Forum:Vote: Fallout canon policy overhaul

Following a discussion forum that was opened for nearly five months, I would like to put forward a proposal for a single, consistent Fallout canon that will (hopefully) prove to be future proof.

Context

The Fallout canon page is one of the oldest on the wiki, dating back to February 11, 2005, back to when the wiki was hosted at Duck and Cover (remember these days? Tagaziel remembers), and has been modified over the years - frequently unilaterally - to accommodate the changes in the franchise, the fanbase, the games roster, and so on and so forth.

My personal favorite is description of FOBOS from 2008: Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel is so far away from canon that canon has forgotten the game exists, and if it remembered, would only send feces in the mail to the game's developers. Truly, a wild time.

However, it has never been really comprehensively overhauled in the past fifteen years, and in its current state no longer provides a stable foundation to build a wiki upon - especially in the light of Gamescom 2020 interview, where we learned that Bethesda's canon always starts with the games, making them the absolute source and everything outside of them supplementary.

To fix this state of affairs, we hashed out a literally months-long discussion and prepared a proposal.

While I have penned the proposal, I do not consider myself the sole author. This is the collective work of the community, and would never be created without the contributions of others participating in the forum:

And of course, the countless participants in the Discord and on talk pages across the wiki. I hope that through this, this will once again become the foundation for creating the definitive wiki.

Tagaziel

Summary

The full text of the proposal is presented below for reference.

The proposed policy is a replacement for the current one, intended to establish a framework for authoring articles and resolving conflicts that may arise when covering topics spanning multiple games.

Key points and changes:

• Separates canon sources into three major groups (non-canon group is retained):
  • Core canon, representing video games which takes absolute precedence over other sources.
  • Supplementary canon, representing all non-game content that expands the previous category.
  • Dependent canon, which encompasses licensed content, Atomic Shop, board games, and other games that are considered to exist within separate continuities (eg. Wasteland Warfare or Fallout Shelter).
• Includes recommendations for resolving conflicts, noting the origin of a given source and organizing references, and integrates orders of precedence into each of the canon group.
• Completely does away with the semi-canon category. Semi-canon was an invention meant to reconcile Fallout Tactics with the rest of the series and never had a clear meaning. It was a weasel word that was meaningful at a glance and hopelessly ambiguous in practice.
• Restructured and rewritten to be more precise and allow for clear referencing.
• Another step towards ensuring our reliability as the finest source for Fallout lore in existence!

Votes

Poll finished on 9:15 pm October 20, 2020 (UTC). A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken. You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section: Use # {{yes}} ~~~~ if you support the proposal. Use # {{no}} ~~~~ if you are against the proposal. Use # {{neutral}} ~~~~ if you wish to abstain. Please do not edit other user's votes.

Due to the significance of the policy, voting has been extended to last 15 days.

Vote results: 18 votes cast, 11 in favor (61%), 5 against (27%), 3 abstaining (12%). Result is pass.

Yes

1. I believe that this would put to rest many of the arguments by creating something we can all rely on and look at. Plus, it is a collective work. _Tagaziel ^(call!) 20:24, October 5, 2020 (UTC)
2. -New California Ahoy ^{"Who are you, that do not know their history?"}
3. There's been a lot of irksome stuff in the canon page and this pretty much resolves all of it for me. Devastating Dave^{ZIP ZAP RAP} 20:58, October 5, 2020 (UTC)
4. With two notations, please see below.--Ant2242 (talk) 00:04, October 6, 2020 (UTC)
5. Many of the "no" votes indicate that we need to hear from the developers to determine what is or is not canon, and I absolutely agree! Recently, Bethesda addressed this very topic. This proposal enshrines those developer responses into wiki policy. We aren't simply "fans" attempting to define canon. This proposal is responding to perhaps the first and last commentary Bethesda is going to give us on canonicity for a very, very long time. If we want to avoid the appearance that we are fans defining canon, it is our obligation to adjust our policies based on recent developer direction. Thank you for reading my novel :) --Intrepid359 (talk) 01:58, October 6, 2020 (UTC)
6. It's in dire need of an overhaul and, whether those voting to the contrary like it or not, "Semi-Canon" is absolutely the weaseliest of weasel words. If we reorganise this page right, we could prevent many an edit war and hour-spanning argument. No, we don't decide canon for ourselves, but we absolutely have to divine it from what we can see ourselves in order to actually be able to run this place, and I think we can absolutely find the layers of Lore rewriting that would enable us to see which games take canon-precident over overs. LovinglyGaslight (talk) 03:36, October 6, 2020 (UTC)
7. I closely followed the discussion and also stumbled over Tag's loredraft early on. Since Pagliarulo has been the lead writer for both FO3 and FO4, I consider his statements about canonicity to have some weight. The draft seems reasonable to me, since it is well structured and also has all the needed references. Therefore it is a yes. --Findabair^{The benefit of the doubt is often doubtful.} 04:34, October 6, 2020 (UTC)
8. --Todoedits (talk) 12:35, October 6, 2020 (UTC)
9. --Branebriar1930 (talk) 17:41, October 7, 2020 (UTC)
10. -- I don't think this is a perfect solution to an exponentially growing problem, but I do believe it's a step in the right direction. ^寧靜 03:02, October 9, 2020 (UTC)
11. -- This policy will serve our community better than the existing iteration. -kdarrow ^{take her for a spin!} 17:07, October 10, 2020 (UTC)

No

1. While I am not opposed to the notion of this forum, or the concept in general, I am opposed to having a vote so early, or otherwise an otherwise controversial compilation of what may some refer to as something akin to opinionated biases or a Big MT mindmeld. There is still much delegation to be had, with all the parties mentioned, as well as general responses from Bethesda developers, specifically on the notion of such controversial topics as the Atomic Shop, Creation Club, and Bible, not to mention that the forum from which this stemmed has not finished its run. Until we retain completely unopinionated, objective, and most importantly, factual information, I cannot vote yes on this in good conscience. JCB2077 (talk) 20:32, October 5, 2020 (UTC)
2. Sorry, but I am entirely against the notion of fans deciding what is canon and what is not, especially when it comes to making up terms like "primary" or "supplementary" canon or even going against statements made by developers (some of which I see here). On the contrary, I've seen users from /d suggest that wiki pages are becoming less reliable because of attempts to portray users' own versions of canon, which at a certain point just becomes fanon. That's the job of developers. Saxhleel12 (talk) 21:47, October 5, 2020 (UTC)
3. I'm of a mix of Sax's and Sole's perspective. Both more discussion is needed, not to mention I feel many developer statements are being misinterpreted and need to be discussed further before we agree to what exactly is considered canon by them. And I feel recently a lot of personal editorializing and personal perspective has overwhelmed the previously well-referenced and carefully recorded lore pages. We just need some more time of discussion before rushing into this with a vote.--Jeet-Maht (talk) 01:29, October 6, 2020 (UTC)
4. Our lore foundation should be based around what the current IP owners lay down as canon vs. non-canon. For the most part, I agree with the structure and almost everything in here, except two things: (1) The Fallout Bible and other developer commentary that pre-dates the Bethesda acquisition should be moved down to Dependent/Non-canon. The developer commentary shared by Bethesda should stay supplementary. As per the interview, ("For us, it's always... for us, canon always starts with what is in the games. And so... it's what is in Fallout 1, Fallout 2... even some of like, Fallout Tactics is- there's some stuff from canon from Fallout Tactics as well. And our Fallout games. So, we always look at what's in the games first, and then we go to the Fallout Bible and look at the stuff. So, some of the stuff that is in Fallout 3 that is now canon came from the Fallout Bible, some of that fiction. And so... it depends. We look at the Fallout Bible and some of the lore that really... was written, y'know, back in the day. It makes sense and we use that and put it in our games. We don't just assume that everything in the Bible is canon. We have to take it step-by-step inside. It's a judgement call."), it is described how some of the fiction from the Fallout Bible was repurposed and added to the canon in Fallout 3. It is not the Fallout Bible verbatim text that became canon, but rather the Fallout 3 verbatim text. (2) The Dependent Canon concerning the Atomic Shop and Creation Club needs to clarify how items become canon. An example being: Rootin' tootin' cowboy outfit was Atomic Shop-only before Wastelanders, and at the time would be designated non-canon. Once Wastelanders released and Smiley was added to the game wearing that same outfit, the outfit became canon. Edit: If these 2 issues are addressed, my vote turns to Yes. --Scribe-Howard (talk) 16:02, October 6, 2020 (CT)
5. I think there are too many unresolved issues with the proposal, especially in regards to out-of-game sources. In practice, perhaps this will work, but all of our bases should be covered when it comes to something like this. I feel that the current draft is based too much on terminology that isn't supported by the sources, and more "authoritative" than it should be. Our job is not to read deeply into statements and provide one interpretation of that quote. We present the facts as-is. The plan as it stands strays too far from our goal. AllYourFavorites! (talk) 04:24, October 20, 2020 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I agree with JCB and Tag, so imma just abstain.--DankalorYT 20:53, October 5, 2020 (UTC)
2. I’m not a regular editor here, so I’m not sure if my vote will be considered valid. Anyway, any lore introduced through the Black Isle, Bethesda and Obsidian main games should be considered canon IMO. I have misgivings about Creation Club and Atomic Shop, since that content seem like it is either fanon, or put out for the sole purpose of giving the developers extra revenue. “Semi-canon” seem like weasel words to me, therefore kinda dicey IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Cat Master (talk • contribs) 06:16, October 6, 2020‎. Please sign your posts with ~~~~!
3. For the most part, I agree with the overhaul, with only a couple of hang ups (specifically the placement of the bible and Tactics in either dependent or non-canon). But as noted, the wiki's stance on canon has not been overhauled significantly in 15 years. It would be wrong to say the discussion so far has been rushed, the forum certainly had a chance to run its course, but this vote has stirred some renewed vigor in the accompanying discussion. With that in mind, I think this discussion should be further flushed out before I feel comfortable voting on a matter which could potentially see another 15 years pass before an overhaul is ever considered. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 10:11, October 12, 2020 (UTC)

Removed

1. --DankalorYT 20:29, October 5, 2020 (UTC)
2. This vote is likely to change, but there's too much in flux right now for me to consciously cast a yes or no vote as of this timestamp. AllYourFavorites! (talk) 03:01, October 9, 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

1) What's the argument for the separation of the references section?
2) Also can these youtube videos be mirrored on the official wiki YouTube for archiving? If not the whole interview?!

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biqqobPm-h8
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Wk3N4sO3RY

--Ant2242 (talk) 23:46, October 5, 2020 (UTC)

It's meant to provide a clear image of where a statement comes from, whether it's from the top group, or where Bethesda starts with canon, or any other. I've edited power armor to show how it would look in practice; the goal is to clearly delineate different groups. As for the mirroring, well, that's a question for those who have access to the YouTube channel. :) _Tagaziel ^(call!) 08:54, October 6, 2020 (UTC)

If we are going that route:

1) Is there a cavate for pages with small reference sections? Could there be a few more examples? (On specific sub pages please.)

2) Why is the Fallout Bible treated to its own sub section within the "Strategy guides and other publications" section of the "Non-game sources" section of the "References"?

3) How are templates like {{RTB}} and to a much lesser extent {{RT}} going to handle this change?

3a) How would this affect article section transclusions? Or whatever this thing is called at the top of my profile page?

| class="va-table" style="width: 100%;" ![[User:Ant2242/to do list|To do list]] |- | <div style="height: 89px; overflow: auto;"> {{User:Ant2242/to do list}} </div> |}

4) Also are those the names that we are goin with for the subsections?

5) Whether or not we are going with those names how do we rectify this with the reference format guidelines? Yes, it's only mine and one other editor's personal page technically, but it is effectively in practice (me) and complete. Also since there never was one here, nor anywhere else.

--Ant2242 (talk) 15:18, October 6, 2020 (UTC)

1. Like many things, I like to think that editors who know how to use references also know how to use them well. :)
2. To clarify.
3. This is a separate matter and I'm looking into the possibility of making a template that would automatically display/hide the relevant sections depending on whether a particular reference is present on the page or not.
4. and 5.: I'd like to note that this is a level of detail that should be covered by a separate guideline. _Tagaziel ^(call!) 16:03, October 6, 2020 (UTC)

1) In theory yes. In practice probably not going to be.... at least not without a lot of practice.

2) Right, but why does it get special treatment?

3, 3a, 4, and 5) It really isn't if you include it on the canon policy. We should remove it from here and discuss it further with the referencing policy... also with whatever you're referring to is, whenever it's complete or whatever....

--Ant2242 (talk) 17:10, October 6, 2020 (UTC)

Addressing No votes

I'd like to clarify a few things:

1. This is by no means a rush. The forum has been opened for nearly half a year, and there has been no further response after the draft was posted in three weeks since it was posted (in fact, if it wasn't for that draft, it'd have received no replies for over a month), or any other proposals for a comprehensive policy.
2. The policy is completely factual and based on citations directly from the developers since the beginning of the series. The division into core and supplementary canon reflects Emil's words - "For us, canon always starts with the games" - and is meant not as a decision on what's canon and what's not, but a reflection of the stated approach of the current IP holder for the purpose of writing articles on the wiki.
3. In fact, it's actually removing fan decisions on canon, in particular the vague term semi-canon which is a holdover from the early days of the wiki, and intended to rely entirely on what's portrayed.
4. In the same way, it's treating the Bible not as a controversial topic, but simply as what it was released and what it was stated by the author and the developers: A behind the scenes look at the first two games, like the behind the scenes section from the FNV game guide. For reference:

The Bible is also bundled with each of the classic games via GOG.com after Zenimax acquired the license (I specifically checked it just now and all the extras are there). For those unaware, GOG.com extras have to be vetted by the owner of the license.

At no point was it ever intended to be anything but that. It was never the definitive guide to canon, lore, or anything similar - that was a fan interpretation that caught on against all facts. This policy is meant to break with the fanon and rely purely on facts, especially insofar the Bible is concerned. _Tagaziel ^(call!) 09:43, October 6, 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that all pre-Fallout 3 developer content should be moved to dependent/non-canon. I believe this is exactly what Jeet-Maht and Sax raised: Using a personal interpretation of three words from an interview ("that's now canon") to introduce sweeping changes regarding canon.

I.e. fans deciding what is and what is not canon. I believe declaring over eleven years of content as non-canon requires more proof than interpreting half-sentences. _Tagaziel ^(call!) 21:30, October 6, 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree, but looking past the wording Bethesda used to describe old commentary, as well as the writer of said commentary explicitly saying to not consider it canon material, is fans deciding what is and what is not canon. I'm confused because above you describe it as not being a definitive guide to canon, and then later claim that pulling it from canon is not okay. It makes sense to be bundled with GOG because the Bible is a very good context guide for Fallout 1/2/Tactics in a vacuum. Add the rest of the series into the mix, and the Bible is no longer applicable. This doesn't mean that content on the wiki referencing the Bible needs to be removed, it means we should enforce the rule that advises that Bible content needs to be labeled. As written in the proposal, "This category encompasses content that does not fall strictly into the non-canon category, but due to various reasons may not be compatible with the core canon. Unless referenced in core canon, works in this category should be considered as existing within their own continuities. For distinguishing these works, the term dependent is used, as they depend on their inclusion in the core canon." It's not that the Bible is strictly non-canon, its that the Bible is only an accurate reference for the F1/2/Tactics continuity. Scribe-Howard 11:37 10/8/20 CT

They never said anything about not considering it as canon, simply that Bethesda themselves decide on a case-by-case basis. While it can be said to not be a definitive guide to canon, it is still an important cornerstone in the foundation of the full Fallout universe. F1 and 2 are still fully canon (with exception to many pop culture and lore-breaking/bending elements), while Tactics and its later sequel, Brotherhood of Steel, have been said directly by Bethesda to not be canon in any way whatsoever. Emil later said something about high-level elements of Tactics to be canon to Ausir, but nobody asked him a question regarding it during the most recent interview, though hopefully another opportunity will present itself. The Bible is perfectly canon and applicable in most situations where the games or canon do not contradict it. For elements such as the EPA or the Ghoulificiation theories, those can be disregarded, sure. But for the many, many other elements of the universe the Bible explains or gives details to, those can be regarded at canon. And advice is simply that, advice. For us, mere fans and janitors of the Fallout series and wiki respectively, needing to label such canon in a currently-disputed rule that, as of this and a prior forum, has not gone into true effect. JCB2077 (talk) 16:57, October 8, 2020 (UTC)

"I'm confused because above you describe it as not being a definitive guide to canon, and then later claim that pulling it from canon is not okay."

That's because it's simply a form of developer commentary, nothing more, nothing less. It's the same as with developer commentary for Fo3, FNV, Fo4, and F76, and enjoys - or should enjoy - the same position. Any fan claims of it being something more than that do not stand to scrutiny. The series has seen many titles since, yes, and of course junior sources take precedence over senior ones, as we already have established.

So basically, we stop using fan theories as to what the FOB is, and start relying on hard facts. Which means that the only way to eject it is to strip the whole developer commentary from the wiki or relegate it to non-canon, which is a drastic move that needs something far more specific than a personal interpretation of three words from an interview. Tägäżïël 18:05, October 8, 2020 (UTC)

"So basically, we stop using fan theories as to what the FOB is, and start relying on hard facts. Which means that the only way to eject it is to strip the whole developer commentary from the wiki or relegate it to non-canon, which is a drastic move that needs something far more specific than a personal interpretation of three words from an interview."

This actually isn't the case. There are references on the page for the Fallout canon itself that state that the bible is not canon.The fact that it was deemed non canon by the person who actually created the bible and even stated to be "no longer canon" means that while it originally was canon, there was a decision made to remove it from the fallout canon. The bethedsa developers currently use it as a reference material in the same vein as concept art, hence why things in it are canon on a case by case basis as those things are in actual games and even then they may change it enough that while the original idea came from the bible, the information that exists in the bible for that implementation is not canon. Nothing in the bible expands on what is canon in a canon capacity, which would make it as dependant canon.

As someone who is entirely technical and really doesn't know most of the lore I have an unbiased view on how it works based upon the tweet by Chris Avallone and the interview with the developers. I watched that segment over and over just to make sure I understood them correctly and people are constantly misinterpreting them because they have this idea in their head on how canon should and should not be. One notable quote from the interview: "Some of the stuff that is in Fallout 3 that is now canon came from the fallout bible". This means that the information before being placed in the game was NOT canon. They also go on to explain that they have to see if what they are looking at in the bible fits into the lore of the games to decide if it will work as canon or not.

Essentially the stance on things should be that if it is not in a mainline game or specifically stated to be canon by someone who has the authority to say that it is canon, it should be considered dependant or non-canon. While this is much better than what is already here, this is one of the largest things debated on by people even though we have actual specific answers as to it's canonicity.Eckserah (talk) 04:12, October 20, 2020 (UTC)

Amendments

• I'd like to propose moving official merchandise to a lesser category. There is no indication that it is vetted for lore purposes. In at least one current product, official merchandise directly conflicts with established in-game canon. In many cases, the products are created by contract design houses such as Development Plus, Inc, which specialize in minimal input from their customer (i.e. Bethesda). DPI is advertised on Bethesda's official gear store as one of their suppliers. As advertised on DPI's website: "Unlike other agencies, we manage the entire process from concept to delivery." Given Bethesda's lax stance on other secondary monetization items, a lack of confirmation of lore scrutiny for these products, and that some of the products seem to have little to no input from Bethesda by design... I don't believe official merchandise should be more elevated than their secondary monetization kin found in the Atomic Shop, the board games, etc. --Intrepid359 (talk) 08:37, October 6, 2020 (UTC)
  • That's a good point. I've moved it down to dependent along with a recommendation that it's all marked as such. _Tagaziel ^(call!) 08:44, October 6, 2020 (UTC)
    • Commentary from the design houses isn't exactly reflective on Bethesda's lore or canon statements, nor does it really factor in on canon products or properties. The Wand Company, for instance, provides lore that is directly in line with much in-universe information, or otherwise expands on it in non-conflicting ways. As this supposed "official conflicting merchandise", it's Bethesda's product either way, so simply saying it conflicts with little to no evidence beyond, say, speculative conjecture, is not reason to put it in what is essentially the "barely non-canon" category, simply because a single user believes it to be as such. JCB2077 (talk) 15:23, October 6, 2020 (UTC)

What's the problem with including it on the page and grouping it under Merchandise? Given that Bethesda's stance is that games comprise the canon, everything's second to that and official merch, while nice, is neither a video game nor is it made by Bethesda directly. _Tagaziel ^(call!) 15:56, October 6, 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to amend the policy to remove the section about reordering the reference section. That is best debated on an official reference policy forum.--Ant2242 (talk) 05:38, October 7, 2020 (UTC)

I've moved it to a separate heading at the bottom. Once a guideline is finalized, it can be replaced, but some form of recommendation needs to be present for the time being to help users use it - this is a wiki for everyone, and relying on our memories tends to produce... Bad results. Tägäżïël 18:11, October 8, 2020 (UTC)

I think the guideline is fine. However the reference partition should be discussed on a referencing specific forum. Speaking of, its finished, barring the last section on the how to archive the New Bethesda Blog pages.... which needs to be completed.--Ant2242 (talk) 00:10, October 9, 2020 (UTC)

One topic which ought to be looked over is the placement of the TV show. While it is entirely possible that the show exists within and adds to the existing canon as established by the games, we do not know that to the case, at least not yet. It may be supplementary, core, or even completely removed from existing canon as it's own thing apart from the games. Regardless of how high quality it might be, the transition from source material to show is rarely, if ever, one to one. Since we do not yet know where this show would best be categorized, our options should be left open, and we should be aware of a potential outcome where it follows its own canon. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 11:18, October 8, 2020 (UTC)

A good point. So basically, remove it for the time being and note in the lead that its relation with the franchise is yet to be clarified? _Tagaziel ^(call!) 13:55, October 8, 2020 (UTC)

That's what I would recommend. Don't nail it down into any category until we know where it fits best (which at this point could just as easily be alongside the Fallout movie and the cancelled projects as it could be the games and core canon), and just give a brief explanation of the uncertainty until its place is cleared up. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 15:45, October 8, 2020 (UTC)

All right, added it to the draft in the lead and removed from the groups below. BTW, much of that is actually based on your contributions to the forum. :) Tägäżïël 18:11, October 8, 2020 (UTC)

It was a good forum, and I'm glad to have had a chance to contribute to it. There's really only one or two other issues, such as the placement of the bible in supplementary vs dependent that I would like see discussed, because it was something I had not considered prior to Scribe Howard talking about it in his vote. Beyond that, I'm ready to happily vote yes. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 10:03, October 12, 2020 (UTC)

Proposed Amendment

I’d like to propose a special hybrid status for the Fallout Bible. I believe this will resolve almost all of the contention over its status, allowing everyone to win without sacrificing anything at all. I’ll lead with my proposal. If you simply agree with it, there’s no need to read beyond the second paragraph. If you disagree or want to understand how I reached this conclusion, please read past the second paragraph. I have thoroughly detailed my research and reasoning in the paragraphs that follow. My reasoning is my own, and some may not agree with it. The proposal itself is designed to be fully neutral and fair; something that most editors can agree with.

Proposal: for the purposes of Fallout 1 and Fallout 2, the Fallout Bible is granted the status of “supplementary canon.” For all Bethesda titles, the Fallout Bible is granted the status of “dependent canon.” I do not believe that we need to try to force the Bible into a single category. The Bible is relevant to Fallout 1 and 2, but Bethesda is not bound to the Bible. With this amendment, we retain the ability to add the colorful flavor that the Bible added to Fallout 1 and 2 while also being in perfect compliance with the recent statements Bethesda made on the canonicity of the Bible. --Intrepid359 (talk) 02:33, October 9, 2020 (UTC)

You can stop reading at this point if you’d like, but please do read on if you want to know more about how I reached this conclusion.

First, let’s look at what the Bible actually is, directly from the source. Before you react to the first part of this paragraph, stick around for the second half. “The term ‘Bible’ is misleading, since it’s not supposed to… be the word of some holy power… this is just for fun” and shows “some of the ideas that were being batted around.” These quotes do not suggest the level of religious fervor often associated with the Bible – in fact, Avellone explicitly tells us that any such interpretation of the Bible is definitely incorrect. The Bible, simply put, is not binding law. It’s added flavor with the intention of being fun. The question then, is why should we treat it as canon at all? Because, with extreme caveats attached, it absolutely is. Going back to Avellone’s tweet, he states, “Fallout Bible is no longer canon.” The words “is no longer canon,” tell us two things: the Bible may not be canon now, but it WAS canon before. Therefore, for the purposes of Fallout 1 and 2, it meets the status of "supplementary canon." Obviously, with the IP shifting to Zenimax, Zenimax is not bound by any prior canonicity. If Todd Howard simply wanted to strike entire games from existence, he could absolutely do so. And he did: “For our purposes, neither Fallout Tactics nor Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel happened.” Gone, just like that. Between the statements made by Todd and Avellone, we know that Zenimax simply is not bound by any previous work, regardless of its pre-Zenimax status. Next, we have to look at what Bethesda has said about the canonicity of the Bible. Many people are of the impression that Bethesda didn’t say enough for us to have any answers, so we should largely disregard it. The opposite of true. Think about it: if you are dying of thirst in the desert, and you stumble onto a pristine bottle of water… you don’t ignore it. You. Savor. Every. Single. Drop. Waste NOTHING, since you may not get water again for a very, very long time. We’re in a canon desert, people! We need to extract every bit of information from what Bethesda said about the Bible as we can. So, let’s do that. Here’s what Emil said about the Bible’s canonicity. I’m going to highlight key parts and analyze them to get as much information out of them as I can without making any assumptions: “So, some of the stuff that is in Fallout 3 that is now canon came from the Fallout Bible, some of that fiction. And so... it depends. We look at the Fallout Bible and some of the lore that really... was written, y'know, back in the day. It makes sense and we use that and put it in our games. We don't just assume that everything in the Bible is canon. We have to take it step-by-step inside. It's a judgement call.” Let’s start off with the big one: “We don’t just assume that everything in the Bible is canon.” Many people out there, in fact, do assume that everything in the Bible is canon. In no uncertain terms, this debate has been put to rest. Next, he says “we have to take it step-by-step… it’s a judgement call,” and, “it makes sense and we use that and put it in our games.” So, now we know that Bethesda looks to the Bible and hand-picks aspects of the Bible to add to their games. So how can we confirm when Bethesda has granted canon status to a tidbit from the Bible? Their final quote answers this: “some of the stuff that is in Fallout 3 that is now canon came from the Fallout Bible.” The phrase “that is now canon” means that it was not canon before. But before it was added to Fallout 3, that lore existed only in the Bible. So, if being in the Bible wasn’t enough to make it canon, how the heck did it become canon now? It was added to Fallout 3. There is nothing else that could have made it canon. It wasn’t canon when it was in the Bible alone. It was canon when it became part of Fallout 3. The transition to being added to a game made it canon. To wrap it in a neat little bow, let’s go back to something else that Emil said earlier in the same interview: “for us, canon always starts with what is in the games.” So, there we have it: The complete Bible is not canon as far as Bethesda is concerned. Parts of it are, but only the hand-picked selections made by Bethesda. How do we know which parts Bethesda has selected to convert to canon status? They put it in a game. Therefore, for the purposes of Bethesda's titles, it meets the standard of "dependent canon."

A wiki user "granting" the Bible any sort of status at all completely goes against the point of the forum in the first place. Let alone that F1 and 2 are still part of the same universe as Bethesda's games, and not in any kind of alternate universe or vacuum. Sure, it's meant to be a compilation, an extra-long hybrid of developer interaction/Q&A, and design document, of lore meant to bind F1 and 2 (as well as future titles) in a cohesive manner. While the final product is obviously not that, the 9 (technically 12) "chapters" of the Bible are still as valid and relevant to the series as they were in 2004, when Bethesda began the process of acquiring Fallout, to 2008, when Emil first acknowledged that he "slept with the Bible under his pillow", to now, when Emil again elaborated on the status of several canon works due to my questions in the German interview.

To continue forth, Avellone is, and never was, not an author of the Bible. He wrote it, but the Bible is as much written by him as any Van Buren Design Document, or even any aspect of this forum. It's primary author was Interplay Entertainment, who had never made any kind of statement on the matter, nor does Chris Avellone represent them, as he left the company in 2002, never officially completing the Bible. So an otherwise out of context 2010s statement is as valid as a former Bethesda employee saying something they made for F3 on is not canon. Zenimax may own Fallout, but Bethesda are its prime arbiters of what is canon, and even then there's conflicting statements. Lest we forget that, in an email from Ausir to Emil, Emil said high-level events of Tactics are canon, where Todd said it's no longer canon in any way. The same could easily be true in this manner, in a similar vein to a situation in the Bible, where two head developers shared opposing opinions, which Bethesda (and later Obsidian) came to put a firm statement down on. It's speculation, but if we were to ask Todd his opinion on the matter, I would imagine we would have a very different answer than the one Emil gave, same if we asked the current head devs of 76 if the Atomic Shop is canon, rather than relying on the word of a man who is, by and large, no longer truly associated with 76.

In any case, this only continues on the sentiment Tagaziel addressed earlier today. Fans taking mere words out of context, and using it to apply their own interpretations and meanings as to what they mean. All that's being done is yet another fan attempting to use their interpretation and logic as to make an otherwise arbitrary statement out to be something completely different than what it may or may not be. Sure, not everything in the Bible is canon, nor do people truly assume it to be. Nobody's going to go and say Kaga is a canon NPC who influenced all the major events of Fallout 2. Nor are people going to think that the Burrows or what remains of the EPA are canon as-is. That being said, to reduce it to "barely non-canon" and "semi-canon" once more might as well put the matter back where we started, if make the matter worse. It's as if the wiki took all the statements Joshua Sawyer has ever made regarding the development of New Vegas, and cemented them in this same "dependent canon", or rather "barely non-canon", category, simply because they were either never elaborated upon or may include said weasel wording that's being so prejudiced on each and every thing.

I'd go into further detail, but it simply seems to me that this is only more proof to support my lack of confidence in supporting this rushed vote at all. People jumping in and out, slapping titles here and there that, while good on paper, may cause havoc years, if not months, from now. We label properties as one thing or another, people listen to one person more than others, and while biases exist, and can never truly be qualmed, especially in a matter as democratic as a vote, only really serve to further the interests of a certain few, rather than the many the wiki is supposed to serve.

I leave off with a final statement, if only to provoke thought on what the significance of this vote, this discussion and forum, truly is. Almost a decade and a half ago, in the early days of the Fallout wiki, the main users, Administrators and Bureaucrats, were angered and otherwise spiteful about FO3 and at Bethesda, only truly considering the original games, the Bible and parts of Tactics. This would cause them to work that bias and hatred, genuine or otherwise, into their edits and policies, especially those regarding canon. I myself once fell into such a category, for worse rather than for the better, despite not being a part of the wiki at that time. However, it was those policies and upholdings of philosophies that people came to treat the Bible as a canon or semi-canon work, despite its ramshackle abomination of unrealized ideas and utter failure in the end. Now, in current year, there are those who are completely new to the series, who have the same biases against 4 and 76 as people once did about 3. In that same vein, people's perspectives to Fallout, both Bethesda and the series as a whole, have shifted. But to continue in this, essentially a charade of a vote, purported by those who have lost, or may have never had, passion for the series, its canon, or the people, the companies, that have made it what it is, is no better than to disregard what the developers wanted for the series in the first place. Putting pencil to paper to make a Wasteland sequel, all the way to using Discord screenshots and conversations to determine some mythical mystery of what may otherwise be the simplest of explanations. All that matters, is that we give objective, factual information, in clear, concise manners, written by, and for, anyone who wishes to use the wiki. At the end of the day, no matter how many titles we create for canon, what we slot into which fancy black and white or grey boxes to appeal to our own subjective beliefs on how things should and should not work, if we fail to give the people who read this wiki, who play the games, something to put their trust, faith, and belief in, then nothing matters. Because people come here to read about something they believe in, and that is all that matters. JCB2077 (talk) 04:16, October 9, 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, the whole point of the supplementary category is that it's always secondary to the games themselves and can be contradicted freely or wholly ignored, because, well, the core canon is the only thing we know is binding for Bethesda.

Regarding any special division of the FOB, I do not believe that's necessary. All developer commentary is implicitly only relevant to the games it applies to - I don't think anyone tries to claim the FOB is forever binding anymore, MCA least of all - and since FOB is just a big chunk of developer commentary, it gets treated the same as every other source in that category, second to released games.

I think the biggest obstacle here is that we're dealing with a major fanbase conviction that's been present ever since the Bible released and doubly since this wiki was founded. I'm ashamed to say, but the wiki has definitely contributed a great deal to perpetuating this kind of misinformation (myself included).

My recommendation: Stop treating the Bible as something special going forward. We already give the same treatment to every bit of developer commentary that's not the Bible, after all. Tägäżïël 10:56, October 9, 2020 (UTC)

I've just tried to phrase my point and it feels like I'm at a loss for words. It feels obvious:

1. Core canon, i.e. the games the canon starts with take absolute precedence.
2. Which means everything that's supplementary canon, i.e. expands on the games, can be overwritten, contradicted, or otherwise changed at any time.

This is a rule that applies to everything outside of games, including the FOB. So the rule that Intrepid proposes would be a general rule for everything in the second category: This applies to a specific game in a specific time and can be freely ignored by developers as canon starts with video games and they are the ultimate point of reference. Tägäżïël 11:18, October 9, 2020 (UTC)

Well said. In general, I seek to codify the idea that developer commentary such as the Bible should be narrowly applied only to the title(s) it was written for. Because, sadly, I have seen editors attempt to apply developer commentary from the Bible to titles like 76. In some cases, the Bible has been treated as a primary source for 76, overriding the game's own lore. In my humble opinion, I'd like it if that was explicitly addressed in no uncertain terms. I don't think the quasi-religious fervor with the Bible will end if there is any room for interpretation. --Intrepid359 (talk) 18:38, October 9, 2020 (UTC)

There's a reason why I stay away from the Reddit/Facebook Fallout communities. As a wiki, we can certainly do better, and I agree with everything that's been discussed here. ^寧靜 18:59, October 9, 2020 (UTC)

Hybrid may not be the best word to describe it, but I understand the underlying idea of placing the bible as dependent canon, with the asterisk that as a behind the scenes content, much of what it is, cannot be disregarded. It's been talked about at length several times already, but there does still seem to be some unfamiliarity or confusion about what sort of resource the bible is. Tag's point 4 under addressing the no votes is about as clear an explanation of what the bible is, as we could hope to see; background information and insight into the minds of the devs surrounding the games which fell under its umbrella, but not an accurate portrayal of lore in the Bethesda era.

Bethesda can adopt, disregard, or repurpose any ideas in the bible without have to retcon information provided in the canon games. However, what Bethesda cannot do is deny any noted behind the scenes information, so cited inspiration or real life development details cannot be ignored. For instance, Todd or even Phil, could come out and make all sorts of claims about the heritage and history of Dogmeat, but Scott Bennie will have always been the man who named Dogmeat, a detail the bible gives us.

In terms of lore information, based on past references to the bible as well as the most recent from the Emil interview, the bible's information viewed on a case by case basis, and none of its lore based contents should be taken at face value unless properly reintroduced as canon. Of the proposed categories, this seems most inline with dependent canon's introduction as content that does not fall strictly into the non-canon category, but due to various reasons may not be compatible with the core canon.

Because of the discrepancies between the two types of entries in the bible, behind the scenes material and expounding on lore, rather than create a hybrid role for the bible, I would propose the two very different aspects be represented separately. So that under supplementary canon we see an entry exactly as written above, noting it as essentially dev diary, and under either dependent or non-canon we see a separate entry explaining something similar to denote how the lore specific information is not gospel. Although, which category would be more appropriate is a little more complicated, and based on Emil's recent interview, I would say that the bible should be treated the same as Tactics. That could mean any dated lore assertions be considered wholly non-canon, something even Avellone has said. Alternatively, both the bible and Tactics, based on the Emil interview, could also be placed under dependent canon. It's what is in Fallout 1, Fallout 2... even some of like, Fallout Tactics is- there's some stuff from canon from Fallout Tactics as well strikes me tactics being on par with at least other dependent media, such as the Creation Club, Atomic Shop, or Fallout Shelter. With that in mind, the bible and Tactics could just as accurately be dependent instead of non canon. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 10:03, October 12, 2020 (UTC)

Discrepancies page

I believe that a discrepancies page would be beneficial to have with the levels. Not only for reader transparency but to aid with transition to the new system.Believe it or not, Todo isn't at home. Please leave a message at the talk page. I must be out, or I'd pick up the message. Where could I be? Believe it or not, I'm not home. (talk) 16:02, October 19, 2020 (UTC)

---

---

Policy vote forum overview
Policy	Fallout canon
Proposal discussion	Calls for ideas
Proposal vote	Vote: Fallout canon policy overhaul
Date and result	20 October 2020 · 11-5-3