Forum:Location Maps

I've borrowed the location map template from wikipedia and added a fallout 3 map for it. I propose it be used in location articles for Fallout 3 instead of a separate screenshot for every location. Any modifications made to the templates should first be discussed (here or on the template's talk page) then after discussion changes made to the templates, and then finally implement the template on location pages. Also, if you want to play around with template changes please do so on a user subpage and not on the actual template page. --Odie5533 13:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The coordinates seem switched to me. In the book, it says lat -24 /long -04 for the Broadcast Tower PN. But on the map it shows, the -24 refers to what appears to be longitudinal lines. Is the entire map of the game sideways in the book's mind? (thus making lat -> long and vice versa). Can anyone clear this up for me maybe? --Odie5533 13:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I just wrote User:Odie5533/Location_map_zoomed. An example can be seen on my user page. It's not finished and will mess up when the coordinates are too close to the sides. Also doesn't work with captions. But it does show a good demo. --Odie5533 16:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm kind of torn on this one. I think it's neat in principle but it's 1) too big for my liking (although I've seen you've apparently worked on a zoomed version?) and 2) it's missing other landmarks/map markers nearby you can use for orientation. Especially (but not only) for unmarked locations it's more handy to see where it is in relation to other map markers in the vicinity than to only see the absolute position. -- Porter21 (talk) 09:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The map used can be replaced with one that has key locations visible on it. Here's a small zoomed one and also a smaller full one. --Odie5533 15:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if the base map had all markers shown it'd be fine by me - I think they're needed for orientation.


 * How about a few key locations? Megaton, Vault 101, Raven Rock, Rivet City. Any others? Or should it really have a LOT of locations? --Odie5533 16:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally I'd prefer to have a base map which shows all the map markers. In essence this would result in having location maps similar to the current ones without having to take ingame screenshots. Key locations would not help that much in my opinion as not all secondary locations are close enough to a key location that the key location would still show up on the zoomed map (take your example location - there's really no key location in that corner of the map). -- Porter21 (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added an example to this page. --Odie5533 18:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's better :-) The map you used is outdated though as far as I can see, it's missing the Operation:Anchorage locations. The most recent one is the one at Fallout 3 map, you'll probably have to crop the coordinate axis though. -- Porter21 (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Might just be me, but I still prefer the original. Bah, anyway, I've modified Infobox location to support lat and long coords for Fallout 3 locations. User:Odie5533/Location_mod has the modification. To test it out, go to your favorite Fallout 3 Location page (Megaton) and change Infobox location to and also add |lat= and |long= to the parameters. Or just look at the example to the right.


 * On a sidenote, replacing the screenshots with location maps is going to be a somewhat considerable amount of work; there are over 300 locations in the Fallout 3 places category. Of course, a significant portion of those doesn't need a map location at all as they are buildings in towns etc but as a rough estimate, you're still looking at ~160 pages which would have to be edited. Hope you're aware of that. -- Porter21 (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Since each location already has the coords listed in the book it should not be too hard. And it doesn't need to all happen at once. --Odie5533 16:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

As a relative newcomer, I realise my opinion might not carry much weight, but it seems to me like a cleaner and more elegant alternative to the status quo; as for implimentation, if just one person does a page a day as he sees them, we'll be converted within a year. Techercizer (say hi)(pwnage) 18:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone has been disputing it can potentially be better than the current solution. I'm just trying to make sure the new implementation is as good as can be :-) The amount of work is certainly not undoable and it's not what I meant - I guess I was more getting at the point that someone actually has to do it. Call me disillusioned ;-) -- Porter21 (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Techercizer: Your opinion here is important and appreciated. The more community opinions the better. Thanks for your support. --Odie5533 19:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)