We've Moved! Just as Gamepedia has joined forces with Fandom, this wiki had joined forces with our Fandom equivalent. The wiki has been archived and we ask that readers and editors move to the now combined wiki on Fandom. Click to go to the new wiki.

Forum:Revisiting the Shady Sands pages

From The Vault - Fallout Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Revisiting the Shady Sands pages

Not really sure how to start this off, so here goes: as far as I can see, we have effectively three pages for the same location:

As I see it, we need only two:

  • New California Republic (town), for the geographical location which is the capital of NCR, which can cover both the FO1 and FO2 location, in the same way that Harold covers the FO1 and FO2 character
  • Shady Sands, for the NCR state of Shady Sands

The original split, which imo is messy, doesn't seem to have had any discussion or consensus backing it up (correct me if I'm wrong, Tagaziel has indicated that there is no guideline other than this precedent), and so I'd like to finally have this discussion here. It's pretty relevant, as Itachou is attempting to do the same things with the Arroyo page(s) now, and I feel like that before it goes ahead it should go to the community. The main point of the discussion is this: should location pages be specific to a geographical location, spanning multiple games (like character pages), or separated according to game, like weapon pages. I suppose a big part of it is whether you view the wiki as documenting the Fallout lore primarily, or the Fallout gameplay primarily.
Related reading; the conversation from which this thread was born (sorry for the annoying links, but the way that user talk pages are laid out on this wiki does not make following a conversation between two or more users particularly easy): [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]
--Lugiatm (talk · contribs) 22:35, June 9, 2011 (UTC)

We document both lore and gameplay here. Hence why we have overview pages (mainly lore) and game pages (game play) even for weapons. Some examples Laser pistol for weapons, Feral ghoul for creatures. This standard was set a while back with long discussion and enacted via the The Vault:Item page overhaul project and more recently with the The Vault:Fallout 3 creatures project and The Vault:Fallout: New Vegas creatures project. So I do not see why locations should be any different to what has already been set out and discussed at length. User:AvatarUser talk:Avatar 22:48, June 9, 2011 (UTC)
All true, but I feel that locations are an issue which should be considered separately, because unlike creatures and weapons, characters and factions are handled much more from a lore POV - being treated as the same entity over multiple games and even engines (e.g. Harold, Marcus), so although there is internal consistency for creatures and weapons, there is no such consistency across the wiki for all pages. --Lugiatm (talk · contribs) 22:56, June 9, 2011 (UTC)
Nothing to say more, all was told by Ghost and I agree with the policy already used by The Vault for all these type of pages. "Characters - factions" and "locations" are very two different things. Itachou [~talk~] 23:05, June 9, 2011 (UTC)
I don't quite understand what you are getting at. Characters and factions may be very different to locations, but it's not exactly like creatures and weapons are in any way similar to locations. --Lugiatm (talk · contribs) 23:09, June 9, 2011 (UTC)
While it is true that characters and factions are combined (and that may need to be reconsidered also based on the newer layout, but one topic at a time), characters and factions being specific entity's that evolve over time tend to find themselves landing more on the lore side of the fence. Now in the case of locations, it is a even split in my books as to what a reader would desire. So with that being the case we should also split them on separate pages for lore and gameplay. User:AvatarUser talk:Avatar 23:22, June 9, 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the need to change the way it's being done currently. There are few such cases anyway, and I think they're fine the way they are. Ausir(talk) <staff/> 17:33, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

GhostAvatar: I think geographical locations should also be considered as single entities that evolve over time along with characters and factions. Creatures and weapons usually have a shared history, but these histories are not likely to evolve as new games are released, whereas locations, characters and factions are. While there are few locations that appear in multiple games, most locations from FO1 and FO2 have had their story expanded by FNV, which has confirmed canon endings and so on. Although you say there are few such pages, Ausir, Itachou has gone ahead and created two pages for Arroyo (a "background" page and a "gameplay" page) already, and the same could be applied to all other location pages from those games, as their stories have evolved in FNV - with Arroyo's splitting, our approach is now inconsistent.
I have created three draft pages. Does anybody have any objection to their implementation?
--Lugiatm (talk · contribs) 10:22, June 13, 2011 (UTC)
I think in general we do consider locations to be single evolving entities, like characters and factions. Such pages are split only if the location reappars in a later vastly changed and with a completely new name (e.g. Shady Sands vs. New California Republic (town)) or if a non-canon version cannot be reconciled with new canon (e.g. Hoover Dam (Van Buren)). In case of New Arroyo, there is no need for a split, since the name change is not that big, and there is only one gameplay implementation of the location, not two or more.
Speaking of which, what is the source of New Arroyo being a member of the NCR? I don't remember any such mention, but if it is indeed mentioned, it should be properly referenced in the article. And what's the source for the name "New Arroyo" as opposed to just "Arroyo"? Ausir(talk) <staff/> 13:58, June 13, 2011 (UTC)
I don't have a source for New Arroyo being NCR, I only kept it there because it was previously stated in the article. If it's mentioned anywhere, I suppose it'll be Emily Ortal's dialogue.
Arroyo does need a split, but for a different reason. New Arroyo is a completely different settlement to Arroyo, it's geographically distinct (despite being listed as the same for quite some time on the wiki) - this was up for discussion before but Itachou removed it [14]. The evidence for this is strong: Fallout 2 endings state that Arroyo was resettled (as in, settled elsewhere). Also, Navarro is hundreds of miles from Vault 13, and Arroyo was known to be near the mountains sheltering Vault 13. The ending also states that a "new community" was built. --Lugiatm (talk · contribs) 14:09, June 13, 2011 (UTC)
"Resettled" could just as well mean it being rebuild after it was destroyed by the Enclave in Fallout 2. And again, what's the source for the name "New Arroyo"? I don't recall it being called that anywhere. And Arroyo was nowhere near Vault 13. And what does Navarro have to do with it? Arroyo was even more distant from Vault 13 than Navarro. New community - as in one composed of Vault 13 dwellers and Arroyo villagers. Ausir(talk) <staff/> 14:15, June 13, 2011 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)Well the dictionary definition of "resettled" means "settled elsewhere", and that's the exact word used in the endings. The wording and circumstances also support the case for New Arroyo being in a different location. The Navarro thing is my bad, I read "I wandered the desert, but never moved far from the mountains that shielded the Vault from the rest of the world" in the Vault Dweller's memoirs and just assumed. As for the source of the name New Arroyo, I've checked the article history, and the source seems to be, well, you. --Lugiatm (talk · contribs) 14:24, June 13, 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but it was an old error on my part that was corrected years ago, and the page was merged with Arroyo for a reason. I don't know of any canon use of the name "New Arroyo". The in-game location of Arroyo is also more canon than the memoirs. I only recalls mentions of "Arroyo" and not "New Arroyo" in FNV.
As for the definition of "resettled", some dictionaries give both meanings. The actual wording of the ending can be interpreted either way, really, since the V13 dwellers were never inhabitants of Arroyo, and the original Arroyo village was destroyed and its inhabitants taken to the oil rig, so they "resettled" anyway. But given the FNV usage of just "Arroyo", I think them settling again in the same place is more likely. Ausir(talk) <staff/> 14:34, June 13, 2011 (UTC)
"Resettle" to mean settled again in the same area doesn't seem to be a common usage (if it is correct at all), it certainly doesn't come up as any of the first results of a search. So while it is conceivable that it could mean this, it does not seem likely at all. You have a point about the V13 dwellers never being inhabitants of Arroyo, however the ending refers to them as a single entity, "the refugees of Arroyo and Vault 13 resettled". On the "new community" point, I don't think it means one composed of Arroyans and dwellers, because it says "Finding themselves hundreds of miles from their Vault, the members of Vault 13 chose to join the villagers in establishing a new community", implying that the Arroyans were going to establish a new community with or without the dwellers.
I can absolutely see why you'd think settling in the same place is likely, especially given the usage of "Arroyo" in FNV. But to me the language in the ending (just saw "new settlement", hadn't noticed that before) is unambiguous.
Of course, there's also the possibility that the devs have got their own lore wrong. You have stated in the past that Obsidian use the wiki to check the game's backstory, it's conceivable that they assumed Arroyo was in the same place because it was listed as a single page for so many years. I guess that's why it's so important for the wiki to be accurate; it's our job to document the lore, not write it. --Lugiatm (talk · contribs) 15:03, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

Given that the original Arroyo village was destroyed, the new one, created with the GECK, was certainly a "new settlement" even if in the same place. And I still stand by interpreting the "new community" part as I have. Anyway, I don't think the page did ever state directly that the new settlement was necessarily in the same place as the old Arroyo (it wasn't even named directly in the FO2 ending), just that they established one, without certainty on whether it was in the same place or not. Given the FNV usage of just "Arroyo" (instead of "New Arroyo", which despite being removed quite a few times from the wiki has still managed to creep back into it a bunch of times), I'd lean towards the version with it being in the same place as canon now, anyway. Ausir(talk) <staff/> 16:03, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

Also, just because the other meaning of resettlement doesn't show up in search result only means that people tend to write more about people being resettled (which is understandable). And the fat that it doesn't show up in every online dictionary doesn't mean it's incorrect, simply that it is a bit less common. Online dictionaries are often pretty simple as far as dictionaries go. Ausir(talk) <staff/> 19:31, June 13, 2011 (UTC)