So what is canon

Fez · Post by **Fez** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:51 am

I think following the spirit of the original Wiki might help, where things are taken with a pinch of salt. Not everyone is going to agree on what is right or not, so you just have to include most of it and make a note of how widely accepted that part is until we can agree how it should be set out. This goes especially for new subjects or pages, it takes a while to settle in. The wiki is something that gets made by mucking in and making a big mess and then sorting it out, you don't plan it properly. Kind of like developing a PC game.

I still think it seems a bit odd to argue over what is canon or not, in the sense that if they wanted lame unicorns and chocolate pixies in Fallout then that would have been canon, there is nothing we can do about it as it isn't our licence or our game. Shouldn't we accept the game, warts and all for the purposes of the wiki? The crap parts are still canon, even if they are crap. We just have to make sure that Bethesda know that it was crap (all those damn robots in FoT, the whole of FOBOS, and so on). Probably why there was so many arguments every time this has been tried like with the bibles and when FoT tried to come up with new stuff.

I do wonder if there is a danger of the licence getting stale by refusing to accept any new material in the theme. I agree it should fit in with what has been done, or at least give a damn good explanation why it doesn't. If we start saying that FoT and FO2 are non canon we are left with one very short game, albeit a good one.

The main thing is that everyone does whatever they think is needed at first and then once it is there we edit it and tidy it up, it'll take a while to get up and running. Use the guides from Wikipedia to help out on how to edit and what the guidelines are.

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:50 am

Well, I'm in favour of including the variant points of view at the end of an article. If you look at the one on Mutations and Their Causes, you can see at the bottom MCA and ChristT's explanations for radiation vs. FEV and stuff. Still, there has to be some sort of consensus for the main body of the articles.

Fez · Post by **Fez** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:24 am

As long as everyone is constructive about it and not putting tubgirl all over it, it should be fine. Having plenty of admins/sysops will help with that.

Hopefully the pendulum will settle at some point we will all (reluctantly) agree with.

Ausir · Post by **Ausir** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:17 am

I think we should definitely use FO1 as canon. FO2 is pretty much canon too, except for stuff that contradicts FO1, but it all should be mentioned in appropriate articles.

As for FOT, we can include stuff from it, but add the {{tactics}} template to it. The template says that FOT is not canon but parts of it can be treated as semi-canon if they don't contradict the earlier games. The same template should be put before sections of articles about wider topics, like Deathclaw, which talk about their implementation in FOT.

As for FOBOS, we can just forget about it. And I don't think anyone here knows much about its storyline/backstory anyway...

As for Van Buren, a {{VB}} template should be used with the same text as in the FOT one.

As for the Fallout Bible, all stuff from it should be eventually put in the wiki, especially the original designs etc. But the MCA Q&A stuff which is wrong should be identified as such with references to where it's contradicted (so that future devs don't make the same mistakes).

Post by **Retlaw83** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 12:07 pm

Ausir wrote:... As for Van Buren, a {{VB}} template should be used with the same text as in the FOT one...

I don't think we should make any mention of Van Buren, other than it's dead, because it will never be released and therefore has no bearing on the game universe.

Dan · Post by **Dan** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:48 pm

No bearing on the universe, but it is a Fallout related "curiosity", and as such would have full mention in due places.

ExtremeDrinker · Post by **ExtremeDrinker** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:20 pm

Is my FOBOS entry adequate?

Post by **Retlaw83** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:48 pm

It's brilliant, Ryno.

Ausir · Post by **Ausir** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:42 pm

Dan wrote:No bearing on the universe, but it is a Fallout related "curiosity", and as such would have full mention in due places.

Furthermore, Bethesda probably got all the VB documentation along with FO1 and FO2 stuff from IPLY, so they might choose to use some background bits from it.

Dan · Post by **Dan** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 6:37 pm

ExtremeRyno wrote:Is my FOBOS entry adequate?

You're the one that came up with it eh?

Funny, but it is going to be deleted and replaced with a proper one though.

Post by **Retlaw83** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:12 pm

Dan wrote:
ExtremeRyno wrote:Is my FOBOS entry adequate?
You're the one that came up with it eh?

Funny, but it is going to be deleted and replaced with a proper one though.

It is proper - described FOPOS to a "T".

The Slaughter · Post by **The Slaughter** » Sat Apr 09, 2005 6:51 am

Bible Stuff have to be considered. And FOBOS Critters tooo (Just the Critters, not the fucking stupid ridiculous game)

Post by **Retlaw83** » Sat Apr 09, 2005 9:33 am

From my foray into FOBOS, which I payed $3 for from an EB Games store, I can say with some authority that NOTHING about FOBOS should be considered Fallout canon. Especially not the multi-ton radscorpion with bullet-proof pincers.

Brother None · Post by **Brother None** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 10:52 pm

Bump, I feel one thing deserves a bit more discussion

Ausir wrote:As for the Fallout Bible, all stuff from it should be eventually put in the wiki, especially the original designs etc. But the MCA Q&A stuff which is wrong should be identified as such with references to where it's contradicted (so that future devs don't make the same mistakes).

While it's not really up to us to magically decide what is cannon and not, it seems a bit odd to declare the Fallout Bible canon just because it was written by Mr. Suckiest-Fallout-Town-Evah (settingwise, not CRPGwise)

It's getting very confusing to have to make dual lists for SAD and MCA timelines only because MCA pulled a "those holodisks are bullshit" out of his ass. MCA really shouldn't be writing Fallout canon, if you ask me, and as such the Fallout Bible should be mostly referenced to as a means of explaining things or as source-reference from real Fallout devs MCA contacted. All the stuff MCA pulled out of his arse should be taken with a big pinch of salt and considered sub-sub-canon, below Fallout 1 and 2, certainly, maybe even below Tactics.

Hell, don't forget the Bible was considered non-canon for the development of Van Buren.

Ausir · Post by **Ausir** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 1:18 am

Actually, the Fallout Bible timeline was not writen by MCA, but by Brian Freyermuth during the development of FO1. That's why the original version in Fallout Bible 1 had old names for FO1 locations, which were changed during the development of the game. MCA just modernized it a bit to make it more consistant with the game and added the post-FO1 stuff laid down by Rob Hertenstein. It's just that whoever wrote the GNN holodisk in FO2 didn't read the old FO1 timeline, which was only dug up by MCA later. So unlike the Q&A stuff I'd treat the timeline as more or less canon, especially that much of the GNN stuff is simply silly, and that's the only source which contradicts the timeline.

Brother None · Post by **Brother None** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 1:48 am

Ah. Oh. Fair play.

ApTyp · Post by **ApTyp** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 6:59 pm

And yet again Ausir imposes his idea of what is canon and what isn't by effectively controlling 99.9% of all Wiki input!

Ausir · Post by **Ausir** » Sun Jul 24, 2005 9:23 pm

Actually, I think Thinkpad and Wintermute might have more edits than me now... Although they're more concerned with boring stuff like items and stats.