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 The wiki has been archived and we ask that readers and editors move to the now combined wiki on Fandom.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.

Talk:New Canaan

From The Vault - Fallout Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Talkpage.png
This talk page is only for discussing improvements to the page "New Canaan".
It is not the place for general discussion or sharing stories about the topic of this article. Please use the forums for these purposes.

Appearence?

The place would be fascinating to look at considering it's residents and history. According to the list of vaults the people of Vault 70 founded the city. Vault 70 was designed to have all jumpsuit extruders fail after 6 months. But also the vault's population were Mormons. Generations of Mormon beliefs and several generations of having to live with little clothing. Very conflicting ideals. I wonder what kind of people it turned out and what kind of society lives in New Canaan now.--A Pickering 15:57, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

Will probably be in an upcoming DLC. (Heard rumors from a few devs)

!!!!!MAJOR SPOILERS!!!!! I was sad that we never got to see any of the places Jed Masterson talked about before he got picked off in the opening scenario of Honest Hearts. That said Zion canyon is still easily the most beautiful place in the entire game including all the DLCs.an0my 22:12, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

New Canaan has been destroyed!

New Canaan was destroyed by the White Legs as a "rite of passage" when Caesar offered them a chance to prove their worthiness to the Legion. --Forerunner93 16:14, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

Split

I wish the {{split}} template had been present for longer than 5 hours for there to be a discussion, as I have some reservations about the split. Looking at the template, I do not think the reasons given are valid for splitting [1]. The template states that the New Canaan of Honest Hearts is inconsistent with the New Canaan of Van Buren, but I disagree with this. The examples cited are that in Van Buren, New Canaan is built on the ruins of Ogden, which differs from Honest Hearts. This is simply not true, it is stated explicitly in Honest Hearts that New Canaan is built atop the ruins of Ogden. The template also states that Salt Lake City is said to be vaporized in Honest Hearts, and therefore the two New Canaans must be dissimilar. As well as not being pertinent to New Canaan whatsoever, the fact that Salt Lake City is said to be vaporized does not mean that it cannot be repopulated with the aid of three G.E.C.K.'s, so it does not directly contradict any aspect of New Canaan's backstory. In fact, apart from the fact that Bishop Mordecai is the head of the New Canaan congregation, the fact that it is destroyed, and the obvious date differences (all of which are summed up in four lines of "Background" in the current revision [2]), no aspect of the New Canaan of Honest Hearts that I know of directly contradicts any aspect of the New Canaan of Van Buren. Additionally, the fact that New Canaan is "mentioned-only" means that it is unlikely that the page will ever need expansion beyond its current stubby state, and such a small page can be integrated with the Van Buren page pretty cleanly.
My concern is that readers will come to this page to learn more about New Canaan and miss the link at the top, and assume that there is no more to know about this settlement. This would be a terrible shame because part of what attracted me to this wiki is how you could be reading about a familiar subject and stumble across a cool little bit of information like what was once on this page.
I have added a merge template to the page, and would appreciate it if it was not removed until the community reaches a consensus on this issue. I am under the impression that this is standard practice on most wikis, however the quick implementation of the split without a discussion makes me feel the need to reiterate this. --Lugiatm (talk · contribs) 00:15, May 19, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I haven't had a chance to play it yet, so I thought the reasons given were valid and that it needs to be split just like the Hoover Dam page, which is entirely incompatible. From what you're saying, yeah, looks like the VB version of New Canaan is still compatible with HH. Ausir(talk) <staff/> 02:46, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
It isn't. There is no mention of New Jerusalem whatsoever in Honest Hearts anywhere, for instance. I'll elaborate on it later. http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 20:18, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
Much of the original New Canaan design doc bases on New Jerusalem in the ruins of Salt Lake City and there is no indication that it ever existed in Honest HEarts. The only indication is that it was reduced to ashes with no less than thirteen nukes. If we are to remerge, then New Jerusalem stuff needs to go, only the New Canaan background should remain. http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 20:45, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, I see how you might see that as putting them as separate locations, but the lack of mention of New Jerusalem doesn't in any way contradict the New Canaan page - if it was explicitly said "there was no New Jerusalem" or even "the Mormons went straight from Vault 70 to Ogden", I would see your point, but that's not the case. It's unsurprising that New Jerusalem isn't mentioned - it doesn't really come up. --Lugiatm (talk · contribs) 21:05, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
The point is, only the destruction of Salt Lake City with 13 nuclear warheads is mentioned. There is no mention whatsoever of New Jerusalem or indeed any kind of indication that it ever existed. Only the destruction of Salt Lake City. Unless you can prove that New Jerusalem did indeed exist, we should limit speculation and refrain from including it in the main body of the article. http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 21:29, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
Well, we know the Mormons have been to Salt Lake City at some point because Joshua Graham wears SLCPD SWAT armor. I would say the burden of proof is on the claim that New Jerusalem doesn't exist, given that the information is semi-canon already, and I don't think we should omit the information entirely on the basis of a lack of a mention. Honestly, I don't see the problem as long as the uncertain information is enclosed in {{VB}} - that's what the template is for, right? --Lugiatm (talk · contribs) 21:49, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
Van Buren information about New Canaan isn't semi-canon. There is absolutely no proof that New Jerusalem ever existed in Canon. There is not a single shred of evidence in Honest Hearts or New Vegas that it ever existed. The burden of proof is on you, since you claim that it has existed. Adding it to the main article would be misleading, especially if it was in the background section. So far, the practice is to include VB information, but only where it does not conflict with canon games. And here it conflicts, as GECK or no, a city destroyed with thirteen nuclear bombs is not fit for any kind of settling. http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 22:37, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
This is the crucial thing I think, the perceived conflict. Without the detail about Salt Lake City being destroyed by nukes, I presume you would have no problem with it being mentioned in the article, because that is where you seem to think the conflict is? I ask because actually, it is stated explicitly in the New Canaan design document that Salt Lake City was destroyed by nukes. And since the Fallout Bible states that the G.E.C.K. could be used on the Moon of all places, I do not think the destruction of a city would pose a problem for a G.E.C.K. - that's what the G.E.C.K.'s were designed for, after all. --Lugiatm (talk · contribs) 22:51, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
The only thing it mentions is that "most" of the city is destroyed and that it was later resettled and abandoned after it was sacked by raiders. This is not the case in Honest Hearts, as if New Jerusalem did indeed exist and New Canaan's background was as it was in Van Buren, don't you think at least one of the New Caananites would mention that such an event was not unprecedented? The only thing they remark on is the success of New Canaan as a city with no mention of any previous attempts to settle SLC.
So, in conclusion, we have two facts in Honest Hearts: New Canaan was a prosperous Mormon city and SLC was utterly vaporized by thirteen nukes. Unless you can prove that New Jerusalem existed, refrain from adding it to the article. Feel free to add anything else, just don't mention Salt Lake City unless we have direct confirmation that something happened there. We need to be factually accurate and fact is, in New Vegas New Jerusalem simply doesn't exist. http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 23:11, May 19, 2011 (UTC)

┌──────────────────────────┘
I don't think one of the New Canaanites would necessarily mention New Jerusalem, no, why would they? They don't mention Vault 70 either - it's a pretty crucial part of their history, and yet they don't mention it. They don't mention Joseph Smith, Jr. either - they don't, in fact, mention a whole lot before the sacking of New Canaan. Why would they? It has nothing to do with the plot of the DLC. That shouldn't give us reason to doubt the existence of those things though. You are basing your doubts off the fact that Salt Lake City was destroyed and therefore impossible to settle, and I have shown you that this does not disagree with the Van Buren account of events - New Jerusalem was also destroyed there, and was resettled with the aid of G.E.C.K.'s, which are capable of making parts of the Moon habitable if necessary.
The information has not been confirmed by canon sources, true, but it has not been proven false by any canon sources either. That is why we have the {{VB}} tag. I just don't see why you're getting so worked up over this, it doesn't hurt anyone to be saying "this is what we know" and "this is other background information based on Van Buren". Would it help if I did a mock-up of a merged New Canaan page tomorrow? --Lugiatm (talk · contribs) 23:35, May 19, 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting worked up because you are adding a whole lot of information that's not confirmed by any released game, claiming that since it's not mentioned, it fits. Since they don't mention Vault 70 or New Jerusalem, there is no indication whatsoever that they came out of Vault 70 or founded New Jerusalem. You're making wild guesses and strawman arguments to mash together an article basing on Honest Hearts and Van Buren stuff without proving first that they are compatible.
Furthermore, it does hurt our credibility if we include information from a game that's not compatible with released titles. A lot of New Canaan content bases on the NCR-BoS war, which no longer has the scope as originally envisioned in Van Buren. A lot of it bases on New Jerusalem and Vault 70, none of which are even mentioned in passing. Your analogy with Joseph Smith is a straw man, since New Jerusalem is a much more recent event and as such still fresh in the memories of the Mormon. Hell, Mordecai, the leader of the New Jerusalem resettlement expedition is mentioned, but there is not so much as a single hint towards him actually participating in such an expedition. http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 10:07, May 20, 2011 (UTC)
New Jerusalem is not mentioned, but from what I've seen, Honest Hearts does not contradict its existence. It simply doesn't mention it. So I think all the backstory can stay on the page, as long as it's marked with the proper {{VB}} template that shows its uncertain canonicity status. It certainly doesn't clash with the HH material like the Hoover Dam stuff does, for example. Telling him to "prove" that New Jerusalem existed is silly, given that if it were proven, it wouldn't need the VB template at all - it is exactly for unconfirmed, but largely consistent info. Ausir(talk) <staff/> 10:27, May 20, 2011 (UTC)
(copy pasted from Ausir's page) Not really. Salt Lake City is explicitly stated to have been vaporized by thirteen nukes. Randall Clark, despite being an SLC citizen, was unable to even find the street his house was on, much less the remains of his wife and child. Vaults were never made to withstand direct nuclear hits, even Fallout 3 tells you as much. This pretty much invalidates the New Jerusalem part of the story as apart from being completely absent from Honest Hearts (not a single mention), it just wouldn't make sense for the Mormons to settle the blasted, irradiated ruins of Salt Lake City, because GECK or not, they would still have a lot of fallout to work through. The Moon-GECK so oft quoted on the New Canaan talk page is a misconception, as the Bible blurb it's based on states that the Moon surface needs to be appropriately pre-conditioned to accept the GECK:

The GECK isn't really a replicator. It contains a fertilizer system, with a variety of food seeds, soil supplements, and chemicals that could fertilize arid wasteland (and possibly selected sections of the moon's surface pre-conditioned to accept the GECK) into supporting farming. The GECK is intended to be "disassembled" over the course of its use to help build communities (for example, the cold fusion power source is intended to be used for main city power production), and so on. Anything else people needed, they could simply consult the How To Books/Library of Congress/Encyclopedias in the GECK holodisk library for more knowledge. The pen flashlight was just a bonus.

There is nothing in Honest Hearts that'd suggest that New Jerusalem ever existed. As such, I removed it, because it is entirely speculation. Furthermore, it makes references to the NCR-BoS war from Van Buren, not New Vegas. There were no refugees from the war in New Canaan in New Vegas, because the war never went beyond the Mojave. The intro to Honest Hearts makes an explicit statement, that the NCR only heard about New Canaan a few decades ago and they only traded with them. No mention of refugees of any kind. http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 11:28, May 20, 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, you should play Honest Hearts before making a call, Ausir. http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 11:35, May 20, 2011 (UTC)
There is no mention of New Jerusalem in Honest Hearts, but I still don't consider it inconsistent with the new version of New Canaan's story. As for the nukes and GECK, Bethesda's Fallout 3 introduced a much more miraculous GECK (and they had three of those!), and we know the state of Capital Wasteland after being hit with many nukes, so I don't consider it much of an argument either. And keep in mind that they opened Vault 70 120 years after the Great War, which is quite a long time.
As for the NCR-BoS war, you are definitely wrong. The war was never limited to the Mojave in New Vegas, even if we don't know much about how it progressed back in California. We know that Colonel Moore was on four tours against the Brotherhood back in California.
As for there being no mention of New Jerusalem in Honest Hearts, just not being mentioned doesn't make it contradictory. This is exactly what {{VB}} is for. If the existence of New Jerusalem was confirmed in HH, it wouldn't need this template. Ausir(talk) <staff/> 13:45, May 20, 2011 (UTC)
Also, the Van Buren design doc also said "Bombs drop. Most of Salt Lake City and Ogden, Utah are destroyed." - I don't see how this contradicts HH in any way, even if it's less descriptive. Ausir(talk) <staff/> 14:01, May 20, 2011 (UTC)
I've created a merged page [3], but I'm not sure if this discussion is still ongoing so I've undone it straight away, which can be reverted if need be. --Lugiatm (talk · contribs) 10:28, May 21, 2011 (UTC)