FANDOM

(Difference between revisions) | User:Flower of Pock-Lips
(Necropolis)
(Necropolis)
Line 337: Line 337:
   
 
:Excuse the discrepancy, the edit was made to Necropolis ;) -- [[User:Ghouly89|Ghouly89]] <sup> ([[User_talk:Ghouly89|Talk]]) </sup> 02:23, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
 
:Excuse the discrepancy, the edit was made to Necropolis ;) -- [[User:Ghouly89|Ghouly89]] <sup> ([[User_talk:Ghouly89|Talk]]) </sup> 02:23, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
  +
  +
::My goal in creating this image was to use the JPEG uber-compression distortion to, persay, smear the pixelation around. Though I love the artistic style of Fallout's 8-bit graphics, I feel everyone else on the wiki who is used to 1080i high-res renders doesn't carry the same appreciation. ;)
  +
  +
::Now, my main problem with your image is the fact that taking screen captures directly from the game results in the 640x 480 dimensions. This, in my opinion, does not look good considering the actual movie file frames are 432x320 pixels. Thus, the game stretches the frame in a 3:2 ratio, which results in odd pixelation. This is something I can alter to my own ends, as I have all the source frames (which, all-in-all, amounts to somewhere around 30,000 images) from each and every cinematic movie. For my uploaded image, the ratio in size from the original frame is 2:1, which results in better quality.
  +
  +
::Now, if you want me to upload the original frame with dimensions of 432x320 in a loss-less format like PNG, I would be willing to do this as well. :) -- [[User:Ghouly89|Ghouly89]] <sup> ([[User_talk:Ghouly89|Talk]]) </sup> 02:40, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:40, March 2, 2011

Welcome to The Vault!
Welcome to the Vault

Hello, Flower of Pock-Lips, and welcome to The Vault, the Fallout wiki! Thank you for your contributions, and we hope you'll stay with us and make many more.

Some links you may find useful:

  • Recent changes lets you see what other people are editing currently and where you can help. You can also check our community portal for things to do.
  • If you haven't already, create a user page about yourself. If you do, we'll be able to know you better as a member of our community.
  • If you are new to wikis, the help pages can help you learn how to edit and how use the wiki tools. For test edits, feel free to create a personal sandbox.
  • The Vault's policies and guidelines describe how we do things around here and can help you make even better contributions.

If you have questions, you can ask in our forums, join the live chat in our IRC channel or post a message on my talk page. We hope you enjoy editing here and look forward to working with you!

-- -bleep196- (Talk) 17:05, November 28, 2010

Speculation

We don't include speculation in articles, even reasonably well thought out speculation. Please do not re-add any of the material to the courier page. Thank you.--Gothemasticator 20:30, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

I have re-added the note, without the DLC or cut content speculation, as I feel that whatever it means, it's pretty vital to the Courier's character - especially considering how little we know of him/her, and removing it would be a mistake. As it is now, it is pure statement of fact, so I don't think removing it again could be justified. Additionally, I do think it's worth pointing out somewhere that so far, graffiti has been used to hint at future DLC, seeing as intentionally omitting a piece of information like that could be considered contrary to the wiki's goal as a comprehensive source of information about Fallout. --Flower of Pock-Lips 20:39, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
...except for the bit about Highway 50, which I've removed. Also, what you posted in the other article about file and folder names containing phrases such as "dlc" and "honest hearts" - that's actual information and not speculation at all. Stick to entries like that and you'll do fine.--Gothemasticator 20:44, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
You really need to stick to stating facts. Don't add anything that needs to be phrased as is thought to be or seems to indicate or might mean that... Either something is or it isn't. Otherwise, it doesn't belong in the article.--Gothemasticator 18:31, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
I'm assuming you're referring to this edit, in which case I would point out that my version was no more speculative than the previous version, just rewritten and with a lot of fluff removed. I just take exception to reverting the entire edit, when really all that needs to be done is removal of the offending sentence. --Flower of Pock-Lips 18:37, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

Your username

Just curious, but is your username based on the screenshots I posted in Forum:Stupid courier: exploring the low-intelligence player character? --Kris User Hola 12:01, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is :P I had been meaning to create an account for a while, and after seeing that I knew I had a username. Your pictures have inspired me to try a playthrough with a low intelligence character! --Flower of Pock-Lips 12:31, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

You're doing a lot of great work! Thanks! Especially for working on getting navboxes placed. That's a big help.--Gothemasticator 14:04, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much! It's nice to know that it's appreciated :) --Flower of Pock-Lips 14:16, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Benny

Why remove the playing card image?--Gothemasticator 15:24, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think it was necessary because the quote from the card was at the top of the page, and the page for the card was linked from the infobox. Also its removal would make it consistent with all the pages of characters who feature on playing cards. It can be re-added if it's a problem? --Flower of Pock-Lips 16:18, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

I think a picture of the card in a gallery is entirely appropriate for all the card-npc pages. Mainly because it is not obvious that the link in the infobox will yield a picture of the card.--Gothemasticator 16:44, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Images of the cards should be in the gallery section. Ausir(talk) 14:14, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

A final plan for Esteban

Why did you move Retrieve the Corpse of Ranger Morales to A Final Plan for Esteban? --Kris User Hola 14:23, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

That's the name given for the quest in the game guide. --Flower of Pock-Lips 14:25, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
OK. Please, add that to the edit description when you move pages, that way we know when we're looking back in the history that it's not move vandalism. I figured there was some source for that name, which is why I asked. --Kris User Hola 14:27, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
Oh and keep up the good work getting those official names for unmarked quests. I had to guess on Barton the Fink based on the GECK (which told me Geckoman was the name of the quest). --Kris User Hola 14:31, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I think most of the official names are now listed on the quests template, now it's just a matter of finding those quests that are already documented and moving them to their official names, and then adding the rest. A lot of the time the quests are encounters ("We Must Stop Meeting Like This" seems to be encounters with Victor, for example), and stuff might be documented on the location or character pages but not on any dedicated pages. --Flower of Pock-Lips 14:45, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

ED-E

ED-E was not part of Van Buren, because the Enclave Eyebots didn't even exist back then. Any eyebots in VB were the Floating Eyes, which were not affiliated with the Enclave. Ausir(talk) 14:45, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought, until I saw this: "You successfully repair the damaged eyebot.". As far as I'm aware, floating eyes were never even colloquially referred to as eyebots? Chances are that Fallout 3's eyebots are a recycled concept from VB. --Flower of Pock-Lips 17:58, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
Also I am the one who originally listed all of the All Roads items and characters, I didn't change ED-E to the eyebot article until recently. Mr. House is quite the robotics expert, etc also so the fact there is a similar but not identical (due to removal of personalizations such as bumper stickers, etc and artistic license taken with the cover) eyebot on the cover doesn't mean it's ED-E. Mictlantecuhtli 18:28, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
I did respond ^, twice now. Yes I will keep reverting it as the eyebot cannot be identified as ED-E. Mictlantecuhtli 18:48, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
Ah I see your reply now. We know it is ED-E because ED-E is the only Duraframe Eyebot in existence (as far as we know). Even if it were not, it would be the only Duraframe Eyebot outside of Adams AFB. The artistic license used throughout All Roads actually works in favour of the assertion that ED-E is shown on the cover, as it provides a more-than-reasonable explanation (along with the fact that ED-E is seen at a distance) as for why the bumper stickers etc. Also there is zero evidence for House building an eyebot that just so happens to be of identical design to one produced on the other side of the country, and if you're basing your case on that then I see no reason why the note cannot be re-added. The robot is clearly meant to be ED-E - we do not say that the engraved cigarette lighter does not appear in All Roads because it has not been confirmed to by the developers, because it is unique and obviously the same item as the one that appears in-game. I am genuinely at a loss to understanding your point of view here. --Flower of Pock-Lips 19:46, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
"ED-E is the only Duraframe Eyebot in existence" - Untrue, the BoS build an army of them in one ending according to various articles. There is no established timeline for the cover of the book, only it's contents. Furthermore REPCONN designed the original eyebots, Mr. House could probably build one if he wanted to and the eyebot page has all the All Roads info. Without the bumper stickers you simply cannot say for sure it's ED-E and not a recreation, etc. ED-E has never visited New Vegas without the Courier, so it seems itself a stretch it'd be seen on the cover alone in the city. Mictlantecuhtli 19:51, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
So you are suggesting that the cover of All Roads is set after New Vegas, depicting an ending where ED-E was taken for an upgrade? I shouldn't have to point out how patently ridiculous that is, why would the artist make that decision, considering that the entire graphic novel takes place before New Vegas? Especially considering Chris Avellone specifically mentioned that he did not want to show the Courier because he wanted everything about the player character to be down to the player - why would the cover depict the outcome of one possible choice of many? And maybe REPCONN did design the original eyebots, but we know for a fact that the Duraframe ones are of Enclave design. And I'm sure House could build his own if he desired, except it would be eerily coincidental were it an exact copy of an Enclave design conceived 3000 miles away, not to mention the fact that as far as we know, House never built any eyebots - ED-E remains the only functioning Duraframe (and indeed, regular) eyebot in the entire Mojave. Maybe Benny's actually the Alien Captain and the entire game is a hallucination above Mothership Zeta, but I'm not going to add it to his article because it's got no evidence whatsoever to back it. And how do you know ED-E has never visited New Vegas? ED-E is seen flying towards the New Vegas skyline in the E3 trailer, and the best route to Navarro from Adams AFB via Primm goes straight through Vegas. --Flower of Pock-Lips 20:16, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
ED-E is not the only eyebot in the wasteland, I don't know why you feel the need to champion this so much. The eyebot simply cannot be identified as ED-E, according to the cover the NCR combat armor looks goofy. Like something out of a Ralph Bakshi 1970's film (see Wizards), the prostitutes are chunky (not outright fat but a 1920's sex idol appeal), most of the dogs are puppies (not fully grown) and all the same breed, etc. There is little variation in the people and objects, the only thing which makes the eybot noteworthy is, like the reinforced metal armor, it only appears once (even the NCR combat armor appears multiple times). Just chill out, this is not important and you cannot say for sure what the artist intended (eyebot or ED-E), so in other words it belongs where it is. The eyebot page. Mictlantecuhtli 20:28, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
Really? Can you name another functioning eyebot in the Mojave? And I fail to see what NCR combat armour and prostitutes have to do with ED-E. If you're arguing that the lack of fidelity in the art makes us unable to identify ED-E, then that actually works against you since it explains the lack of bumper stickers on the robot on the cover. I'm going to add the note back onto the article, revert if you want but if you're going to do so, be prepared to put forward a convincing argument. --Flower of Pock-Lips 20:37, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
They reflect the art style, the eyebot easily could've had bumper stickers but it doesn't. Without those personalizations you cannot say for sure it's ED-E. It's on the eyebot page, and that's fine for everyone except you. Mictlantecuhtli 20:43, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
Of course it's ED-E. There is literally not a single other NPC that it could possibly be! There are no other eyebots in the Mojave, there are probably no other Duraframe eyebots in existence. How could it not be ED-E? --Flower of Pock-Lips 20:49, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
You shouldn't presume to know what the artist intended, it's already mentioned that without the bumper stickers ED-E has a very generic appearance. The artist could've seen artwork of ED-E and thought all eyebots looked like that, you simply don't know. You're basing your observation off a stylized rendition of an eyebot (duraframe or not). If I were an artist that wanted ED-E to be easily recognizeable I would've used the incarnation from the game trailers (bumper stickers and all). DeadlyKris has been asked to review this discussion, an admin should be involved since a compromise cannot be reached (it doesn't belong on both pages). Mictlantecuhtli 21:03, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
It's incredible that you have managed to tell me not to presume to know the intentions of the artist and in the same breath construct an elaborate scenario in which it the artist did not know what an eyebot looked like. This is not the first time you have constructed such a scenario - above you twisted the lore of the Fallout world to create a world where House had his own eyebots, and again when you said that the cover could depict Vegas after the end of the game, again completely without evidence. You have said that ED-E could be made instantly recognisable when merely sentences earlier you defeated your own argument by saying ED-E has a very generic appearance. It's clear you're just clutching at straws here. The fact of the matter is, the eyebot portrayed on the cover is most definitely a Duraframe eyebot, not only do we not know of any other Duraframe eyebot in existence, we do not know of any regular eyebot in the entire Mojave. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that the robot portrayed on the cover is ED-E. --Flower of Pock-Lips 21:19, December 6, 2010 (UTC)


  • Just chiming in here, but the appearances section is for games, not the books that are part of or related to the games. --Kingclyde 03:32, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

The ED-E disagreement is now over

Enough, you two. Below are the only two relevant statements y'all have made. The rest is all smoke blowing.

  • ...there is a similar but not identical (due to removal of personalizations such as bumper stickers, etc and artistic license taken with the cover) eyebot on the cover doesn't mean it's ED-E. Mictlantecuhtli 18:28, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • ED-E is the only Duraframe Eyebot in existence (as far as we know).--Flower of Pock-Lips 19:46, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

What the two statements above amount to is this: While it is likely that the floating robot on the cover of the comic is ED-E, there is no way to prove it. Since the comic robot lacks ED-E's identifying marks, it's identity remains a mystery. Take it out of the Appearances section. Don't add a note about the unproven likelihood to any article page. And, both of you, please find a way to settle your differences amicably. Technically you both have been engaging in edit-warring and should by all rights be temporarily blocked. But you're both better editors than that. Next time you have a long drawn-out disagreement, keep it on your talk pages and refrain from back-and-forth edits on the article pages. Think of the end user, please.--Gothemasticator 05:40, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

DLC speculation

Please stop adding speculative content about DLCs to articles.--Gothemasticator 01:04, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Cut content

Nice work on that. Thanks!--Gothemasticator 17:03, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

No problem! To be honest this website did most of the hard work, I just put the information in a Vault-friendly format. --Flower of Pock-Lips 14:35, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

Reverting?

Why are you reverting my edit for "Honest Hearts" the page is a stub. Gheart 21:20, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I had meant to revert the removal of the sections listing Joshua Graham as a character and New Canaan as a location. The two are mentioned on graffiti with the filename "nvgraffitihonesthearts" in a folder "nvdlcgraffiti". --Flower of Pock-Lips 21:22, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

Alright

Thank you for explaining, I just had never heard of them Gheart 23:57, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

DLC pages

I protected these pages because of vandalism that would occur. I understand that you want to post your stuff on the page, but as of now, we don't have conclusive evidence about what is going to occur in the DLC. Sure Dead Money suggests things, but we don't know how it's going to play it just yet. Once we have more information, say like a teaser trailer or articles about it, I'll (or another admin will) drop the protection on the pages. TrailerParkApe MkII 22:34, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

Huh?

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/File:Sierra_Madre_celebrities.jpg

Is it a photograph, a screencap from the console or a rip? Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 21:33, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

Screencap from a YouTube video. The HD videos can be quite useful for getting images for console-only content, and the video walkthroughs are useful for finding information that slipped your mind when writing articles. --Flower of Pock-Lips 23:13, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

Poseidon

While most of your extensive changes to the page are just fine, I question the removal of the "Sources" section. That's valuable info which is now missing from the page.--65.26.180.182 14:58, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

Whoops. Forgot to log in. The above is me.--Gothemasticator 14:59, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
I removed the section because the first link was dead, the third source had no link provided and so wasn't useful if somebody wanted to read further or fact-check, and the second link only contained a small amount of energy about Agricola and Prometheus coal, and it hardly felt like it was worth keeping the entire section for that one link which itself only provided a small amount of information. --Flower of Pock-Lips 15:08, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

Future DLC

Please stop adding sentences that begin with "It is assumed...," or "It is thought/believed that...," etc. State info only (e.g. The DLC shelf has space for five snowglobes.), and let the reader draw their own conclusions. Thanks.--Gothemasticator 15:05, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

Gannon image

The current image is fine. It accurately represents the character and how he looks. Don't replace it with one that obscures him. Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 21:53, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

House Security

Done and done. Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 13:57, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Courier

Thanks for the help on those final unmarked quests! --Jspoelstra 14:13, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Ulysses

The only reason why I took it off was because of its speculation. Until we know for sure that he is going to take place there, then it'll be there. At this moment we know nothing of what is going to take place in what specific DLC. Things to Come! is something for the player to use their imagination with and try and figure out what's going to happen in future DLC; it doesn't say something like "Ulysses will be featured in this DLC and this one too, and there is going to be a big battle that will result in the death of one courier and 27 super mutants." There is nothing that is solid and concrete. I mean if it said something like what I put in quotations, then it would be absolutely okay to put up there because then we would know exactly what's going to happen. TrailerParkApe MkII 01:14, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I have to interject here.
  • His role as a courier is not confirm, only implied. Where as his role as a companion is confirmed by one of the game creators.
  • Again no solid evidence that he knew him, again only implied by the use of the word courier and references that fit the description of Ulysses.
  • Again no solid evidence that the person mentioned (as not mentioned by name) by Christine, is the same person.
Most if not all information about Ulysses is implied by various mechanics and cleverly worded scripts to give the player the impression that it is solid evidence. Granted it is almost 99% cert that it is him, but there is that 1% chance where the devs may just turn around and say, we have messed with them enough, lets put a twist in the story and make the courier mentioned end up being Caesar (he does wear the attire of Caesar's Legion after all). ☣Avatar☣ 01:45, January 18, 2011 (UTC)
Oh I agree it was worded better in the context of the actual flow of the page and how it read. The issue is in the wording does come across more as presenting the information as facts. The current version, although lacks the flow, does a better job of linking the separate facts from various sources as a speculative connection to Ulysses. This does allow the reader to then form there own view, also prevents "I told you so" if the devs do decide to throw in a plot twist. ☣Avatar☣ 20:37, January 18, 2011 (UTC)
Very nice write up indeed, and no, defiantly nothing wrong with the amount of references used. ☣Avatar☣ 20:03, January 19, 2011 (UTC)

Benny

The in-game picture should be the main one in the infobox, not the one from the comic. Ausir(talk) 14:08, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

Yes Man

Again, why did you remove the in-game image of Yes Man as a Securitron, leaving on the face? I'm sorry but such changes are not good. Now I'll have to look through a lot of your edits to see if any more are as questionable as these. Ausir(talk) 14:21, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

Same with Victor. Ausir(talk) 14:29, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

As for Benny, while he is prominent in both, the wiki's (and the Fallout franchise's in general) primary focus are the Fallout games, while comics, while within our scope, are of secondary interest, so if an in-game image exists, it should be the preferred one for the infobox. And even if the comic was of primary interest, you shouldn't have entirely removed the in-game picture from the page. As for Yes Man and Victor, while they might look just like any other Securitron, I don't think a reader should have to visit the Securitron page in order to see how they (and not just their faces) look like. An image of Yes Man in the mainframe should be added, but somewhere further down the page, as it can be considered a spoiler. Ausir(talk) 15:29, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

"Minor" Edits

Please stop checking the "minor" box when making edits. Your edits are not minor.--Gothemasticator 14:30, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it's a habit from editing other wikis. --Flower of Pock-Lips 15:01, January 20, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks.--Gothemasticator 16:09, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

Hoover Dam

I reverted your edits to the article. You removed the disambiguation link. You removed the gallery. Neither should have been removed. In addition, the prose you added is full of fluff and color which do not belong. "Exuberantly," "It is said," - all such language does not belong.--Gothemasticator 15:27, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Similarly, I have reverted your most recent edits to the New Vegas article. Prose in articles should be encyclopedic, not literary. Facts, bland as they may be, are what belong in articles. Keep the color, commentary, and opinion out.--Gothemasticator 15:30, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
The work you put in is not lost. It is easily recoverable in the article history. I didn't and don't have the time today to go through and make the necessary changes. If you want to change the articles, it is up to you to make the changes appropriately. If you are taking prose verbatim from a document, that needs to be noted in the text. Otherwise, the text remains open to constant revision.--Gothemasticator 19:22, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Vegas and Hoover

I have reverted your edits again. At issue is the prosy and unencyclopedic language you employ. For example, "It is said that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions," "Luckily for Dodge...," "But not this time," "Fortunately, it hasn't come to that." It is not acceptable to introduce such changes and then add a cleanup tag, hoping others will do the editing work for you.

In addition, you continue to mark edits as "minor," when they are anything but.

Please keep your language simple, factual, and unadorned - as befits an encyclopedia article.--Gothemasticator 16:51, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Above I do in fact mention that when taking language from source material, that language needs to be taken word-for-word and noted as such in the article. See, for example, the Fallout Bible pages, in which large sections of text are quoted. If you are merely taking information from source material, it still needs to be worded simply and factually in your paraphrase. Again, outside of direct quotes, language such as I have excerpted above is not acceptible in articles.--Gothemasticator 02:23, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
Just butting my head in again, but all that information in regards to Van Buren should really be contained in this page Hoover Dam (Van Buren). Then maybe a quick paragraph outlining the basics of the VB background, contained within the {{VB}} tags and then linking out to the main article using {{main}} in the FNV page. ☣Avatar☣ 03:02, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, in those cases the VB information is not consisting of a large portion of the pages information (Joshua Graham is probably verging on the edge). In those cases it is perfectly find to include it in the page. But in the case of Hoover Dam, the VB info was amounting to the majority of the pages content and ended up littering the whole page with tags. In such cases where there is that much information, then it really is worthy of its own page. But that does not mean that there should be no information in regards to VB, as suggested a single paragraph and linking out to it, so a reader can choice whether to read more if they so wish is probably the best option. ☣Avatar☣ 20:21, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Unmarked quests

Ok, you're right. I've been busy too much with unmarked quests lately I think. Jspoelstra 14:04, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Ciphers

Hmmmm, I am very dubious of that actual page and actually being a challenge, since it triggers anyway (according to the page) in the ending slides. Dosnt sound like much of a challenge, do you have dead money to be able to confirm if it is true challenge/achievement or just some users own unmarked challenge. On a side not, the page is not really upcoming content, as the majority apart from half a line is all based on known content. ☣Avatar☣ 19:37, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

The issue as I see it, is that the majority of the pages content is VB. Now to a uninformed reader with that tag added, it could be misconstrued that VB is actually upcoming content. That tag should only really be used on pages where the majority of the content is relating to upcoming, but that's just my view on it. If you fell it is right, then by all means add it, personally I would add a note section referancing the link to the challenge and it being upcoming content. ☣Avatar☣ 19:51, February 1, 2011 (UTC)
Well the problem is that the majority of the content is already based of documentation (granted it isn't canon), but none the less it doesn't need to be confirmed. If it does appear, then like hoover dam, it will most likely be moved to a (Van Buren) name-space to preserve the integrity. Otherwise anons will start stripping out information that contradicts. Maybe what is required is a in page tag ({{sourcebox}}) that identifies upcoming content within a article, just like the cut content tags etc. ☣Avatar☣

Example:

Mbox upcomingThe following is based on Dead Money Things to Come! and may be inaccurate or contain spoilers.

Courier

I see no real problem. The capital c Courier is easily distinguished from courier as an occupation. Maybe you should substitute lowercase courier for messenger? Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 20:35, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Bottle caps

Just to let you know I am reverting that whole edit, don't worry it is only temporarily as the info is needed as per the project tag at the top of the page The Vault:Item page overhaul project. Once all the game page have been done then it will be reverted back. ☣Avatar☣ 18:54, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

On a side not, if you see <section begin="xxxxx" /> in a page, dont delete it. This is because another page is transcluding that section into its own page. For example bottle cap was being transcluded into the currency page, under the bottle cap section. ☣Avatar☣ 21:06, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
Item overview pages are not supposed to have images at the top, the images are to be next to the variants, as one single image cant really cover the whole topic. The perfect example is Laser rifle and Submachine gun. If you read The Vault:Item page overhaul project it explains most of it and has the layout guide lines. The only addition to the layout guidelines for overview pages that hasnt really been updated, is placing a single limited size image next to each variant. ☣Avatar☣ 19:31, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
Well that's a problem, because firstly that is user artwork, which is something we don't include in pages. Secondly that image is way of the mark. Check the Sunset Sarsaparilla bottle cap against the image you posted. The actual in-game bottle cap is all red with gold logo and not the other way around, and the logo is completely different. But in any case the current layout doesn't call for a single image on the overview page, if you wish to have the layout guidelines changed then it needs to be brought up in the forums so the whole community can decide, much as I have done with the creature layout guide that is presently being worked out. ☣Avatar☣ 19:48, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

Honest Hearts

Why did you remove the graffiti pic from the infobox?--Gothemasticator 16:22, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

The pic is germane, since it shows the source the article is using. Yes, it should be moved back.
Another topic - Were you the one who added the "Behind the scenes" section to the New Canaan page? If you were, what is your source for the films and books being the inspiration for the setting?--Gothemasticator 16:27, February 4, 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the Chairmen infobox image, please do not substitute images from the comic in any infobox, unless the article is about the comic. In-game pics, concept art pics, and even playing card pics from the games themselves are preferable to images from the comic. Our articles are primarily about the games, not the comic, as Ausir explained to you several messages above.--Gothemasticator 16:35, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

New Canaan

If your info for the inspiration is sourced, then please reference the source.--Gothemasticator 17:16, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

Comic pics

If an article is about game content, a pic from the comic should not be used in the infobox. I can't make it any clearer than that.--Gothemasticator 17:16, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I already specifically told you not to use images from the comic in the infobox (but leave them in the article) in game topics. Ausir(talk) 20:39, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

New Canaan

You've reverted the edit without providing source info. I'm removing it until you provide linked sources.--Gothemasticator 19:12, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

Fallout 4

"Likely" is not info, it is speculation. Do not readd those edits.--Gothemasticator 19:12, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

Warning

You are verging on behavior characterizable as "edit warring." If you continue to make changes you have been warned about without continuing to take part in discussion, you will be blocked.--Gothemasticator 19:12, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

  • The New Canaan edit needs to be sourced in the article.
  • Remove the word "likely" from any edits to the Fallout 4 info. Do keep info that is confirmed. Do not include info that we don't know. "TBA" is just fine until such information comes out.
  • --Gothemasticator 20:41, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

That's all speculation except the obvious ratings and genres. Tezzla CannonUser Tezzla Dog 14:18, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing

The "Behind the scenes" entry needs a footnote reference quoting the relevent text from the design article. We can't expect readers to follow a "See also" link and read the entire article and then realize it is also the source for the "Behind the scenes" section. Source and reference the entry properly, and it can stay. Until then, it appears as unsourced speculation and will get tampered with.--Gothemasticator 14:46, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

Because most "Behind the scenes" sections list allusions, there is no source. The player is expected to make the connection themselves. It's fun. Your edit, on the contrary, is stating factually the sources for inspiration for the developers. The info is not just out there for the player to find; it is stated by the devs in a document. Therefore, it needs to be sourced with a footnote reference. Yes, this is unlike the rest of the article - for which the Van Buren tags suffice.--Gothemasticator 17:56, February 5, 2011 (UTC)

Fancy-Schmancy Event Box Changes

Just wanna letcha know, your fancy things aren't working on Monobook. :P Nitty Tok. 16:04, February 9, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, they're still not quite working as I want them to be. I'll have another look tomorrow. --Flower of Pock-Lips 18:00, February 9, 2011 (UTC)

Fallout 4

It's speculation. Tezzla CannonUser Tezzla Dog 19:12, February 15, 2011 (UTC) Actually yes. I do know what it means, and yes, it is speculation. Bethesda could develop it or publish it. What they do is unconfirmed. I have read the article. If you had read the article you would have noticed that. You're the one who looks like a fool, not me. Tezzla CannonUser Tezzla Dog 21:45, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

All of that revision is speculation. Also, nowhere did it say that Bethesda would make it. Tezzla CannonUser Tezzla Dog 15:35, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

That was 2008. Things have changed since then. Tezzla CannonUser Tezzla Dog 16:28, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

Interplay. Obsidian. Skyrim.

Also, it is speculation. You've been told by 3 admins already that all your edits on the page are speculation. Tezzla CannonUser Tezzla Dog 17:18, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

Nope. One admin and two bureaucrats. Also, it is unknown if they are developing or publishing. Tezzla CannonUser Tezzla Dog 18:09, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

Or they could be developing it. Noone knows. Tezzla CannonUser Tezzla Dog 18:30, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

Also: Gothemasticator, TrailerParkApe, Porter21. Tezzla CannonUser Tezzla Dog 18:35, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

No ZeniMax published it. Tezzla CannonUser Tezzla Dog 18:45, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

Guys take it to the talk page for Fallout 4, where it can be properly discussed amongst all. ☣Avatar☣ 23:06, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

Timeline

Why would you remove this text from the beginning of the article?:

Much of the following text comes from the timeline in Fallout Bible 0, written by Chris Avellone, which in turn comes from the original Fallout timeline created by Brian Freyermuth and Scott Campbell. Some post-Fallout 1 information was laid out by Rob Hertenstein, and some dates were added by Chris Avellone himself. Additionally, this timeline includes all dates mentioned in Fallout, Fallout 2, Fallout 3, and Fallout: New Vegas holodisks, in the dialogues, and in old design documents published in the Fallout Bible, as well as Van Buren design documents.

Please put it back.--Gothemasticator 17:28, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. This removal is totally unacceptable. I'm also reverting some of your edits to the Harold article. In the future, discuss extensive revisions of major articles like that on their talk page or in the forum first. Consider this another warning. Ausir(talk) 21:07, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
I decided to revert all of your edits to the Timeline article. Some of the changes were probably good, but there's too many bad additions/removals to sift through - e.g. adding dates information from the Jericho design document (and without sourcing it properly!), even though, unlike the New Canaan document, it was made completely inconsistent with canon by the mentions of New Canaan still existing in Fallout: New Vegas. Ausir(talk) 15:01, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Drafts

Could you create drafts for article revisions in your user space (e.g. User:Flower of Pock-Lips/Timeline) rather than in the main article namespace please? Thanks. -- Porter21 (talk) 14:26, February 20, 2011 (UTC)

drafts

The <-- characters that Porter added and you deleted keep your subpages from being categorized as main articles. It'd be good to put them back in and to add them like he did in any further draft pages you create.--Gothemasticator 15:09, February 20, 2011 (UTC)

Gender

So, how did you decide the Chosen One is canonically male?--Gothemasticator 01:14, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

And I've just removed that sentence from the endings page. It was added by some guy recently, and not after discussion. It is my current understanding that the Bishop Child is intimated to be possibly the Chosen One's son. It is not clear to me that it is made at all certain. Please revert your gender-related changes to the Chosen One and Vault Dweller pages.--Gothemasticator 01:56, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

Great War

The image you added to Great War has nothing to do with it. It's the Megaton nuke from Fallout 3. Ausir(talk) 21:01, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

It's not in the intro. It was originally released by Bethesda as a promotional screenshot before the game's release and was labeled as being the Megaton nuke. Ausir(talk) 00:07, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
They did use a nuke in the intro, but not this particular image. Ausir(talk) 00:13, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

Redlinks

I took your advice of making redlinks actual articles, so I created the Sierra Madre Gala Event. Just thought you would like to know. Kastera 01:50, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

South Vegas Ruins

Because if you walk around the wall for New Vegas, you will find that the ruins lay outside of New Vegas. They are the ruins of Las Vegas, much as the rest of the outlying area is. User avatar tagUser Avatar talk 01:51, February 25, 2011 (UTC)

snowglobes

On the snow globe page it is listed that if JANE is killed you are unable to sell snowglobes in your invintory but some players my not know that if MR HOUSE is killed that Jane disapears. Sorry if Im be a pain.

Snowglobes

Because it is a overview page and not a item page, technically each Snowglobe should its own item page that follows the item layout guide. If you want a example of how it should be, see: Vault Boy bobblehead and Bobblehead - Strength etc. User avatar tagUser Avatar talk 02:59, February 25, 2011 (UTC)

The difference is that bottle caps is a cross game overview. Where as snowglobes (and bobbleheads for that matter) are game overview pages, no different to weapons and such. If snowglobes are introduced into another game, then yes, it would then need to be changed to fit a cross game overview like bottlecaps. User avatar tagUser Avatar talk 12:00, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
As I said, refer to the Vault Boy bobblehead for a layout guide to a single game overview page on such a subject matter (or any other overview page). You used the cross game template which is not required nor needed, and the overview page should provide a overview of the subject matter including the table information (which is what the reader wants). This is no different than any of the other item overview pages e.g. Fallout: New Vegas ammunition, Fallout: New Vegas armor and clothing etc. or even not item overview pages e.g Fallout: New Vegas perks, Fallout: New Vegas traits etc. Granted the individual images may not be required and can probably be removed. But to make this simple, a overview page should give a overview of information that affects all the items and a list of the items with basic information. Seriously I have no idea why you have a objection to providing information in such a manner to the general readership and changing something that is perfectly good. User avatar tagUser Avatar talk 20:32, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

Mormon edit!

You put to much unesscery information on the page about the Church of latter day saints this is totaly unaceptable you removed all refrences to fallout mormonism due to fallouts divergence Some of the real mormon facts might not be canon. user:kaminoman

I have to agree, what is the relevance and need of none Fallout related and pre-divergence information. Again this Wiki is about Fallout and not its real world counter-parts. If anything a simple single sentence and link to the wikipedia page should be located under behind the scenes, to prevent confusion of mixing real world and Fallout world information.
This has nothing to do with Factions or beliefs, this is to do with Fallout related information. As you said, there is perfectly workable explanation on Wikipedia, so why do we also need it in a Fallout Wiki. The only information we need to include is Fallout related e.g. the post-divergence section, and any dissimilarity in the pre-divergence. Example would be the Enclave, which is a divergence of the pre-war USA goverment, but we do not list the information about the US government except for it dissimilarity between it and the real world counter part and that after the divergence. User avatar tagUser Avatar talk 23:16, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted your edits to the Mormon page. Only information relevent to the game is necessary. There is no call to replicate wikipedia. That's what links are for.--Gothemasticator 02:45, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

When you make several large-scale edits to a page, most of which are not acceptable, I will continue to revert the whole batch and explain what went wrong. It is up to you either discuss such large-scale changes first, or to do the detailed editing after the revert. I am not going to spend my time nitpicking through such edits.--Gothemasticator 21:49, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
I spend the effort, because you are a pretty good editor. But, given your propensity for making large-scale changes to lore-centric important articles, you could use some coaching about how to better approach such work. It is better for the wiki and for you if you redo your own work in light of such coaching, rather than continue to make large-scale changes that others need to check and revise. Being bold is a two-way street, as well.--Gothemasticator 00:19, March 1, 2011 (UTC)

Remove the 911 video!

Like i said in my latest user page edit, the part where the people died wasn't funny. The rest of it was. Tezzla CannonUser Tezzla Dog 21:38, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

I'm also really not bothered what people think about me about the vandalism highlights or my opinion in the console debate. Tezzla CannonUser Tezzla Dog 21:39, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

Because it screwed up the US economy, the US government itself, and that the rest of the innocent world who did nothing wrong but get attacked from America anyway get payback. Tezzla CannonUser Tezzla Dog 21:41, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

I did in my post above, and i explained it quite clearly. Tezzla CannonUser Tezzla Dog 21:52, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

This won't be an issue anymore, Flower. I'm sorry for not getting this done sooner. Nitty Tok. 22:06, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
The above was what made me ban him. I think it's terrible that kids that young can just blow off lives as being collateral damage or "payback".
Anyway, thanks for just plain getting back to me. I'm awful angry and somebody else needs to run the Vault at this point. :) Nitty Tok. 23:16, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

Mojave Wasteland

Actually, every time you leave a building it says "Open door to the Mojave Wasteland", you are thinking of caves and such, which say "exit to the Mojave Wastland". The difference in Dead Money is that it states "Travel to the Mojave Wastlenad". As for his Twiter location, that has no relevance to Sierra Madre, only to the Big Empty (and that could be up for debate, since it says Mojave and not Mojave Wasteland). As for the Mojave Landmark Limited Edition Snowglobe, that information comes from the UI as well, so you kinda shot your own arguement in the foot, plus there is nothing that directly states that these 2 additional Snowglobes are Mojave Landmark Limited Edition Snowglobe, especially considering they are not needed to gain the Globe Trotter achievement. So considering no one knows for sure the precise location of Sierra Madre, it is a bit presumptuous to assume it is in the Mojave Wastlenad.

As for the use of Italics, read here for usuage, it has nothing to do with using for quotations. User avatar tagUser Avatar talk 00:06, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Really now, so they are Mojave (Pre-War term) snow globes and not Mojave Wasteland (which considering the Mojave Wasteland didnt exist pre-war) snow globes, means that it plays no part in ascertaining if Sierra Madre is part of the Mojave Wasteland. Especially since it states they are pre-war in the game. But either way you, if you accept them, you have contradicting information from the same source. And as you said "I don't think the UI text is sufficient enough evidence in that regard". So there is no clear defining evidence that Sierra Madre is part of, or located in the Mojave Wasteland. What evidence does exist is contradictory and debatable. And as I said with the Twitters reference, that would only pertain to the Big Empty and not translate over to all other location, it is also a debatable point of contention.
And again on the italics, the page you linked to even uses italics for scare quotes on the second line. Italics are used for empasis and we also use them here for any kind of quotation, hence why {{Quotation}} uses italics, besides as the page points out "...they may simply serve to alert the reader". Alerting the reader of a word or phrase is simply a definition of emphasis. User avatar tagUser Avatar talk 01:30, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Necropolis

I guess this is my first official introduction to you , Flower (for short) ;)

Now to my question: why did you revert my edit on Bakersfield in which I replaced your image with one of much better quality and resolution? -- Ghouly89 (Talk) 02:21, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Excuse the discrepancy, the edit was made to Necropolis ;) -- Ghouly89 (Talk) 02:23, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
My goal in creating this image was to use the JPEG uber-compression distortion to, persay, smear the pixelation around. Though I love the artistic style of Fallout's 8-bit graphics, I feel everyone else on the wiki who is used to 1080i high-res renders doesn't carry the same appreciation. ;)
Now, my main problem with your image is the fact that taking screen captures directly from the game results in the 640x 480 dimensions. This, in my opinion, does not look good considering the actual movie file frames are 432x320 pixels. Thus, the game stretches the frame in a 3:2 ratio, which results in odd pixelation. This is something I can alter to my own ends, as I have all the source frames (which, all-in-all, amounts to somewhere around 30,000 images) from each and every cinematic movie. For my uploaded image, the ratio in size from the original frame is 2:1, which results in better quality.
Now, if you want me to upload the original frame with dimensions of 432x320 in a loss-less format like PNG, I would be willing to do this as well. :) -- Ghouly89 (Talk) 02:40, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.