Talk: Salient Green

This talk page is only for discussing improvements to the page "Salient Green." For general discussion or to share stories about the topic of this article, please visit our the "Fallout: New Vegas general discussion" or "Fallout: New Vegas gameplay help" forum. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) after each of your entries. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Do not edit other people's entries. For general conversation on this topic, please visit our the "Fallout: New Vegas general discussion" or "Fallout: New Vegas gameplay help" forum.

Page name[]

Shouldn't this be spelt Soylent Green, not Sailent Green? 04:18, July 20, 2011 (UTC) →No, the game refers to it both vocally and textually as Sailent Green 96.27.105.254 11:45, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not 166.205.13.137 04:36, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have the DLC yet. I just assumed that the name was meant to be Soylent, because it made more sense. Please forgive me! 12:03, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

Actually it makes more sense that the spelling and name of the product would not be Spelled Soylent like in the real life. this is due to the fact that in the fallout Universe the time line Split in 1946 rather then in the future after the fall out games were made. Its theoretically possible that in the alternate 1973 of the Fall out universe that they had a movie called Salient Green Staring charleton hasten. but thats just conjecture. but clearly the Salient Green of the Fallout universe is a reference to the Soylent Green movie and concept in our own universe. Promethius20 (talk) 22:44, November 9, 2013 (UTC)

Soylent geen is people - salient green is plants

Skill Used.[]

Anyone else think crafting with this should have required the Science skill? FusionWarrior86 19:26, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

Stim recipe[]

First thing I noticed is you can break down all the plants you collect and reform it into equal parts xander and broc for stimpacks. Add that to the bajillion empty syringes you can get from turning in coffee cups to Muggy and you get more stims than you get out of completing dead money using that special vending machine. Its obvious, yes, but for people that didn't notice the opportunity.

• • Hell this can solve famine problems, convert the stuff into salient green for easy package and then resplice them to usable foodstuff, this is really miracle technology 24.84.72.96 19:43, August 4, 2011 (UTC)

Speculation[]

Decided to bring this discussion to the official talk-page. It seems to me, though, that the background information we have listed here is pretty speculative. In the movie, Soylant Green is made from people, and its sole use was for feeding other people. Salient Green, however, is made entirely from plants, and is used for cloning other plants while providing little nutrients by itself. (As seen by its low effects.)

I've attempted to ask JSawyer 3 times now throughout the past year, and have not received a response. So what does the community think? Aside from the similar name, and that alone, there's really nothing pointing towards the Salient Green being a reference to Soylent Green. If there was literally anything else other than a name that was similar, I'd write this off as geek knowledge. But there simply is not. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 18:13, August 28, 2013 (UTC)

Jumped into New Vegas and began cross-referencing information, and nothing is coming up. If anyone knows of references made that I am unaware of, then let me know on here. If not, I'll be removing this information later today. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:59, August 28, 2013 (UTC)

There must be a reason why the developers chose to name it "Salient Green." In the film soylent green was said to be made of plankton (what kind of plankton I don't think was mentioned, so we don't know whether it's phytoplankton or what). I can see how making the connection almost completely based off name similarities is dubious. Until we one day get a conclusive answer, I would support its removal. --Skire (talk) 21:30, August 28, 2013 (UTC)

I wish we had conclusive information at hand. I was hoping Sawyer would get back to me, but I haven't been able to get a response out of him for nearly 7 months. This topic on the talk-page should be useful, just in-case somebody is able to make the connection. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 21:45, August 28, 2013 (UTC)

Soylant green is people! I had to say it. I believe the reference should remain as it is valid. The link is obvious and I think if we remove this just because we don't get a direct verification from the dev then we should go through and do some housecleaning. If I was a dev I seriously would leave stuff like that up to the imagination of the gaming community and not have to hold the hand of them. Running to the dev each time and asking "what did you mean by that" might not get a response. Especially multiple requests. I think it's valid and if it's been here this long and no one has complained until one person, I think this is a non issue.--Kingclyde (talk) 23:31, November 9, 2013 (UTC)

I would normally agree with you. But Soylent Green and Salient Green have literally nothing shared between the two except a slightly similar name. One is made from people, and one is made from plants. Not even specified as Plankton. One was used to feed other people, and the other is simply a nutrient paste used to clone additional plants. There's simply nothing besides similar names to cross-reference. Without even the slightest shred of evidence to base a confirmation upon, we cannot even state this speculation as geek knowledge. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 01:04, November 10, 2013 (UTC)

Then we need to wipe clean almost all of the behind the scenes sections as most of them are not verified by the developers. Things like this are really obvious references Leon and my guess as to why you haven't gotten a response is either 1.)he's to busy or 2.)he's thinking "really you can't see the link there?" I think it's the latter. I'm not even sure as to where you are getting this definition of "geek knowledge". Ausir got confirmation of this long ago as I informed you and I see you came in at a later date and removed it anyways. I hate to say it this way, but the Vault has it as valid information because it is valid information. It needs to be placed in the article. First off, you brought this up for discussion in here on the 28th of August. Granted it's a little late for me to be bitching about protocol, but you posted a note on a talk page about removing a section from an article AFTER removing it. And then you say you will remove the info later today? Anyways, we need to follow protocol a little better. Ok rant complete. Fact is, Ausir got confirmation a long time ago, the Vault has it and it's a very obvious reference.--Kingclyde (talk) 02:31, November 10, 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I've removed a lot of Ausir's references, because it turns out he had a tendency to never source them. I do agree with you that this is more than likely an obvious one. But without one thing to cross-reference, I am not going to make an assumption off of my own perceptions. Just like the devs said that Liberty Prime was in no way a reference to Optimus Prime, there's a chance that Salient Green is not a reference to Soylent Green. As for me removing the information, please check the page history. I removed it once long ago because I agreed to ask JSawyer first. But after 7 months of never hearing back from him, and with no evidence shown, I came back in, started up a new thread on the TP, and removed the speculation. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 02:38, November 10, 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Actually, I didn't remove that information the same day that I added the thread on this TP. I removed it the next day. Had to recheck that. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 02:45, November 10, 2013 (UTC)

Speculation, Part II[]

It is an obvious reference. Our standards for behind the scenes items states "Behind the scenes" information in the form of cultural references is acceptable page content only when there are direct visual or textual correlations." There is a direct textual correlation. Developer confirmation does not enter into it, as that is only required for Real world weapon comparisons. Therefore, no developer confirmation necessary. Richie9999 (talk) 04:32, November 26, 2014 (UTC)

Second. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 04:36, November 26, 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Remember when we all thought Liberty Prime was a reference to Optimus Prime? We said that it was a fact, and did not need developer commentary. But when we did get a developer to comment on it, guess what? It was not a reference, and was merely a coincidence. So here is the deal with Salient Green:

• It is not make out of plankton, and it is not made out of people. So this cannot be a reference.
• Salient Green was not meant to feed the entire planet, and its sole purpose was to clone plants. So this cannot be a reference.
• It is a gooey liquid, where Soylent Green were little green bars. So this cannot be a reference.
• Salient Green provides almost no nutritional value. So this cannot be a reference.

Where am I getting at? Aside from similar names, there are absolutely no reference available to even suggest that there is a connection. Saying that there does not need to be developer commentary, on something that has absolutely no connections to Soylent Green, is confirmation bias. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 07:20, November 26, 2014 (UTC)

P.S. - the relevant policies, are as follows:

• "All content needs to be accurate. Fallout Wiki aims to provide reliable information. In particular, adding speculation and own inventions (fan fiction, fan art etc.) to articles should be avoided."
• "All content needs to be verifiable. Other editors need to be able to check and verify it." ^{Some Assembly Required!} 07:39, November 26, 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason not to make the reference, as long as it is framed right. "Salient Green appears to be a reference to Soylent Green..." or something similar. It could be a reference, and given the word structure it would appear likely.

Getting into the nitty gritty like "It cannot be a reference because specific element X isnt exactly the same" is both unhelpful would see us have to remove references we know are true - For example, Chyrslus isnt exactly the same as Chrysler, from what I can tell they never had a triangle symbol (A star/pentagram and stretched pentagram that looked like a sword seem to be the major ones), and the Corvega isn't related to any Chrysler model but Chevrolet - which is very close to the word Chevron which could describe the Chyrslus logo) - but I dont think anyone would take an argument that Chryslus is anyone but chrysler seriously. Agent c (talk) 12:44, November 26, 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that you're getting hung up on it being a specific reference to the product from the film. It can be a reference to the film itself without having to be the titular product. As a name, Salient green makes no sense at all. The word salient has nothing to do with anything that is plant related. Just because it doesn't make a direct reference to the soylent green and how it is people does not prevent it from being a reference. It fits in as a reference in the same way as Mobius' reference to plan 9 from outer space, a little off the cuff reference to old sci-fi films that OWB is so keen on references. Again, it also fits the criteria as having direct textual correlations, just because you did not get a developer to confirm it one way or the other does not make it any less valid. If we go off of that criteria we lose damn near all of our Fallout 1 - Fallout 3 behind the scenes and cultural references. Richie9999 (talk) 12:56, November 26, 2014 (UTC)

Using the "Liberty Prime =/= Optimus Prime" example is stupid, because having classification that it's not a reference is very different from just not having a reference, which our rules on BTS say we don't need anyway. Like Richie says, if you really think that we need a source for every reference then A) we need to change the rules and B) we may as well remove BTS since we don't have (and won't get) sources for 90% of our pages.

At the end of the day, not only is there a very clear textual correlation (with near identical names) and the fact that "Salient Green" makes no sense as anything but a reference, but also it is the sort of thing that Obsidian would reference, especially in OWB.

This is not a stretch, and we do not need a source for every single reference, only when comparing weapons to IRL weapons. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 15:38, November 26, 2014 (UTC)

The salient point here in regards to the reference is not the use of the item, that is irrelevant. The point is the name "Salient Green" its ultimate purpose in game and how it is used does not matter. We call for and require a direct visual or textual correlation. As far as textual correlations go, this fits the bill. As Jasper pointed out, if you wish to require a citation for every behind the scenes reference, feel free to propose a policy change, however, under our current policy this reference meets the standards. Richie9999 (talk) 16:36, November 26, 2014 (UTC)

Support. Broad content policies as in FW:C are applicable until there are more defined policies for specific content, like FW:RWWR. The more specific policy always has more applicability than the less defined general policy. In FW:BTS, it states ""Behind the scenes" information in the form of cultural references is acceptable page content only when there are direct visual or textual correlations.". This more specific policy forces us to weigh applicability of BTS content with a heavier weight towards "direct visual or textual correlations", and with a lesser weight towards "speculation...should be avoided" and " Other(s)... (can) verify it". Keep in mind that FW:IDCHYUTDI,YWDIW* states that the improper application or interpretation of policies in the past does not warrant the continued application or interpretation of policies in the future. Just because some people have tried to apply developer confirmation required for BTS references that are not real world weapon references, does not mean we should continue to do so. The most specific policy that applies here clearly states that there only be a "textual" correlation. I think that the name of the item clearly meets that threshold.

*Disclaimer: This is not an official policy, but it sure as hell should be one.  The Gunny   16:55, November 26, 2014 (UTC)

What Mr Gunny said. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 17:13, November 26, 2014 (UTC)

The most specific policy relevant here, clearly states that all content must be verifiable, by all editors. That means that with any given interpretation of content, the content must be without ambiguity, to the point where any user can go in, and confirm that a reference is true from actual sources. The entire reason why speculation is such a nuisance to wikis, is because everyone thinks that their speculation is right. Why you guys keep bringing up vague BtS rules, makes no sense, as there are actual, specific, general policies in place to combat speculation.

And this is not a new thing. Before the split, Gothemasticator led the campaign to remove speculation from articles, and after he left, I picked up the torch. Maybe you guys do not remember the stifling amount of speculation that was on our articles before, but I would hate to see it return, all because a few users attempted to bypass policy by informally voting in speculation, which will set in a dangerous precedent, such as the one seen when this wiki was originally started up on Wikia. It might be the most obvious reference in the world. But with absolutely nothing connecting Salient Green and Soylent Green together, aside from a similar name, there is no way that we can make an objective claim to the reference.

In any case, there is not a direct textual correlation. Here is the definition of direct: "proceeding in an unbroken line of descent; lineal rather than collateral:" Guess what? Soylent --> Salient represents a broken line of descent there. Saying that there is a direct textual correlation, is confirmation bias, and does not represent an objectional reference. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 17:22, November 26, 2014 (UTC)

Not quite a regular editor here by any means, but to weigh in on the issue, I feel it can be nothing but a reference to Soylent Green. The term "Salient Green" in and of itself doesn't make any sense, and this has been mentioned: in order to make the assumption that Salient Green may simply be the item's name rather than a reference, it must be able to stand on its own. It cannot. To assume that Salient Green is not a reference to Soylent Green is to assume that the developers would have given the item a nonsensical name for no apparent reason, which they simply would not do. Everything is for a reason in game development. ---AR- (talk) 19:12, November 26, 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I also consider it a reference. But at the same time, I am not going to pretend as if I was a developer. You say the developers would not create a nonsensical name, yet how do you know that? None of us do, and that is the truth. We have thought numerous things were blaringly obvious, in the past, just to be proven wrong later down the road. I still use the Liberty Prime being proven to not be a reference to Optimus Prime, as a perfect example. Or the fact that we have used direct visual correlation to state half-truths before on our weapons articles, just for Joshua Sawyer to prove us wrong later.

The bottom-line is, no matter how obvious something might be, we cannot pretend as if we know the reasoning behind any of the developer's intentions. With absolutely no cultural connections given to us, to correlate Salient Green and Soylent Green as a reference point, means that it cannot be anything but speculation should we ever attempt to state that there is a reference point. With only a similar name in place, it would be irresponsible of us to start claiming facts where there possibly are none. Ignorance does not equal knowledge. ^{Some Assembly Required!}

By that logic Mobius stating that "I suspect I have Plan 9s in place, but I may have coded myself to forget them, just in case... they're probably very dangerous, lethal, or worse." Is not a valid reference to Plan 9 From Outer Space. Nor is "It's 106 miles to Arroyo, we've got a full fusion cell, half a pack of RadAway, it's midnight, and I'm wearing a 50 year old Vault 13 jumpsuit. Let's hit it." A reference to the Blues Brothers. The same goes for the Police Call Box in Fallout, a reference to Doctor Who. Just because a developer does not confirm it does not mean it is not a reference. The lack of developer confirmation pointing to it being a reference does not automatically mean that it is not a reference as the developers did not say it wasn't a reference. The direct textual correlation, as stated previously, is present. Liberty Prime not being a reference to Optimus Prime is a shitty example due to the generic nature of the terminology used and the SENSE that the use of the term makes. Again, as previously stated Salient Green makes no sense as a name. Salient has the following meanings: "most noticeable or important." " 1: moving by leaps or springs : jumping, 2: jetting upward <a salient fountain>, 3 a : projecting beyond a line, surface, or level." Prime's definition, however makes perfect sense in context.

Just because developers can confirm every possible cultural reference we may see in a game, does not mean they will. It would seem that you have placed too much value on something that is in no way required to the point of going against what you see as being correct and many other editors see as correct simply because you could not get J.E. Sawyer to answer your question one way or another. His confirmation is not required.

The reference itself is easily verifiable by any editor with even the slightest familiarity with the Film "Soylent Green" even if they just recognize it as being a reference to the name alone. Stating that all references must be verifiable by any editor would mean that they require the background knowledge that each and every reference requires. Just because I did not make the connection between Seymour (Lonesome Road) and the fossilized dog from Futurama does not decrease the validity of the reference. If you would suggest it does then that is both foolish and serves to undermine the many editors and individuals who saw the item and got the reference.

Additionally to say that it is not a reference (despite the obviousness, which has always seemed to be a bit of an unspoken rule in regards to behind the scenes content not related to RWWC) is speculation in itself. You are assuming that it is not a reference due to a lack of a reply. That is foolish. I could ask FO1, FO2, FO3 and Tactics devs about behind the scenes items in those games and never get a response. That makes the references no less valid.

If you were to suggest, Garoux, that those references, such as the Tardis, such as the description for the .44 Magnum in the first two games, such as quoting the Godfather to the Intelligent Radscoripion, the South Park quote in Fallout, and much more are acceptable then you serve to contradict yourself as Salient Green is just as obvious as a great deal of the cultural and behind the scenes references made throughout the entire series, references that have always been little jokes added by the developers since the first game. One outlier in the form of Liberty Prime not being a reference to Optimus Prime, does not serve to eliminate the validity of others.

Finally, as said throughout this discussion, our policy calls for textual correlation, Salient Green makes the cut in that regard. As stated before the use of the item is irrelevant here, the name is all that is Salient to this discussion, just as Mobius' reference to Plan 9s in some place is clearly a reference to Plan 9 From Outer Space (despite us not knowing what those mysterious Plan 9s entail).

Richie9999 (talk) 21:05, November 26, 2014 (UTC)

Confirmation is required to state something as fact. Were super mutants human? Yes, as this is explained in-game as an observable fact. Is That Gun a reference to Blade Runner? Yes, because the gun is a carbon-copy of the unique gun seen in Blade Runner, which constitutes as geek knowledge. Is Seymour a reference to Futurama? Yes, because not only does Seymour share the same name, and is a dog, but is also a unique cultural reference that can only be traced to a single source.

I am also not going to get into how we have other speculation on this wiki. It is a well known issue, that in our thousands of articles, that there is speculation that still has not been accounted for. Using speculation that has not been addressed yet, to justify adding speculation, is a fallacy. Our content policies, which dictates everything placed into our article-space, clearly states that all information needs to be objectively verifiable by all editors and readers.

You are basing this as a fact, instead of a truth, because of a similar name. But having a similar name, is neither a direct textual correlation, as I explained, nor is it proof of a fact, instead of a simple truth. No one, so far, has provided any evidence, instead using argumentum ad populum and personal interpretation, to try and shoehorn in what is clearly speculation as of this point in time. You can keep denying our content policies, but denying reality does not make the reality around you disappear. The content policies do exist, and they have made it mandatory to provide verifiable sources for all content placed here.

We are, first and foremost, an encyclopedia. It is our duty, to keep this wiki as professional and non-biased as humanely possible, although it is an unfortunate reality that we are fallible as humans. But we are still obligated to do what we can to uphold this wiki as an encyclopedia, and the precedents being suggested here do not reflect the quality and standards we should be aiming for. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 21:17, November 26, 2014 (UTC)

With regards to the Liberty Prime reference, under our policies, it was a valid reference until such time we had a dev quote stating the opposite. I'm with Richie. If you read our policy about behind the lines content the way suggested by Mr. Garouxbloodline, you'd need to remove way too much info that obviously and clearly, to most people, belongs on the pages. Most comments on this talk page support adding the content. Unless a lot more folks than Mr. Garouxbloodline disagree with it, the content should go back on the page. We don't work on a "Well, one person doesn't like it" process. The Gunny   21:26, November 26, 2014 (UTC)

Garoux, there is direct textual correlation. The name does not stand on its own legs without the reference as, otherwise, it is little more than two random words combined. The policy requirements are met we DO NOT REQUIRE developer confirmation for behind the scenes information that is not a real world weapon comparison. Let me repeat because you seem to not understand this point: THE DEVELOPER CONFIRMATION IS NOT NECESSARY IN THIS SITUATION. The fact that you were able to understand the reference, the fact that multiple other users have understood the reference and made edits to that effect shows that if most certainly meets the direct textual correlation requirement this is the main policy that is salient, that is germane, that is REQUIRED for this item. If you think it needs developer confirmation, feel free to propose a policy change. Richie9999 (talk) 21:31, November 26, 2014 (UTC)

Well, that seems to be consensus. We mention its a reference. Agent c (talk) 21:57, November 26, 2014 (UTC)

Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. Informal votes do not bypass policy - if you want to create an exception to our policies, then a forum needs to be started. I am also questioning the fact, that the admin that was edit-warring, was the one to add this speculation back. I am not going to address the other points, because the simple fact is that we have a content policy, which states that all information needs to be verifiable by every editor. I cannot verify this speculation, and no one has provided any proof to contradict my questions.

Do you want me to drudge up examples as to how you guys are acting like any other editor that kicks and screams, trying to get what they want, even though what they want is clearly against policy? The only difference, is that we have a bunch of our leadership now, which are supposed to be setting good examples as to adhering to our policies, which can actually get away with their kicking and screaming. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 07:03, November 27, 2014 (UTC)

Complaining that we're just "kicking and screaming" because we disagree with you on how the polices work is pointless, especially from a veteran kicker and screamer such as yourself. Don't try and distract from the discussion at hand by yelling "YOU'RE ALL SO CHILDISH! STOP BEING CHILDISH". So no, we do not want you to "drudge up examples" of anything, because it's a waste of time and makes this a petty dick measuring contest instead of a actual discussion.

Seeing as you're the only one who thinks that our general content rules are not superseded by our more specific BTS content rules bringing up "argumentum ad populum" as a logical fallacy is irrelevant.JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 10:40, November 27, 2014 (UTC)

To me, the connection to Soylent Green for this item is much stronger than, for example, the BtS for Lucy West, which has nonetheless been allowed to remain: "Lucy's name is a possible reference to the character Lucy Westenra from Bram Stoker's Dracula. They both have connections to vampires, and they were the first victims of a chain of unfortunate events that affect their loved ones." --FFIX (talk) 21:38, November 27, 2014 (UTC)

In any application of rules, the more "general" rules give way to the specific rules.

In general, anything is permitted that isn't prohibited. For content, there are more specific rules, and then when it comes to behind the scenes, there is a very specific rule:

Rules cannot be read in a way that the more general rule makes the specific a nullity - it results in an absurdity - why have the specific rule if it can never be applied.

As such, for Any supposed policy conflict, the most specific rule applies, when there is one.

In this case, the standard set in place by the most specific policy is "Direct visual or textual correlations".

To then hold it to the standard of "Developer Confirmation" would render the previous lower standard irrational... Unless anyone would like to argue that we would reject a developer confirmed reference without correlation (which is a result the only other possible reading of the two rules together). Agent c (talk) 22:06, November 27, 2014 (UTC)