The Vault - Fallout Wiki

We've Moved! Just as Gamepedia has joined forces with Fandom, this wiki had joined forces with our Fandom equivalent. The wiki has been archived and we ask that readers and editors move to the now combined wiki on Fandom. Click to go to the new wiki.


The Vault - Fallout Wiki

DLC armor

The weapons template has the DLC items listed in their respective categories, in italics, while this one has them as a separate category. Shouldn't we use one format for both? Ausir 02:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


I think adding headers before the navigational boxes is unnecessary, they should simply be at the bottom of the page with no special header. At least that's the format used in pretty much every wiki I've seen so far. Ausir 02:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I added headers because n00bs write past the templates, they did it constantly on all the weapons pages until I added headers for the weapons lists. Then like magic it stopped... Ash Nuke.jpg AshRandom (Talk) 02:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't notice that they were added to weapon pages as well, I just saw that you were adding them to the armor ones now. As for noobs writing past the boxes, we could always add a comment (visible only in edit mode), e.g. <!--Please do not write beyond this line.-->. Ausir 02:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah but then it doesn't ever make it into the TOC. And when users click the EDIT button on the paragraph above (which they'll apparently be doing more often with the big-green-button wikia update) it gets lumped in with it... I don't see what's so wrong dignifying it with its own header, there's nothing unqualified about it. Bah, I don't even know why I'm typing this my opinion never matters... Ash Nuke.jpg AshRandom (Talk) 03:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
If your opinion didn't matter, would I even bother discussing it here instead of simply removing the headers from the pages? Ausir 03:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Uh, you did remove them.... ???
I did not know their intended purpose and didn't know they were already added to all weapon pages. Just saw them being added and thought that it's inconsistent with the use of navboxes elsewhere in our wiki (and others). Ausir 03:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
so i guess we're rolling back all the weapon pages... Ash Nuke.jpg AshRandom (Talk) 03:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
you know in my own defense it's impossible to tell the difference between really sloppy pages and what amounts to a "consistent style"... Ash Nuke.jpg AshRandom (Talk) 03:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say that. Let's see what other contributors think, if they also prefer headers for the navboxes, there's no need to remove them. No need to be melodramatic about it. Ausir 03:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I still had like 800 pages to go if we're gonna cut them out might as well do it now Ash Nuke.jpg AshRandom (Talk) 03:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


Am I the only one who thinks this thing is extremely large? Maybe we should think of ways how to condense it somehow...

Don't hurt me, Ash :-) // Porter21 U | T 03:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you make it collapsible? Or maybe we can split off the "clothes" / "helmets" part? Ash Nuke.jpg AshRandom (Talk) 03:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd say this time the use of collapsible sections is justified. That or splitting it into body armor, clothing and headwear templates. Also, merging some of the clothing articles would help - we don't really need separate pages for clean and dirty pre-War relaxedwear. Ausir 03:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I left the Template:Navbox collapsible group in (even though you guys hated it :-)). Converting is not much of a problem, the navboxes basically all use the same parameters etc.
I think it's partially caused by lack of condensation for the articles themselves. For example, I think all the pre-war outfits should be on one page, all Raider armors on another, helmets on one page with their matching armors etc - it's not like there's a lot to be said about each individual Pre-War outfit or about individual helmets. Guess Ausir just said the same while I typed this :-P // Porter21 U | T 03:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I've changed it to collapsible groups for now - I still think we should consider condensating the armor pages. // Porter21 U | T 04:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible for the groups relevant to a particular armor to be uncollapsed by default? Or, if not, maybe create a separate template for each group, with that group uncollapsed, but containing also other, collapsed groups? And yeah, the clothing should be merged anyway. Ausir 04:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Currently no, all groups are always collapsed. I could probably alter the template so it allows to specify which groups not to collapse by use of parameters, you'd still have to specify the uncollapsed group(s) on each page then though. However, I'm heading to bed now so that'll have to wait :-) // Porter21 U | T 04:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Goodnight. After you wake up, please do. :) Ausir 04:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You can now specify uncollapsed=group letter (e.g. uncollapsed=A for the Armor group) to make a group uncollapsed by default. I've added it to the Combat Armor pages as examples. // Porter21 U | T 10:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ooo, nifty ;) Ash Nuke.jpg AshRandom (Talk) 16:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
(I'm not being sarcastic) Just wanted to say that I appreciate how the uncollapsed setting is ignored when the template is stacked with other armor boxes, so they all stay hidden, it's smart. Did you mean for that to happen or is it just an incidental bonus? Ash Nuke.jpg AshRandom (Talk) 18:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
It's intended that way :-) The uncollapsed setting only influences which group within the box is shown if the box itself is uncollapsed. // Porter21 U | T 19:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Not that I plan to use it in many places, but let's say both body and headware were on the same page, what would be the code to uncollapse A & C ? Ash Nuke.jpg AshRandom (Talk) 20:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
You can only uncollapse one section. I could add options to uncollapse more but to be honest, I don't really want to complicate the collapsible groups template any further - it's already the biggest template we have. That type of situation can be solved by the way how the pages themselves or the groups are organized in my opinion. // Porter21 U | T 00:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, I just wanted to know if there was already a command I wasn't trying to get you to rewrite all of the template codes. They're pretty great as is ;) Ash Nuke.jpg AshRandom (Talk) 00:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
No problem. I just want to keep the navboxes as simple to use as possible :-) The easier to use and modify, the better. // Porter21 U | T 00:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


I really like the individual uncollapsable parts, I'd be willing to go through all the weapon pages setting up energy, small guns, etc this way -- if it were possible :-) Ash Nuke.jpg AshRandom (Talk) 02:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Template title

Porter, would you want the "Fallout 3 armor and clothing" title changed to "Armors of Fallout 3" in keeping with the others? Ash Nuke.jpg AshRandom (Talk) 03:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that'd be good - looks nicer when you have it on one page with other armor boxes :-) // Porter21 U | T 03:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Individual section for cut content? (For weapons too)

Shouldn't there be a section for the cut content? Nukey (Tok) (User blog:AreYouGoingToEatThatNuke?|Blag)

I'm thinking there should be a separate navbox for them, with both cut weapons and armor. Nitty Tok. 00:07, March 22, 2010 (UTC)