Forum:Discussion: Movement of Van Buren information to Trivia and Notes section of articles

There's a lot of Van Buren information - I'm speaking of the timeline, but as of yesterday Alice McLafferty had her Van Buren promo picture above her New Vegas one, just as an example - that has been integrated into articles over the years. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but a lot of the information is either broadly non-canonical (Joseph Dodge), speculative (listing Victor Presper as a leader of the NCR on the NCR's page or the information on Born Ghoul children) or rendered less-than-factual by Van Buren (again, go ask Alice).

I'd like to propose that Van Buren articles be decoupled from the main text of articles and the timeline and moved "to the back" of both - having the text of the Van Buren articles at the bottom of articles under trivia or even a "non-canonical" section. Having the little sign saying that it may or may not be canonical isn't quite enough, I fear. Any thoughts? Opinions? The game was simply never released, and with New Vegas out there incorporating the aspects of the game, it never will be.

RedBaron359 13:00, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree - I think Van Buren info should be marked clearly as non-canon only if it has been entirely contradicted by canon sources (and yes, I do intend to re-edit the timeline and remove these). I also intend to remove some of the minor events mentioned in Van Buren from the timeline that are not significant enough to be included. However, in places where it hasn't been contradicted, it should be kept in its place in the timeline, as long as it's clearly marked as such (which, admittedly, it not always is at the moment) - this is how some other wikis with non-canon or ambiguously canon material do it as well - same as with Fallout Tactics and Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel. In many instances, like e.g. Caesar's Legion, the information from Van Buren is entirely consistent with Fallout: New Vegas information, but it simply elaborates more on some of the details. In cases like the picture of Alice McLafferty, for example, of course the New Vegas picture should be used. Ausir(talk) 13:12, October 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * The only reason Caesar's Legion material doesn't conflict is because there's no date attached to those figures; if we're going by Van Buren accounts, the destruction of Fort Aradesh and the first war at the Hoover Damn took place in the 2250s. Did both the Legion and the NCR pack up, leave, then come back to the Dam once again thirty years later? The issue I'm having isn't that the information exists at all, or that it fills in the gaps of the timeline so to speak - it's that in some places it doesn't make a lot of sense. Again, I'll reference Alice - according to her entry there, she came with the NCR to Hoover Dam in the 2250s, helped both sides in the war with the BoS, then came back 30 years later for the second war with the Legion? As for Van Buren's ambiguously canon status, I'd actually argue that it isn't canon at all with the release of New Vegas. A lot of Vegas was pretty clearly raided from Van Buren with significant changes - Powder Gangers coming from NCRCF rather than Black Canyon (not Mountain, sorry), for example. Van Buren was never released and never went beyond design documents and early scripting; at least Tactics went gold and got a throw-away line in Fallout 3. Content guidelines are, of course, the purview of administrators. But I'd urge a closer look at all of the Van Buren articles that are currently integrated in some manner with that of New Vegas, with an eye for conflicts and concerns of a canonical nature (Caesar's Legion looks all right to me, Alice doesn't). RedBaron359 13:32, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course some events were moved up in the timeline, but I think with the original dates removed, there's no harm in keeping the Caesar's Legion's Van Buren background in the "Background" section of the article, and then mentioning in the "notes" section that the Van Buren dates were originally earlier, instead of moving it all, despite everything aside from the dates being entirely consistent. And it's not as if the throwaway reference to Tactics in FO3 is any more significant than the references to Van Buren. I agree that in some articles the information should be re-edited, but in others it's fine, as long as it doesn't contradict New Vegas (another good example, in my opinion, is New Canaan). Other wikis, such as Wookieepedia, do it similarly. Ausir(talk) 13:41, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * New Canaan or Arcade Gannon doesn't bother me, but Hoover Dam does. What I'm going for here is a sensible narrative, so as long as the information from Van Buren makes sense, I have no problem with it being filler material, the same as JE Sawyer's Fallout RPG does for, say, the Van Graffs. Wookiepedia isn't a bad basis for comparison. RedBaron359 13:53, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * In case of Hoover Dam, the official New Vegas guide mentions war between BOS and NCR over Hoover Dam in 2250s - some of it may be mentioned in the game itself as well. So it looks like at least the NCR-BOS conflict part of Hoover Dam in Van Buren is still valid. Ausir(talk) 13:56, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * My mistake, then; I don't have that guide! Still, my point holds, I think - articles should be reevaluated for sense and canonical status. The wiki is still building itself up in the wake of New Vegas' release, I just want to call attention to it early on. RedBaron359 14:28, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

I think that all unreleased games need to be split out now so that the VB information isnt in the main article, but as a postscript or linked article. There are enough clear contradictions now to warrant it. Agent c 23:07, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what the current Van Buren template is for. I don't think we should relegate the unreleased games to side-articles, that's a lot of extra work for no real benefit. We'd need to do the same for pretty much everything that has one of the canon notices, including cut content and Wild Wasteland. I'm going with the "Do nothing, it's fine." route. Nitty Tok. 23:13, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem I have with the current method though is that a lot of the VB stuff is too integrated though - there's a few paragraph of canon bits, a warning notice, noncanon, a "reverse warning" and back to canon in the same section. It at least needs a separate section to keep continuity in the section.  Agent c 23:41, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should always have a separate section, although it should be preferred if possible. Sometimes it's simply additional information that e.g. concerns the same time period as a canon section of the article. If you look at Wookieepedia, they often don't put it in separate sections either. Ausir(talk) 00:50, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like the only major conflicts are with the Hoover Dam-related articles. I've re-edited the Hoover Dam article itself and split the Van Buren version into a separate article. Still, I think that in most non-Hoover Dam articles there won't be that much of a need for this. Ausir(talk) 01:07, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

As for images why shouldn't we use Van Buren images as extra. Like I've just done with Alice McLafferty article. Extra image with proper comment will not distract anyone. veryblackravenTalk 07:48, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

a waste of time and talent, id like to see it spent on other things. its unnecessary and would disrupt the timeline for people who would compare it to other events. JimmyDreznaut017 23:30, August 31, 2011 (UTC)