Talk:Technology

Dire Review
OK, this article is in dire need of review. I see Ant has contributed a great deal in terms of refs, you have my gratitude, Comrade. I'd like to go ahead and start work on it. It's supposed to be a high level overview, so broad categories are needed. Currently, we have:


 * Energy
 * Vehicles
 * Personal protection
 * Robotics
 * Weapons
 * Biomedical technologies
 * Computers
 * Super science

It's a bit random. For instance, why are robots separate from computers? Why are protection and weapons separated? Here's an early idea:


 * Article summarizes bits of technology unique to the world of Fallout and gives a general overview. Categories are intended to be intuitive to navigate. So:


 * Nuclear and renewable energy (perhaps too lengthy? do even have enough sources on renewables being a thing?)
 * This heading would also involve vehicles and alternative propulsions?
 * Computing and robotics (there's a lot of intersection there, especially with neural networks emerging from RobCo)
 * Weapons and armor (self-explanatory)
 * Medicine and drugs
 * Colonization of space (how high do we put it?)
 * Future technologies? (I really hate the super science bits :P)

Thoughts? Tagaziel (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there is enough on the state of energy resources in Fallout source material for more than the current "energy." Perhaps "energy resources?" Funny enough I think that the main sources for energy refs are going to be the Fallout Bible, the Art of Fallout 3, and whatever Fallout 4 - and Far Harbor - introduced both with direct written lore and its various signs and objects. Fallout 3 has some generator objects but... I don't really know if we have them all accounted for. I'm at a loss on those GECKs (editors).
 * Energy

On a side note: Petroleum and the "Energy Crisis" could be touched upon as well. The former is a overview page with no refs, nor linkable object tab (or whatever), and the latter is mentioned a lot. Yet there is no event page... nor much lore. In complete agreement. I'm sorry, could you please elaborate. I don't know if "future technologies" really described the truly revolutionary achievements. Nor their present tense nature. Also this is where the alien tech would go and well... come to think of, it the Humans were at the level of technology the Zetans when the Great War struck.
 * Computing and robotics, Weapons and armor, and Medicine and drugs
 * Colonization of space
 * Super sciences

--Ant2242 (talk) 03:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Current Verdant-Air Wind Power Claim
How exactly does this link prove anything that this paragraph says? This Very Generic page link I might add. I'm not judging, just generally curious. Is it something I missed about the wind farm environmental story telling? From what I can gather, the place was a People Relations stunt to divert attention away from their business transactions with household - Hot fusion IIRC - fusion generators. Then the operator, or whomever, managed to make it more efficient. Efficient enough to actually compete with the home generators that the company itself was built to provide. Effectively neutralizing its own existence - a micro-level (personal) sustainable power providing company.--Ant2242 (talk) 08:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I put the generic page link down to make it easier for those who were curious about it to go to the page and read over the entries, since there's no real specific entry that fits when the entirety of the entries combined make for a better story of sorts. As for the actual purpose, it was a PR stunt, but not exactly in the fusion way, rather a stunt meant to both make the company look good for senators and rich folk vacationing in Maine, but also to divert attention away from the toxic waste dumping the parent company of Verdant-Air had been doing. The company was wholly focused on the fusion energy business, and, despite the efforts of the scientist there, didn't want any competition from perceptually sustainable wind energy. Finally, the project was shut down due to GDA Fusion (the parent company) not wanting to waste any more money on what could be seen as a competitor product. That was a bit of a long-winded way to sum up what your original post said, but it basically proves the point of myself wording the actual section like that rather than creating 3 separate entries when one pointing to the page does the same job.

- Ss2077 (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oops, I did miss a line there. As for the generic linking, it doesn't actually reference anything. References are for long term verification. Think ten years down the line when the next editor hasn't actually played that game.--Ant2242 (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Fair point, I usually cite which specific entry information comes from, but I'll sometimes slip back into Nukapedia mode where I leave a link to the entries and nothing more, but yeah, I'll be sure to correct that information. UPDATE: Oh, nevermind, thanks!

- Ss2077 (talk) 1:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)