïël 19:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

---

This page was never voted on to be a policy and the previous vote to amend it did not retroactively make it an official policy, despite sneaky wording. Please demote the page and start up a new vote so we can officiate the right way. Unilaterally forcing this could be seen as an abuse of power.
Scribe-Howard (waster93) (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Page shouldn't be locked

Since this is being treated as a policy, the Fallout wiki's policy states that "Any editor is free to edit policies and guidelines to improve clarity and readability." However, this page was locked, with the reason provided that non-admins were editing the page. However, the non-admin editing the page was me, and the additions I made were relevant background information in the references section only. Nothing substantial was changed.

Given that even admins and bureaucrats must abide by the wiki's policies, and the wiki's policy states that this page should be open to all editors, I request that the lock be removed. If an individual non-admin did something grossly incorrect to justify a permanent lockdown of this page, please take appropriate educational and/or disciplinary actions against the individual, who seems to be me.

Looking forward to the paddling and unlocking of the page,

intrepid3594/18/24 [11:31am]

I completely agree with this assessment and have unlocked the page. AllYourFavorites (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

It has been locked again so it might need unlocked (Kelis98 (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC))

Split Fallout Bible

If Fallout Bible is not meant to be a guide to canon, declared non-canon by its writer and Bethesda representatives, we should treat the lore additions made by it as non-canon.

(1) Define a line between Behind the Scenes information surrounding Fallout 1/2 and the lore additions described.
(2) Move the Fallout Bible Lore to the non-canon section

EZ PZ
Scribe-Howard (waster93) (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I quite agree. The most egregious use of Bible information I've seen has been "The Divergence" (The definite-article, Capital-D Divergence).

We have no credible source or indeed any source at all on it's existence outside of The Bible's word.

Sure, its perhaps worth stating that the Fallout Universe differs from our own, and even maybe saying how it does, but a "Singular Point or Period of Divergence" gets disproven by game sources time and time and time again, in both little and big ways.

It's time to do away with this kind of archaic falsehood.

LovinglyGaslight (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you, Scribe. I had previously added headings of "canon" and "non-canon" encompassing the six currently canon games and content outside of those games, as we had previously voted on and established, respectively. I am confused and frankly surprised to see this clarification has since been removed. I did not realize this was done, nor that the Fallout Bible's canonicity was still up for debate. I am in full support of clearly marking all information from within the current six games (Fallout, Fallout 2, Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas, Fallout 4, and Fallout 76) as canon, and information outside of those sources as non-canon.

However, that being said, I would be remiss not to take this opportunity to reiterate my feelings on the topic, in that the systemic viewpoint of seeing or considering "canon" and "non-canon" synonymous with "good" and "bad" needs to end, and in making this effort, would serve to help the issue exponentially. In short, just because a piece of information is non-canon does not mean it is not valuable or lacks importance. Quite the opposite, as a wealth of exceptionally valuable information exists within these sources. We simply need to make sure our articles reflect this and our readers can tell the source of all content at a glance. -kdarrow ^{take her for a spin!} 22:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I think Kate pointed out the main issue at hand, that "non-canon" doesn't mean, that we can wipe our buttocks with Avellone's writings. At the end of the day, it is just a categorization like any other. Also, I don't really get this whole discussion, since Emil was pretty clear in his statement: Games = canon, Bible = can be canon, but isn't automatically, "judgement call" etc. And it isn't up to us to decide, which part of the bible may or may not be canon, we, by default, should assume it to be non-canon. If the devs declare events to be canonical, we can still change that when it happens.

I honestly don't really care all that much about these ongoing petty squabbles, I just want them to stop. Because it is tiring as can be, to see people arguing about it day in and day out on the Discord. Not like there is a metric sh*t ton of articles that need work. --Findabair^{The benefit of the doubt is often doubtful.} 07:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Removed/cut content

There needs to be clarification on what constitutes as canonical for in-game content that is still present, but was either removed or cut, only able to be viewed in the files. The Hoover Sabotage is mentioned in a cut terminal entry, but the page only states that its based on "Fallout 3 cut content." The Tanagra Town terminal entries, however, were marked as "Fallout 76 removed content and may or may not be canonical." 107.189.31.181 03:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up. The current text there will in no way be the final version. Removed content (that isn't removed by story progression, like the BOS imagery at Spruce Knob) is likely non-canonical. Content that was cut from the game is likely non-canonical as well (such as the prototype BOS quest in the Mire that was directly modified into Project Paradise). This will be clearly written down at some point in the future. It's hard to jump in right now, because we really have no way of knowing for sure unless something gets cannibalized or Bethesda gives us an indication one way or another. As a rule of thumb, operate as if its non-canonical and mark items referencing it under the "Non-canon" section. If someone reverts you for some reason, link them back to this post. Scribe-Howard (waster_93) (talk) 04:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Livestream

A few Bethesda employees said tactics is semi-canon in a live stream, I'm trying to find the stream, when I do I'll list it as a reference. (Kelis98 (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC))

https://youtu.be/biqqobPm-h8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelis98 (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

Review

I have to ask this. Are we going to put everything, including dev coments, game manuals, or anything else that it's not playable in one of the main games out of the canon? Like, why Minerva liking books has to be on the BTS instead of the main article? Because a dev said it and not the game? I honestly think the canon policy needs a big review as to what is considered canon or not, because currently there are many things that are being tagged as non-canon and I think it's just wrong that some sources like dev coments, Inside the Vault, or the proper videogame manuals are being considered not valid. --Ryon21 (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Not like it has been brought up already multiple times on this talk page, but tagging a source as non-canon does not invalidate it, that process of invalidation only happens in people's heads. It has been an issue in the past, when folks thought that non-canon = worthless, which made them fight tooth and nail to defend their position, which contributed a lot to a toxic environment on the Discord server.

As for Minerva, we can easily have both. The statement from Carl in the Bts, since it gives more background info about her character not stated in the game. And her dialogue, which sadly we still do not have, but in which she states that she originally came from DC, ended up as an apprentice for a bookseller, etc. (Going to add that info to her article in a bit.)

If it were for me, we could just drop the whole canon thing, instead only differentiate between in-game sources and real-world sources, without having people to worry about "this lore being more relevant than that lore." But then again, we would probably still have the local dingus standing on a rooftop all day, proclaiming that "the Bible is canon."
–Findabair^{The benefit of the doubt is often doubtful.} 06:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd support the idea of just having only in-game and non-game. But at the same time I'd guess we need to distinguish when some info comes from Fallout 2, and it's part of the main continuity, and from BoS, which is not. And when I talk about invalidate information I mean in the main continuity. Who's to say the Fallout 2 manual is not part of it? Because if it is, then how the references are now listed makes one think otherwise.

Problematic people will always be lurking no matter what it's decided. It doesn't help the wiki to make every decision with those people in mind, fearing what they might do. Policies should be enough to handle them. --Ryon21 (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

remove canon!

hello, this might be an unpopular opinion but i think it's one that would benefit the wiki as a whole. right now it seems like everything that isn't in the games is tagged as non-canon, when in fact, there seems to be no basis for that. i'm aware that there have been dev statements in the past that said the "primal source of lore is what you see in the games," but if you actually read the statement that's sourced in this article, it doesn't use the word "non-canon." i can't find any sources that call things like promotional items or manuals "non-canon" so we should stop calling it non-canon if that word has never been used in association with those things, otherwise we are making assumptions! in fact, the author of the fallout 3 game guide said that it is canon, but we tag it as non-canon anyway, which is a huge reversal of an official statement on our part. he says that game trumps guide in cases of contradictions, but he doesn't ever use the word "non-canon" to describe the game guide, so we shouldn't use "non-" either. the really big thing too is that the only statement we have for tactics and brotherhood of steel being "non-canon" is something todd said where he doesn't even mention canon! if we can't say what Shakespeare's first name is without explicit mention of "William", then why can we say what's "non-canon" when that word isn't used with most of these statements? KnuckleheadAtSea (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

i would really appreciate input on this since it has been almost a month! thank you! KnuckleheadAtSea (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The distinguishing labels are how we as a wiki currently categorize information, determined by previous community policy votes. We attempt to mirror IP holder and take into account various developer statements but ultimately Fandom/this wiki is a separate entity and not affiliated or associated in any way to any company or individual employee therein. We have a process for changing policy which you are more than welcome to engage in, the process is outlined here. Not assuming real world parallels is a separate issue than canon policy, but any guidelines benefit from revisiting and opening back up to community input. I appreciate you reaching out, let me know if you need any help. -kdarrow ^{take her for a spin!} 07:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Pretty much what kdarrow stated, at the end of the day it is just another form of categorization wiki-side. By default, everything that makes it into the main series of games can be considered canon. As for what is or is not considered canon by the developers, Emil and Ferret pointed out multiple times that it is a "judgement call" for each individual item/content.

And as much as I respect David S.J. Hodgson's work on the Prima guides, he himself was (likely on purpose) relatively vague in his statement about the canonicity of the Wasteland census part of the game guide. Terms like "if memory serves" and "supposedly" give that away, as does his statement that one would have to "confirm with @DCDeacon" - which is none other than Pete Hines. In no way was that a clear statement about the Wasteland census, let alone the whole game guide, being considered canon, and claiming otherwise is misleading.

As for Todd Howard's statement: Unless someone comes up with a full transcript of that behind-the-doors, press-exclusive Fallout 3 demo from 2007, all we know is what is written in the Gamespy article and similar sources. We can certainly argue what Todd exactly meant with it, but we will not get any wiser doing so.
–Findabair^{The benefit of the doubt is often doubtful.} 09:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

thank you both for the input! to start off, i guess i would say that i definitely agree that we aren't acting in any official capacity, but that just makes me more emphatic that we shouldn't use "canon" or "non-canon" where there's no backing for it. if there is some sort of alternative way to categorize content, i think we should look into that. while it may not be the intention of the wiki to arbitrate canon, it certainly gives off that impression when we say something is "non-canon" even though it hasn't been directly stated to be. speculation and assumptions don't have any place on the wiki, so we need to follow what the sources say, and if they don't mention canon, we shouldn't either. if it's a categorization issue, then we should use alternative wording, in my opinion. after all, we have notices for "this article is from promotional content", as one example. my proposal would be to remove the declaration that it is non-canon. we should be neutral and just say what the origin of the content is, to my view. i do agree that arguing over the semantics of sources is pointless, but again, that's why we should remain neutral and stick to the unassuming facts, rather than using "canon" or "non-canon" when it's not there. i am a little unclear on how to start a policy proposal to change this, and i would be apprehensive to do so without any backing or other help, so assistance would be appreciated. thank you again! KnuckleheadAtSea (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

my edits to this page were reverted because policy pages apparently need community consensus or vote to be changed, however, i do not see any source for changing the title of the page to "canon categorization policy", when it was previously titled "fallout wiki:fallout canon". was there community consensus or a vote to change the name of this policy page? please advise, because i am very confused. :c thank you! KnuckleheadAtSea (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you can find more info about the proper procedure to propose changes to an existing policy in our voting regulations. If you have questions or need help setting up a forum, feel free to reach out at any time, I would be glad to assist.

As for this page, it has been treated as a policy page for as long as I have been here, which is also evidenced by Tagaziel's forum in 2020. In regards to your question, I do not think that changing the header on this page requires a community consensus or a vote, as long as its new title is not misleading. –Findabair^{The benefit of the doubt is often doubtful.} 08:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Source Saying Tactics is semi canon (and page locked)

https://youtu.be/biqqobPm-h8

So please update this page

Also why is this page locked? (Kelis98 (talk) 12:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC))

I am not quite sure if placing that YouTube link multiple times is all that helpful, especially when you reply to a post from 14 years ago.

Secondly, Emil states that some things from Tactics are considered canon, without going into any details.
This does not equate to the whole game being semi-canon, nor does he use that term.

Thirdly, the concept of "semi-canon" is complete nonsense anyhow, as there are no levels of canonicity - at least in my personal opinion.
Try to apply that principle to pregnancies, there is no such thing as being "a bit pregnant" or "partially pregnant", either someone is pregnant or not.
The same is true for something being canon; either it is, because there is irrefutable evidence for it, or it is not.
Everything in between is mostly people's different ideas about canon, and a lot of guesswork.

Lastly, this page was protected recently, after a user decided to add a paragraph without community consent.
Wide-reaching adjustments to policies or guidelines, such as defining and implementing semi-canon for categorization, would require creating a new public discussion on the forums, followed by a community vote, once the discussion is concluded.

I hope this helps to answer your questions. If not, feel free to reach out.
Have a great day.
–Findabair^{The benefit of the doubt is often doubtful.} 15:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

hi, i'm the "user" who "decided to add a paragraph without community consent". this discussion only further emphasizes my point of why we need to get rid of this canon categorization. you say that semi-canon cannot be used for fallout tactics because emil never uses the term, when this was exactly my point about how things like merchandise have never been said to be "non-canon", so we can't call it non-canon without an explicit source saying so. if tactics cannot be called semi-canon because no source says so, then merchandise cannot be called non-canon because no source says so. also, this talk about adding content without community consensus still confuses me because there are several changes to this page that were made without a vote or discussion, including changing the nomenclature of the page to "categorization" when i cannot find anything on the original vote that would state the policy would be referred to as "canon categorization". why is it that my change necessitates an immediate reversion and locking of the page, but someone can change the name of the policy and what it's referred to multiple times on the page without this "community consensus"? i am mostly just confused about all of this, because i feel things are very unclear and i want to make sure i do everything right next time. so help understanding this discrepancy would be much appreciated. thank you c: KnuckleheadAtSea (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Allow me to reply:

“you say that semi-canon cannot be used for fallout tactics because emil never uses the term...”

That is not even closely what I said. I said that Emil confirming some things from Tactics being canon does not make the whole game semi-canon, and that he did not use that term. My intention was to point out that the title of this section is somewhat misleading, as is evidenced by my aforementioned statement.

“...if tactics cannot be called semi-canon because no source says so, then merchandise cannot be called non-canon because no source says so.”

Tactics currently cannot be called semi-canon, because that term is not defined anywhere in our policy. As for merchandise, there are no clear statements about its canonicity. For the purpose of the wiki, we can assume that all merchandise is either canon or non-canon by default. Which begs the question, what makes more sense?

“...there are several changes to this page that were made without a vote or discussion, including changing the nomenclature of the page to "categorization" when i cannot find anything on the original vote that would state the policy would be referred to as "canon categorization".”

What else would it be, other than a form of categorization? We are in no way, shape, or form connected to Bethesda, we have no official say in what is canon. All that we can do is to review the few existing developer statements on canon, and try to mirror them in our policy and our articles. As for the changes, you would have to ask the editor who made them.

“why is it that my change necessitates an immediate reversion and locking of the page, but someone can change the name of the policy and what it's referred to multiple times on the page without this "community consensus"?”

Probably because you did not follow proper procedures? Also, there is a slight difference between adding a whole new paragraph to a policy, and renaming and reformatting said policy.

“i am mostly just confused about all of this, because i feel things are very unclear and i want to make sure i do everything right next time.”

What exactly is unclear to you, I wonder? In my last reply to you I linked to the voting regulations, which have all the required information, and also outline the required steps for adding to an existing policy. I also offered to assist with setting up a forum discussion.

In any case, I hope this helps.
Have a great day.
–Findabair^{The benefit of the doubt is often doubtful.} 15:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

you say "we can assume" but assumptions are speculation, which is prohibited on the wiki. could you also please direct me to community consensus or vote for this change that removed sections for supplementary canon that were approved by the vote at the top of the page? https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/Fallout_Wiki:Fallout_canon?oldid=3590138 KnuckleheadAtSea (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Tactics Canonicity

In a recent Tweet by Emil Pagliarulo, he listed Tactics among the canon games. (Kelis98 (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC))