Forum:Item locations

I don't know about anyone else, but if someone wants to list all the weapons, armor, ammo, and scematic parts in a location when they are always in that location people should just leave them in the articles. I'm of the opinion that for items in an area that the more people want to list the better. I'm not talking about coffe mugs, or whatever, but stuff that you can actually use. If someone wants to list them and take the time to do it by all means. This isn't a term paper where you are only allowed so many words. This is documentation of what's in the game. A lot of the things I have seen deleted are things that I would personally want to know was there. Specifically things that are needed for quests, or custom weapons. Some people seem to think that the only loot anyone should care about are Stealth Boys and skill books.Jimimorrison 09:48, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess the problem with that is where do you draw the line? What if I want to know the location of every clipboard so I can kit out my bureaucrat character's house? The wiki would get a little cluttered if we had every single item in every location listed. Ishotamaninnewreno 09:58, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is the locations project talk page where you can bring up your concerns. Here is the policy page detailing what counts as notable loot.--Gothemasticator 10:02, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I brought it up there. As for Isho's question. I described more what I meant there. I mean things that are usable by the MC like weapons, ammo, etc. that are always around. Jimimorrison 23:17, January 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't think there's any harm in listing all weapons and other usable items. How about using collapsible boxes like at West Tek Research Facility? Ausir(talk) 13:25, February 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ausir. -132.183.138.24 17:15, February 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Location articles are the wrong place to list non-unique and common stuff in my opinion. If someone's looking for a place where he can find Combat Armor, do you think he/she is going to look at the Combat Armor article or going through all place articles until coming across one where it can be found? In addition, there's a lot more loot (even if you count only semi-relevant stuff) in any FO3 map than in all of West Tek combined. Plus I'm not found of using collapsing boxes for actual page content for various accessibility and technical reasons.


 * From my point of view, listing all the semi-clutter hurts more than it helps. For one, it drowns out the actually interesting stuff. Having to sift through listings of Cherry Bombs, Leaf Blowers and Scrap Metal when trying to find out whether there was a unique weapon or a skillbook in that location is rather annoying. In addition, once you start listing the fixed semi-clutter, people inevitably start adding the random locations of it, too. You're opening a can of worms which results in a lot of effort wasted on checking and removing false and useless info (which locations of random loot are).


 * I'm aware the FO3 locations project page and Help:Notable loot frequently get linked in recent discussions whether item locations should be listed in item articles. That's not really within their scope though; both the project page and the help page only concern (FO3) location articles. Personally, I have no problem with listing locations in item articles - it's relevant to their subject and most of them are fairly short anyway. They're also easier to maintain because you only have to take care of one page instead of 200+ for each item.


 * The only adjustment I'd consider for location articles is maybe listing the semi-relevant items simply with a count and without descriptions (i.e. "Scrap Metal: 4"). You can easily get these counts for every location with the GECK - the only problem is that we're short on GECK-savvy people and I'm getting a little overworked on that front already. -- Porter21 (talk) 19:24, February 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the actually notable loot could be uncollapsed, with "other loot" collapsed below. And yeah, I don't see the problem with listing locations on item pages either. Ausir(talk) 19:45, February 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the reason I agree with Ausir is because of the way I, and I imagine at least some other users, do/would use the information on the location pages. I like to, after myself fully exploring a location, look up the location on the wiki and see whether the page (or the history or the discussion, as the case may be) lists any interesting loot (not necessarily unique, maybe just weapons or minor-quest items) that I missed. For that reason, I think it's useful to have the information noted on the location page as well as the item lists.


 * I think that the claim that there is more loot in any FO3 map than all of West Tek is patently false. Most enclosed locations in FO3 have only a handful of listworthy items, I'd estimate ten or twenty at most. Keep in mind that we're talking about items that are actually useable, not bent tin cans or empty bottles. And I think your argument about which page goes both ways, in that if you're looking for a skillbook or uniques weapon, you'd go directly to that page to find it, rather than the location articles, so clutter becomes less of a factor.


 * As far as technical concerns, I don't particularly advocate collapsible boxes, either, but I haven't been particularly bothered by "clutter" either way. And isn't random loot only spawned ini containers? If that's the case, perhaps a compromise could be made that the location articles do not list items in containers, and only list items found in the gameworld proper.


 * But I thank you for taking the time to more fully express your opinion. I hope more users do the same. -132.183.138.24 19:55, February 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflicted) Ausir's suggestion about collapsed vs. non-collapsed might be a good solution. -132.183.138.24 19:55, February 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm going to add my two cents: Having a small and focused list of Notable Loot on Locations pages is helpful to everybody. If every Locations page gets filled with lists of bent tine cans, etc., the Locations pages become less useful and less easy to read. I don't much like the idea of having a collapsable box on every location page either.
 * Having a comprehensive list of locations on Item pages is helpful to those looking to collect every such item. I'll admit to not particularly liking it, but, then again, where else on the internet can one find the locations of all lawnmower blades in FO3? My best guess, though, is that those looking to do this will go to the lawnmower blade page, not go trawling through location pages. A table would be the best solution in my opinion. It would limit the long rambling directional advice such lists tend to get filled up with. A table would also be easier to order.
 * I suppose this sounds like a reversal of my opinion as stated on the Pre-War Money talk page. But, I could make clear here that I still oppose letting a disordered bullet-list of locations grow on every Items page.--Gothemasticator 20:09, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Admittedly, I was thinking of multi-section locations when making my previous statement about the volume of loot in the average FO3 location, so the difference in my particular example is not that big indeed. However, I stand by my remark about the volume being considerably higher; West Tek has (as a rough average) 15-20 items per section. For the hell of it, I just randomly picked a one-section FO3 map (Tepid Sewers) and counted the weapons, armors, quest items and components to be found in this location. I arrived at ~50 items.

However, that aside my principal points still stand. I don't like the massive use of collapsible boxes in articles. For starters, it causes linking to specific sections to behave erratically. That's not a problem for (e.g.) navboxes since they are at the bottom of an article anyway, but for collapsible boxes in the middle of an article it is. In addition, it doesn't work for people with JS turned off at all, and there are still plenty of these.

The argument for listing item locations in item articles goes indeed both ways; however, the so-called notable loot is of interest for a larger number of readers than the non-notable loot. In my opinion, the section should highlight things the average player wouldn't want to miss.

Concerning listing items in both item and location articles, I believe that redundancy of information should be avoided as far as possible. I'm not going to go into detail as to why; if you're interested, you can find the reasoning at VA:ORG. In some cases it's warranted and manageable (notable loot), in some cases it's not (items for merchant quests) - it's simply a matter of volume.

Random loot is indeed only found in containers, and we don't list it anyway. My point was that it is harder to see whether someone has added random loot for the "semi-clutter" than for the notable loot, especially since the descriptions where they are found are often pretty poor. Often you can't tell whether the scrap metal someone just added is fixed or random loot without either checking up in the GECK or ingame; listing these items induces a massive workload unless you simply want to leave incorrect and misleading information on the page.

To reply to your initial point, I think the suggestion in my previous entry reasonably addresses that. Simply stating there is an amount of x of a certain item in the location suffices to see whether you've missed something. -- Porter21 (talk) 20:50, February 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * How about having separate pages with full loot lists for each location, linked to from the "notable loot" sections through Template:Main? E.g. a Megaton loot page, with a table that would list all items found in Megaton? I don't see why not, if someone would be willing to compose such lists and if it won't clutter the main location pages anyway. Ausir(talk) 20:53, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Porter21, your points are well taken, 50 is indeed a lot. But I would support this most recent suggestion by Ausir. -132.183.138.24 20:54, February 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, how about using a similar setup as for Fallout 3 books? I.e. the locations themselves would be stored in neat tables on the item pages and would be combined on overview pages ("Fallout 3 component locations" etc) into a single table which you can sort by location. You could then link these overview pages from the "Loot" sections.
 * I simply don't like double-listing stuff, we already tried that with the skillbook pages and it was a major pain to keep in sync until we switched to the current setup. -- Porter21 (talk) 21:31, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Ausir(talk) 21:35, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, with only unique weapons/ Bobble heads on the location page.Vault 815 03:51, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I still do think that we should have locations of all non-random items listed somewhere for the sake of completeness. Ausir(talk) 03:52, February 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, if we make overview pages for fixed armor, weapon, component and quest item locations, all that's left is pure clutter (Bent Tin Cans, Butter Knives). I really don't see much point in listing these anywhere else than on their respective item pages (if people are so inclined). -- Porter21 (talk) 11:57, February 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * You forgot consumables. :) Ausir(talk) 16:00, February 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, and these. -- Porter21 (talk) 19:14, February 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, we should make these tables like the quantums. I just got scolded and asked (or rather told) not to do what I thought we agreed on. I moved the locations or the pressure cooker to the talk page as Porter and I have discussed in the past. I honestly don't go into the forum because it is usually filled with non-sense that I don't follow (fav weapon, I'm a FO3 baddass, etc.). I would greatly appreciate it if someone would let me know somehow when we are discussing policy and format changes. I was going to jump into the NPC project but now it's changing again so any new edits I would have made would be invalid. I happened to stumble upon this forum after getting reprimanded. I would prefer to find out what's changing vs. wasting time and getting reprimanded for it. Thanks. Collapsible table is my recommendation. I'd do the work if you want but I need to figure out how to make a table. --Kingclyde 10:43, February 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I don't think it's too much to ask that admins follow the Wiki general discussion and Wiki policy discussion forums. If you don't want to read the game-specific discussions, that's your prerogative (I don't follow them either), but these two forums contain none of the clutter you mentioned, and expecting others to notify every admin of every discussion in these forums is quite a lot to ask to be honest. -- Porter21 (talk) 11:56, February 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Porter. This was all I needed. Someone to tell me what exactly I am supposed to be following. I have changed jobs and I now work an average of 10-12 hours a day (the joys of owning your own business). I wasn't expecting to be notified of every change, just to know what I'm supposed to follow. Once again thanks. --Kingclyde 17:46, February 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Now that I look at it, all of the notable loot should be listed as in the West Tek Research Facility. I agree with Ausir on that. See. The Vault talk:Fallout 3 locations project notable loot discussion. --Kingclyde 10:46, February 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * I just went ahead and created Fallout 3 component locations. What do you think? Ausir(talk) 10:56, February 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * That works great! Looks good to boot. --Kingclyde 11:00, February 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought we had settled above on setting it up like the book overview pages? -- Porter21 (talk) 11:56, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I don't know how to do that, so I just threw it together as a mock-up. If you could, please use your template magic :). Ausir(talk) 18:03, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll go over the relevant templates tomorrow. I think I'll have to make a couple of adjustments; currently the location tables aren't really suited for anything beyond ~25 locations as they were designed with only the book locations in mind. -- Porter21 (talk) 13:13, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I've put this on hold because the book setup doesn't really work for such large numbers of locations. I'm currently considering other ways how to get this working or at least achieve the desired effect, but it's going to take a bit since I'm not going to have much time in the next two weeks. Sorry. -- Porter21 (talk) 19:41, March 4, 2010 (UTC)