Why hasn't NCR annexed New Reno?

S

Say Apple!

First time out of the vault
In New Vegas when talking to Chief Hanlon, he talks about lakes that have been drained when asked about Lake Mead. He mentioned a lot of different lakes that were drained and I couldn't help but notice that one of the lakes he mentioned was not Lake Tahoe. In case you don't know, Lake Tahoe is a lake outside of Reno IRL. I went on the Fallout wiki and noticed that New Reno wasn't part of the NCR. Why is that? New Reno itself is a big place with lots to offer to the NCR including water. New Reno doesn't appear to have been affected by the nukes so Lake Tahoe should be perfectly fine. Tahoe is a big lake and NCR went to full on war to take Lake Mead and the Dam(even though they got power from it too.) which is tiny in comparison to Tahoe. With the benefits of New Reno and Lake Tahoe, why hasn't the NCR annexed it?
 
Yep, there was split.
Basically Nuka is all about Fo3 fanboys, chat and random polls.
Vault actually focus on... gathering information, like every wiki have should.
 
Oh, wasn't aware that there was a difference, just thought they were different names people called them.
 
Say Apple! said:
Oh, wasn't aware that there was a difference, just thought they were different names people called them.
Click to expand...


Nah, there was quite a split a year ago?
I can't tell exactly.



Ausir, the guy who made Vault, parted ways with Wikia or whatever, which resulted in the separation between the two.

The Vault, where Ausir as well as several "high profile" NMA members frequent, is now on Curse sites. It keeps the original logo of The Vault and is...well, yeah, isn't Fo3 fanboyish much, but is, unfortunately, a little less accessible, if you ask me.
On the other hand, it is a lot easier to use, in my opinion at least, and is looking like the vintage Vault of yore. Plus, the information there has a lot more credibility, being used by people who have played both the older and newer titles, and not just the new ones.


But that's my impression. In all honesty, I haven't visited The Vault in quite some time, haven't edited any article and am not even sure what my username or password on the new site is. Strange...there was a time when I was quite an addict.
 
I was wondering why my recollections of the fallout wikia were of a site called "The Vault", and why it's now known as the "Nukapedia" and that name now belongs to the gamepedia page. Makes sense now, since I saw a similar "switch" occur for the DotA2 information site moving to gamepedia, while maintaining the same name, content, and community. Still, I haven't noticed ANY "FO 3 fanboy" centric content on Nukapedia as described here, and for the most part their articles are identical (with The Vault lacking links to many pictures, and thus being somewhat lacking in detail, for the time being), so I never really registered any notable difference to distinguish the 2, or provide any reason to abandon one for the other.

If one of them FINALLY updates their age-old "guides" for FOT, the series' lesser-traveled title, then that would tell me that the site is making effort to cover everything as in-depth as possible, and that would strike me as a good reason to prioritize it above the rest... =)
 
SnapSlav said:
I haven't noticed ANY "FO 3 fanboy" centric content on Nukapedia as described here,
Click to expand...



Perhaps now, but I remember the time, soon after the split, when "fanboyism" was quite present. It may have not been Fo3 fanboyism precisely, but it was an irrational drive in majority of users which, in my opinion, made The Vault look a bit ridiculous.

Wikia had some "revolutionary" changes which turned majority of their sites to eye-candies, Vault among them, which attracted plenty of users which had little or no desire in them to actually improve the content of the site...if I could tell you how many times I've edited an article minutes after some douchebag forcefully edited (vandalised is the more proper term) just so he could get an "achievement" (which I thought were dumb in the first place)...

Anyway, I was personally saddened by the decision to split the Vault, but it turned out that the problem was a lot bigger than many of users could imagine. I think there's a post explaining what and why that happened somewhere...I can't recall.

Either way, Nukapedia and The Vault are now two separate sites, operating separately, and have, so it seems, their own separate "flocks" which edit the sites. It seems, however, that Nukapedia has a lot bigger editorial force behind it.
 
That doesn't surprise me, because wikia is just an easily recognizable name, and you can bet that if some inane topic has a wiki, you can just enter inanetopic.wikia.com URL into your browser, and chances are you'll find it.

Vandalizing is a sad reality of all "community controlled" processes, which is why, despite all the developer's best intentions, I'm largely opposed to the idea wherever it crops up. It's democracy in a nutshell; fine ideal, dangerous in practice. I can remember several DAYS where a post on the Naruto wikia had edited the description for the character (known then as "Tobi") to state "cum circle" and "cum" this and "spooge" that. It was ridiculous, and it stuck until the mods FINALLY took notice. I gave up all ambitions to be a beneficial editor for wikia entries when my detailed description for the character Demalo Black on the One Piece wikia was rejected, time and time again, for reasons I can't understand. So I have to just accept that when I see "Appearance" sections woefully bereft of detail, or observe EVERY "History" section use repetitive, passive tense repeat repetition of the phrase "as seen in" over and over and over again (did I mention it's prolific and repetitive?) rather than any decent writing, those are just misfortunes I have to deal with. Were I to try and edit them solely for content improvement, it would just be deleted, apparently because quality is a bad thing. -_-
 
Still, I haven't noticed ANY "FO 3 fanboy" centric content on Nukapedia as described here
Click to expand...
Look at every poll... Fo3 has always great advantage.

Example?
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Dead_Gunner/Saturday_Polls_-_August_10th_2013

Be honest, have you played Fallout 1/2/Tactics? (Note: Played =/= Completed)

I've never played them, but I intend to.
67
I've never played them, and don't intend on it.
64
I played one or more and hated it.
6
I played one or more and loved it!
129
I played one or more, and it was meh.
67
Other? (did I miss something you felt? Comment it)
11
Click to expand...

130 never played any old Fallout + 70 played and didn't liked it
vs
130 who actually played and liked.

And the best poll was about greatest Fallout... there was draw beetwen Fallout/Fallout New Vegas (hundreds votes) with only over a dozen for old Fallouts. ; p

I think there's a post explaining what and why that happened somewhere...I can't recall.
Click to expand...
Main reasown was Wikia policy.
They're were doing everything to change Wikia sites into second facebook, focusing on social changes (achievements, chats, other useless bullshit) and getting money by the way.
As is well known it's a total negation of wiki ideas.
 
That means jack shit. A poll showing that FO3 has more players doesn't mean the site's editors favor FO3. It means that FO3 has more players.... WE ALREADY KNOW THIS. FO3 is a mainstream, popular game, and its community and supporters are vast in number. They have the numbers, they've always had the numbers, so it's no surprise that a POLL would showcase them having the numbers.

If your point had been that the polls are always focused on approaching a question from the PERSPECTIVE of favoring FO3, that's a different story. But you seem to be focusing on just the numbers, as if that's significant. And, as already stated, it's NOT!

But hey, what would I know? I'm just the guy who's consistent, not someone who will rage in a topic, one day, because his opinion is being assaulted, and fume and scream "wikipedia isn't a source! GIVE ME A SOURCE!!!!" and then, the next day, address a question with "check the wiki, it has the information you need." No, someone like THAT would be... well, a raging hypocritical douchebag, wouldn't they?
 
Well, I never said they favor Fo3.
By Fo3 fanboyism I mean, that majority of Nuka users are Fo3 fanboys, what makes entire nuka society for me too annoying to be there. ; p

But hey, what would I know? I'm just the guy who's consistent, not someone who will rage in a topic, one day, because his opinion is being assaulted, and fume and scream "wikipedia isn't a source! GIVE ME A SOURCE!!!!" and then, the next day, address a question with "check the wiki, it has the information you need." No, someone like THAT would be... well, a raging hypocritical douchebag, wouldn't they?
Click to expand...
Tagaziel actually explained difference...

*sigh*

A wiki is not an acceptable citation. It's not a primary or even a secondary source. It's a tertiary source, an amalgam of information that has no value of its own, unless it clearly shows the original source of the information claimed. Without proper citations and references, it's just baseless speculation.

If you wanted to provide a source, you'd cite a character or a holodisc from the game, or even a developer. But linking to a page with no references? That's worthless.

To illustrate my point:

This is a good article. Information is accurately sourced and referenced, with no speculation. You can clearly identify where it comes from and confirm facts for yourself.

This earlier version of the same article is horrible. There's no citations, no references, and overall, it lacks credibility. Anyone can insert their own little fan fiction and make it stick, precisely because no one scrutinized the article in an academic fashion.

Get the point?
Click to expand...
 
Guess the fanboyisim and lack of FO1-T explains why I couldn't find where the power armour was in Mariposa in Fallout 2. All it said was east corner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top