Forum:Fallout 3 DLC - base and ref IDs

Could we agree on a standard for denoting the Form IDs for Fallout 3 DLC content? It's starting to become a bit of a mess and it's only gonna get worse when Broken Steel comes out.

To clarify the issue for those who are not into the technical details: Form IDs have eight digits, the first two of which depend on the load order of the .esm files. Fallout 3.esm is always loaded first which means base and ref IDs from base FO3 always start with "00". The first two numbers of the IDs for DLC content can vary however, depending on how many DLCs and mods the player has installed. As an example, if you have FO3, The Pitt and Operation: Anchorage, Anchorage IDs will start with "01" and Pitt IDs with "02". If you have FO3 and only The Pitt, Pitt IDs will start with "01". If you have mods installed which are loaded before the DLCs, the numbers will change accordingly etc.

In the wiki, we have all OA IDs starting with "01", some Pitt IDs starting with "02" and some with "xx". "02" for the Pitt will be incorrect if you don't have OA, and all leading numbers for DLCs are incorrect if you have mods which are loaded before the DLCs. The "xx" denomination occasionally irritates some non-tech-savvy users.

I'd propose to use the "xx" (e.g. xx123456) denomination for all DLC IDs, even if it might confuse people. We'll probably just need a more prominent explanation at the Form ID article the infobox links to.

Opinions? -- Porter21 (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't own any of the DLC but I see where you're driving at. I think it's actually a good idea, but you would have to explain it on the Form ID page as some *noobs* would try and put in "xx[numbers]" and then come and complain when it didn't work. --RockandRhyme 01:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's what I meant with my comment about non-tech-savvy users :-P There is a explanation on the Form ID article at Form ID but a simplified version of that probably needs to be at the very top of the article. -- Porter21 (talk) 08:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe a with an explanation after every such ID? Ausir 20:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea, something like that. Maybe a small template which inserts a superscripted link to an explanation page (similar to how the ref links work, just on a seperate page and without the need to add "References" sections to every article or clutter existing ones). -- Porter21 (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * First attempt at Template:DLC ID. -- Porter21 (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Porter, that is exactly what UESPwiki (the good Elder Scrolls wiki that is not owned by Wikia) does. It makes sense, and it seems to work for them. --Macros 20:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess that's where the people using that denomination got the idea from then :) -- Porter21 (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've had my bot change the IDs to the xx format, hope I got them all. -- Porter21 (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just wondering, do you really need to put in the ENTIRE code if you have mods and DLC? Because I know in the base version you don't have to put "00" before the other numbers. So would it matter if you put in the numbers with no "xx"? --RockandRhyme 21:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For objects from DLC and mods, yes, you have to enter the entire number. You can leave out the "00" for base content because it's, well, 0. "01" is however not 0. -- Porter21 (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)