- 1 Words
- 2 Fallout 76 plans
- 3 Atomic Shop
- 4 Little bit of clarification
- 5 Atom Shop naming and page changes
- 6 Reverted edits
- 7 Excavator legs
- 8 Categorization
- 9 Images
- 10 Grahm's Meat-Cook
- 11 Plan Values
- 12 Holiday Scorched
- 13 Fallout 76 armor mods
- 14 NTV Awards 2019
- 15 A gift
- 16 Cattle prod
- 17 Gears and Gear
- 18 Thank you!
- 19 Good Work
- 20 Patroller rights
- 21 A present
- 22 Patroller 101
- 23 Calendar
- 24 War Glaive
- 25 Re: Weapon Speculation
- 26 Call to Action
- 27 Reference guideline
- 28 K.D. Inwell
Mind not to unnecessairly capitalize words. We have policies about that.12:34, March 7, 2019 (UTC)
- Right, thanks for the note. When porting over content from in-game, the in-game grammar should not match the wikia. Got it, will do in the future. Cheers. CamelChip (talk) 17:52, March 8, 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, will do. Please do note that I meant no ill intent, and was not trying to "proving a point" or knowingly disrupt the wiki. I was merely trying to add content to a page, and made a mistake doing so en masse. It was purely accidental. Thank you. CamelChip (talk) 22:11, March 8, 2019 (UTC)
Fallout 76 plans[edit source]
Hiyo. I read your talkpage message on Fallout 76 plans and I agree that all the plans probably need their own separate pages. It's a big job, which is why I imagine it hasn't been done yet. That being said, I'm game to try and tackle it if you'd like to help out as well. I've been mostly focused on the consumables and junk items (a long lonely road) but those are mostly done now, so it'll be a nice new thing for me to focus on. --L84tea 11:04, March 20, 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, I'd be happy to help out! I think it'll be especially useful for showing what workshop plans unlock. CamelChip (talk) 23:24, March 20, 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah I 100% agree it would be helpful. I've bought so many Pendleton plans just to find out it didn't unlock what I wanted.
- So my current plan is to finish running by all the vendors and taking stock of their plans to update the main Fallout 76 plans page with before starting to make all the individual pages. This means the plan locations (at least vendor-wise) can be added when the page is created which means we don't have to update in two places for every single plan which would kill anyone I think. I've currently got a list of vendors which I have already checked and updated the plan for saved at User:L84tea/sandbox.
- P.S. I like what you're doing with the settlement objects page - it's been imageless for too long. --L84tea 10:44, March 21, 2019 (UTC)
- Sounds like a plan; vendors first, then individual pages. And thanks! CamelChip (talk) 16:12, March 21, 2019 (UTC)
Atomic Shop[edit source]
Hey, just a heads up. I updates many links on the Atomic Shop page. We use common spelling, instead of the capped in-game spelling. I also removed links from Pip-Boys and bundles. I believe we don't need separate pages for those, and the overview suffices. Thanks for your work on that page btw. Jspoel 21:18, April 4, 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for updating the links. As for the spelling, I was wondering about that! The previous versions all had the capped spelling, so I (wrongly) assumed there must've been some weird exception.
- And as for content that's left the shop (like the Vault 76 cap), should items be migrated down to an "unavailable content" header? Or should they be moved to a separate page? CamelChip (talk) 22:56, April 4, 2019 (UTC)
Little bit of clarification[edit source]
It appears a previous edit of mine on the Atomic Shop page made an error and removed the Gold .44 and Pink/Silver armor paints
This was not intended, i think it mainly came about what with you publishing an edit after i started and before i published my own causing a conflict and error occured
- No worries, just make sure to check your edits after the fact (or with the "show changes" button in the editor). If something accidentally gets removed on such a big page, it might not get noticed! CamelChip (talk) 21:46, April 24, 2019 (UTC)
Atom Shop naming and page changes[edit source]
Just a heads up, since i've basically, somewhat adopted the Atomic Shop page as a pet project of mine to keep it running an up to date, since you are also doing the same in that regard, I've introduced many changes to the page that should make it easier, more informative and straightforward to access
One of them however i'm bringing up to a forum to finally grab a consensus from the unreached consensus people are having, and I would like to get your opinion on the suggested change seeing as you frequent the page whether you support the decision or not, the more people that respond to the vote the better after all
Also in regards to cut content or discontinued content, I have fleshed out the page, upgrading the legend and assimilating discontinued and limited content on the page with identifiers such as alternate prices and bundle listings and all that (as well as access to xedit) - so don't worry about where to put the limited/discontinued content, i'll handle it ^^
If you have any questions of changes i'm making to the page feel free to ask, i'd be happy to show you the thought processes of specific changes. The only thing I can't do realistically is get the images of the various items which you have done stellar of so far. Prof. Sugarcube (talk) 09:40, April 26, 2019 (UTC)
Reverted edits[edit source]
I have reverted your edits. They added no new value and took away existing value. You show a strong dislike of Raider power armor and a strong bias for ultracite. That's fine for a player but should not be in the wiki unless factually supported.
Specific problems: You use "slightly less" for a 4% to 5% difference and also for a 13% difference. 13% is not "slightly" different. Your statement that T-60 doesn't require screws leaves out that it also doesn't require black titanium, ultracite, springs, or nuclear material. You removed the statement that ultracite does not have to be crafted. This sets it apart from the other two quest related armors. At least you didn't re-insert your original error and state that it did have to be crafted.
Please keep your edits accurate and factual. Avoid non-specific adjectives. Everyone has biases, but try to keep your personal biases out of the wiki.
- Thank you for your interest in the power armor page. However, after careful consideration of your edits, I would ask that you kindly review the wiki's guidelines and policies. You can find them at Fallout Wiki:Policies and guidelines.
- Firstly, I do not show a "strong dislike" for raider power armor nor a "strong bias" for ultracite. Ultracite power armor is factually superior to raider power armor. This is accurately represented in the level availability table. Ultracite provides 453/393/393 resistance, while raider provides 341/341/341 resistance at its highest level. Is 453 not numerically greater than 341? Is 393 not greater than 341? Unless something has drastically changed in the mathematical world, ultracite armor is factually superior to raider armor.
- Secondly, note the writing conventions from the wiki's guidelines. In particular, "Do not be overly specific when writing, only as specific as necessary." Overly specific statistics, such as percentages, should not be included in the summaries of each armor. If anything, they should be presented in the main articles. This also applies to the explanation of the T-60 armor's repair costs and the ultracite armor's quest relations. They are simply too specific to be included in the summary and should instead be moved to the model's main article.
- Please review the wiki's policies and the usage of the words "factual" and "biased." Be sure to keep your edits clear, concise, and grammatically sound, especially on summary sections. Thank you for your passion and continued contributions to the wiki. CamelChip (talk) 19:57, May 4, 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that less is sometimes more. I considered the page finished a couple of months ago. It was concise and answered the question that most players visited it for, which is: I am at level xx, what are my power armor options? That is really the only thing that the vast majority of wiki users needed from the page. If a player needs to know how the stats on T-45 change with different levels, there was a link for that. I would prefer the short and sweet version that we had then.
- When I say that you had included your own preferences I was not referring to a comparison between raider and ultracite. I was referring to "Raider... offers equally minute... resistances" vs. "T-45... offers equally decent... resistances" when they are so close, most players wouldn't notice the difference. I prefer to give them the table to easily compare the numbers organized by level and say nothing more. As for ultracite, you rated it remarkable, X-01 superior, T-60 decent and T-51 considerable. I'm pretty sure that "remarkable" trumps the other superlatives. An argument can be made for any of these armors to be the best, but that should be left to the players not the wiki editors.
- I propose reverting the page back to the short and sweet table that compares armors arranged by level and has no other information except where it relates to multiple armor types (like paint and notes). If you really feel that players need a general page that lists all of the levels arranged by armor type rather than just using the links to see that information, leave those tables. Let's agree to remove all of the text descriptions.
- The thing is, the power armor page is an overview of all power armor in Fallout 76; just having level availability doesn't quite do it justice. It's a general page that displays everything "power armor" in the game. This would, of course, include the armor models available to players and the short backgrounds of each.
- With regards to the introductory "comparative protection" bits, I agreed that they were too general. Some armors are numerically superior in certain regards, but ranking them by overall protective capability was too general. In fact, I removed them in the last edit.
- The new format echoes the Power armor (Fallout 4) page which has undergone the test of time and plenty of transformations into what works best for all users. What may seem like a finished page to one editor may not actually be finished. It is important to realize that pages like these are for the reader, not the editor. While you may think it best to not have text descriptions, the tempering of over 400 edits on the Fallout 4 page says otherwise. Note that even though Fallout 4 is a different game, it still shares a great deal of similarities to Fallout 76 in its various systems.
Excavator legs[edit source]
Can you take another look at the FO76_Excavator_left_leg.png and FO76_Excavator_right_leg.png images? They're exactly the same images. Would appear to me they should be somewhat different to eachother. Jspoel 12:32, May 7, 2019 (UTC)
- Whoops. Yup, they're the same image. They both use the same model in-game, so should've just had one generally listed as "Excavator leg." Could one be renamed and the other deleted? CamelChip (talk) 16:01, May 7, 2019 (UTC)
- I renamed so it can be used for both legs. Jspoel 16:08, May 7, 2019 (UTC)
Category:Nuclear Winter images is not a category in which images should be placed, it's an overview category. You need to choose one of its subcategories or make one if it doesn't exist yet. (except a few that already were in it, armor/weapon images shouldn't be in there anyway.) Jspoel 14:53, June 15, 2019 (UTC)
Hey! I'd just like to say I'm really impressed with the Fallout 76 images you've been uploading. They are of very good quality, excellent work. Keep it up! :) DisgustingWastelander (talk) 19:20, July 22, 2019 (UTC)
Your quest reward box is giving errors at the end of the page. Can you correct that? Jspoel 23:26, August 7, 2019 (UTC)
- Yup! Fixed it, thanks. CamelChip (talk) 23:29, August 7, 2019 (UTC)
Plan Values[edit source]
Hey, I just wanted to ask why the listed values for the X-01 mod plans shouldn't be the same as they appear when purchasing them in game? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enclave Soldier Elliott (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~!
- It mostly has to do with the fact that listed values aren't the same for each player (they depend on Charisma, perks, etc.). So the value you may have in-game usually isn't the same for everybody else. It's safe to display the base item value because it always remains the same regardless of stats or perks.
- At least, that's my understanding of the topic. Feel free to ask staff if you need a better (or more official) explanation! :) CamelChip (talk) 21:07, August 26, 2019 (UTC)
Holiday Scorched[edit source]
- Thank you. Fixed! On a side note, those expanding lists could really use a user-friendly template. CamelChip (talk) 02:24, December 14, 2019 (UTC)
Fallout 76 armor mods[edit source]
Hey thanks for your work on the Fallout 76 armod mod pages! It must have cost you a good amount of time to create those, with all the information you added. Nice. Jspoel 11:29, January 11, 2020 (UTC)
NTV Awards 2019[edit source]
Voting concluded this morning with TSR and Dank being named Runner Up and Contributor of the Year. While you may not have won, hopefully your nomination was seen as acknowledgement of all your efforts on the wiki. And as another small token of appreciation for your efforts, here is a badge to celebrate your nomination in the 2019 process.
|2019 NTV Nominee|
A gift[edit source]
Your efforts and diligence have not gone unnoticed, and you have been given a small token of appreciation.
Cattle prod[edit source]
- Yes, the Nuclear Winter weapon uses Cattleprod (Wastelanders) as a base, sharing IDs and base stats. However, Cattleprod (Nuclear Winter) is a gamemode-specific version that always has the separate "_Babylon" modification that increases the base version's damage. The NW version is also never legendary, while the standard WL version is always legendary.
- Other Nuclear Winter weapons are more clearly different from their base counterparts (like changes in magazine size or fire rate), but melee weapons are somewhat similar. Still, they can be differentiated and are affected by different perks. It's a bit of a tricky situation for consistency across pages.
- It should also be noted that the damage for Nuclear Winter weapons doesn't scale (i.e. is always a single value) since they always appear as the same level. CamelChip (talk) 18:47, July 6, 2020 (UTC)
Gears and Gear[edit source]
I know it is hassle with the amount of tables you are creating recently and just wanted to let you know.
Thank you![edit source]
Good Work[edit source]
Howdy, how's tricks?
Good work, keep it up!
Patroller rights[edit source]
You've done a fine job here these past few months. I've given you patroller rights, giving you the opportunity to grow and climb up the ranks! Jspoel
- Thank you, much appreciated! CamelChip (talk) 21:34, September 14, 2020 (UTC)
A present[edit source]
Your efforts and diligence have not gone unnoticed, and you have been given a small token of appreciation.
Patroller 101[edit source]
I am ecstatic to welcome you to the team! I crafted a brief crash course for you, in order to see a general overview of expectations and instructions for your brand new role. The other folks on staff (and me!) are here to support you completely and are happy to help out in any way we can, so don't be shy. So happy you are here! -kdarrow take her for a spin! 07:54, September 15, 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, the crash course was helpful! CamelChip (talk) 18:33, September 15, 2020 (UTC)
War Glaive[edit source]
Although I do concur with your characterization of the blades being necessary for the article, even if as BTS, I'm going to quickly verify the specific blade qualifications to ensure proper formatting. JCB2077 (talk) 00:17, September 27, 2020 (UTC)
- I have obtained confirmation for all of them based on an experts professional consultation and personal opinion, so it all checks out. JCB2077 (talk) 00:37, September 27, 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking and confirming; it's great that you double-checked the info! CamelChip (talk) 00:45, September 27, 2020 (UTC)
Re: Weapon Speculation[edit source]
That is... entirely incorrect. Per content policy, this extends to all weapon speculation, including melee weapons, because of similar statements in the past, Machete gladius being one of the most prominent. Great Mara (talk) 00:59, September 27, 2020 (UTC)
Call to Action[edit source]
There have been quite a few sweeping changes to the wiki lately, and now that the Unified Community Platform has come to fruition here, it's more important than ever for our leadership to get together and inspire innovative changes for the next generation of wiki editors/readers.
As someone who is somewhat inactive myself, I understand how life gets in the way, and I'll fully understand if many of you are unable to commit, but I'd still like to try my best to appeal to you all in getting involved in a few of our currently active projects; especially so since rights-users participating in our discussions/votes are at an all-time low, and many internal decisions are having to be made between a select few users, which is bad for building consensus on important matters.
As such, I would like to ask for you all to look into two of our most important projects right now, as it would mean a lot to me and the wiki if as many people as possible got directly involved in helping shape our future:
- The Vault Academy is a program for the training and acclimation of new and even veteran users, training them on how to get involved in the various facets of the wiki, as well as helping them build bonds with their fellow users. The program has kicked off in a big way, and we are in desperate need of more rights-users to sign on as mentors, as we're having to share multiple mentees between each mentor. If you're looking to leave your mark on the wiki, then signing onto TVA program will be your way of doing so.
- As a minor update, we now have a new plagiarism point of contact. Should you suspect plagiarized content is at play, please get into point with the user FDekker who will be the initial handler of all such cases going forward.
- We have an upcoming meeting of the minds coming up on the 20th of this month, and we need people to come forth and pitch their ideas for adapting to the recent UCP changes, and to possibly adopt some of the ideas that our new datamining friends have been pitching to us.
Thanks for your consideration, and I do hope to hear back from you all! Even if it is just some of you dropping by to check the place out and say a quick hello. 寧靜 14:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Reference guideline[edit source]
I see, it's published now. You didn't react to nor implemented a minor formatting thing, kdarrow and I talked about. Am I wrong with what I'm saying there? -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 12:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- Whoops, hadn't seen that. Since that message was posted on a subpage instead of here on my main talk page, I wasn't notified of its presence. Subpages aren't linked anywhere, either, so the only way I would've known would be manually checking my user namespace or finding it as an unpatrolled edit. Randomly deciding to check my namespace isn't very practical, and kdarrow seemed to hop on that patrol pretty quick (lighting-fast reflexes!). In the future, try to put messages directly on people's main talk page (or on forum discussion itself) so they can be easily seen and accessed.
- Anywho, you're right; having the quotation marks inside of the italics is a minor thing. The concept came from The Vault's referencing standards, which themselves coincide with formatting we tend to use here on our unified wiki. The italicization of quotation marks is, generally, an aesthetic choice. If I had to guess, the reasoning here would be for consistency; having all the characters italicized would make the quotation marks fit in better with the italicized quote ("hugging" the text instead of being separated from it). As for the
Quotationtemplate, the same logic doesn't apply; since the quotation marks are behind the text (and are indeed of a different size, color, etc.), there is no need to "hug" the main quote. This is, again, for aesthetic purposes. In fact, italicizing the template's quotation marks may actually reduce the readability of the quote by occupying more space behind the text.
- Just remember that the reference formatting we passed is a guideline, not a strict policy. :) -CamelChip (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- I had hoped you'd receive an email notification. After all it was an edit on your user (sub) page (creating a talk page does count so, as I think), and most people, other than me, check their emails on a regular basis. 😄
- Some time ago, I had tried to establish something like a reference guideline on another, much smaller wiki. And this placing of the quotation marks was something I stumbled upon there in the beginning. (Can't recall to have it noticed on The Vault.) Have then done it the way I described here. I used the example of the quotation template only to give my argument a more solid basis. Which you now have rebutted. 😉
- We'll see what I do when I'm editing my first reference that is affected by the guideline. Clearly I will not alter existing formatting that already follows the guideline; and will be consistent if I add only to existing references. And that's where my choice to follow the guideline becomes tricky: If I'm the first editor to place a reference on an article and use my personally preferred formatting, with this little discrepancy of placing the QM outside the italic-apostrophes, then future editors who follow the guideline more strictly will create formatting inconsistencies – so the choice is rather non-existent. 😉
- Anyways, see you. -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 03:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)