Talk:Vault sign

Assumptions
Removed the following assumptions from the main article and deleted the section:


 * "Signs can be removed by the Maintenance Department by an order of the Overseer." Who else would have the authority to remove a sign or would clear an alteration in the Vault?
 * "Each sign has their own independent power source which powers the indicator lights...". I base this assumption on the reasoning that since there no connector ports where the directional sign on Floor D had been, above the door, that the signs have a type of internal power that is independent of the Vault 101's power source.
 * "...internal sensors which register movement." I base this assumption on the observed action of the sign in the Atrium which is above the door blocked by a locker in 2277. The sign alternated between states of openness and closeness as the door attempted to close. As the sign is not connected to the door (see above), the sign must have a way to know if the door is open or closed. The easiest explanation is that the sign must have an internal sensor, maybe a sensor module.

Being assumptions, they (and especially the reasoning behind them) are debatable and thus don´t belong to the article itself without having been thoroughly discussed. I´d like to point out that at least 2 and 3 can be attributed to level design - all signs are made from a stock template and it´s a pain in the ass to manually adjust such standardized parts.

I´ve left the article itself intact as it´s not clear whether these comments are based on the assumptions or the assumptions are meant to justify them. Golan2781 12:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Another Pointless Article
Why does this article exist? It contains no useful information and never will, since the signs cannot be used or interacted with in any way. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 09:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the fact that they can't be used by the player is relevant. Sure, they might not be exactly high-priority articles, but there's no point in deleting them either. Some of them might be quite interesting lore-wise, but I don't see the point in deleting even the ones that aren't. Ausir 09:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)