The General Idea
This will be a debate on whether or not we should consider fixed locations as notable when considering non-notable loot: weapons, armour, misc. goods, and consumables in both Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas article pages. Thorough lists have been compiled for each category noted by both me and Jspoelstra, (Thank you Sigma for your help as well in this process.) and will be included below for criticism. After this debate has been concluded, there will be an official vote which shall decide whether or not these lists will be added into our notable loot policies. 
Skål!
Critique We are Looking For
- Should fixed locations be notable when considering specific non-notable loot?
- Do you contest any of the items found in the lists provided?
- Are there items you feel are missing from the lists provided and should be of note?
The List
Have an Inquiry?
You may personally contact the main coordinators:
Critique/Ideas
Please keep your entries condensed and to the point. Any user who ridicules others' critique/ideas will have theirs removed as a result. Thank you, and we look forward to your input.
Just a point of order to start... Is there any reason why we're limiting the discussion to the leadership team? Agent c 10:33, May 31, 2012 (UTC)=
- Because the last thing we need is every user coming in and suggesting crap like a .32 pistol as notable. Also, because we don't want to make the same mistake as when we were replacing our logo after the split.
Skål!
- I don't think this is likely (if a user becomes disruptive, remove them), but I do think the value of our discussion is lessened by ignoring the regular user. At the very least the end vote (if not the whole process) should be by community consensus and contribution, as our rules and guidelines require. Agent c 10:50, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
- Shoot Jspoel a message then so it doesn't clog up this forum. We were talking about this together, and we both strongly feel like this debate needs to stay professional, and in the hands of the people who know what is the best for this wiki. It's ultimately up to him and Clyde though. Skål!
Can I still vote? lol ;) ToCxHawK 10:38, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
- Absolutely. I consider you one of the exceptions I mentioned in my disclaimer, especially since you were a moderator until only recently. Skål!
Are we going to divide the notable loot and non-notable loot with headlines or the non-notable loot will become notable? MS: Destiny conquers all. 11:17, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
- All this would add is a fixed location section to article pages that would list fixed items that wouldn't have originally been considered as notable. This still doesn't make them notable loot though. Skål!
I'm with C on this one. We need to get every user in on this. After all, there are more editors who aren't admins than the opposite. 
11:27, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
- No need to worry about that anymore. We have decided to remove the screening process from this forum debate. Anyone can add in their input now. Skål!
Right, so now I'm confused. If we've got a "not notable but notable enough to note" section, what is the value in the notable loot section? I though the idea behind notable loot was to limit what was put on the page, why not just take the simple route and define these as notable. (In short, what is the difference between this category and notable loot?). Agent c 13:05, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
- Notable loot - An item of unique properties or of a finite source. So why are we creating a list for items that aren't considered notable loot? Because there are fixed locations in both games where one can still find highly sought after items. So why are the items we listed notable when considering fixed locations? I wrote up this tally system that might help settle your mind:
Prerequisites:
- What tier does the item in question belong to?(T1:0/T2:0/T3:1)
- Is the item in question sold by any variation of merchants? (Y:0/N:1)
- Is the item in question only sold by one-two merchant(s)?(Y:2/N:0)
- Does the item in question drop from the variation of enemies found throughout the wasteland(s)? (Y:0/N:2)
- Does the item in question require materials to make? Does this customized item drop from enemies? Is it sold by merchants? (1:0/2:0->1/3:0->1)
- Is there only a finite amount of said item? (Y:2/N:0)
- This is not a list for notable loot. This is a list for notable loot found under fixed location(s). For further clarification, this list is only being made to present which items are to be noted for fixed locations found out in the open world. This does not include enemy drops or merchant tables.
- Unique items are not noted in this list.
- This list does not take into consideration vanilla item rarity in DLC's.
- An item must at least have a tally score of 3 or more to be considered notable.
- Fat Man and the bottlecap mine are the only two exceptions to the tally rule. Skål!
- Fat Man and the bottlecap mine are the only two exceptions to the tally rule.
- WTF seriously, did we not learn the last time, another admin only vote!!!!! I am sorry Garoux, but what gives you the right to decide to ignore the process of the wiki. Same goes for KC and J if they are backing this proposal of selected votes. If it comes down to it, I will simply veto the vote as per policy. 16:01, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
My input: If this is a DEBATE, then why are we talking of voting? If it's a debate, it should be simple reasoning together, not voting. It makes about as much sense as wiping before you make stool. Let's at least get through the debating and arguing period before we start thinking about a vote to change a policy like this one. This community out of all of them should know how unstable it can get when it jumps right to public votes with no reasoning behind it. ~ Toci ~ Go ahead, make my day. 16:10, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
- I think the list is pretty good already and we can come to an agreement without needing it to come to a vote. If you feel items are missing from the list, let us know or if you think an item isn't notable, same thing. Btw, don't blame Clyde, it was pretty much mine and Garoux's initiative. Jspoel 16:31, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I've removed the admin/mod only vote part. I want the focus on the subject and not other on things. Jspoel 16:40, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I've removed the admin/mod only vote part. I want the focus on the subject and not other on things. Jspoel
- Toci - Straight from the policy: "To this end, the normal procedure for proposing new policies and guidelines or changing existing ones is to create a topic in the "wiki discussion" forum. Once the discussion has led to a final draft, call a vote."
- Ghost - This is a matter that not everyone is going to understand properly. This is seen when I see even registered users adding crap in like the Chinese pistol or the 9 iron as notable loot. Not everything needs to be a community consensus, and this is even back up in our policies: "Aside from the normal procedure, the administrators may "decree" policies or guidelines. This should only be done with consensus among administrators and in cases where community consensus cannot be reached but a policy or guideline is needed." This is nothing new, and even when we were still called The Vault; there were decisions made without the need of the overall community. We are merely concerned, because this is a very tedious subject, and we don't want the same thing to happen as with the logo change. Skål!
Alas, it is out! I've had some part in discussing this matter before hand, and I have no objections to the current list. And I believe this is one of the very few cases in which only more experienced users should be allowed to vote. --Skire (talk) 18:33, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
- Garoux, you fail to even understand the rules, or are just choosing to ignore them for you own benefit. Yes there is a provision to add policy with admin consensus, but only if community consensus can not be gained first. The whole clause is there to prevent deadlock or policy creation from being chocked due to everyone having differing views on the subject, and only when there is a dire need for a policy to be formed (i.e. when no policy could actually be harmful to the wiki). It is not there to be used as a loop hole to force through change, such as politicians do in real life, against the will of the community they represent. And it is defiantly not to be used to create policy when you have not even ascertained if there is community consensus at the first stage of the process when proposing new policy. Simply being concerned that it is a tedious subject is not goon enough reason. If something is worth doing, then it should be done right. If you cant be arsed to do it right from the start because it is a tedious task, then that forces the question in my mind as to why are you even an admin? An admin should be doing what is right for the wiki and the community, not what is easy for them. But you are right, not everything requires community consensus, but in the instances of policies and guidelines, it is a requirement. 21:31, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
- Let's just drop it... this isn't even the case anymore, and I'd rather this not turn into another discussion of whether or not I'm worthy of my position, even though I was not the sole person who came to the decision. This is something that needs some thought put into it though, and so far only one person has actually addressed what this debate is even about. I'd rather not have this dragged out forever. Skål!
- Let's just drop it... this isn't even the case anymore, and I'd rather this not turn into another discussion of whether or not I'm worthy of my position, even though I was not the sole person who came to the decision. This is something that needs some thought put into it though, and so far only one person has actually addressed what this debate is even about. I'd rather not have this dragged out forever.
I disagree with adding this list to location articles. If there are rare or uncommon items sufficiently limited in quantity (or possess some other factor making them desirable) then perhaps we should be discussing an expansion or modfication to our current notable loot policies. For now, I believe the list of fixed locations on the items page themselves are sufficient enough. 
Apocalypse Now! 00:44, June 1, 2012 (UTC)
- I appreciate your feedback AFollower. My main issue is that I believe notable loot should stay the way it is now: Only unique items or items of finite quantities. You make a good point about fixed locations already being noted on each specific item page. That will certainly be taken into consideration. Skål!
- Andrew or AF, if you please. As I said before, the information already located on the items' pages (and if they're not it can be fixed easily enough). From what I gather from your description, the addition of a new 'Fixed Locations' section to each applicable locations page will crowd the page and confuse both new and experienced users. Also to be considered is the massive overhaul to both the FO3 and FONV locations projects and applicable pages that would result. I think it would be better to be left as it is, barring the discussion of modifying the notable loot policy which I believe is a good idea. Not trying to attack the proposal, I do think it has good merits and elements of it should definitely be introduced to the wiki, just not in it's current form. Apocalypse Now! 07:27, June 1, 2012 (UTC)
- Andrew or AF, if you please. As I said before, the information already located on the items' pages (and if they're not it can be fixed easily enough). From what I gather from your description, the addition of a new 'Fixed Locations' section to each applicable locations page will crowd the page and confuse both new and experienced users. Also to be considered is the massive overhaul to both the FO3 and FONV locations projects and applicable pages that would result. I think it would be better to be left as it is, barring the discussion of modifying the notable loot policy which I believe is a good idea. Not trying to attack the proposal, I do think it has good merits and elements of it should definitely be introduced to the wiki, just not in it's current form.
After another thorough check on the misc/consumables I suggest adding the following items too.
FNV consumables
- Nuka-Cola Victory
- Sacred datura root (1 fixed + quest)
- Thin red paste (both 3 fixed)
FNV miscellaneous
- Case, .45 Auto (9 fixed in 2 locations)
- Golf ball (4 at Kings)
- All recipes
Fallout 3 consumables
- All fresh fruits (all at Rivet City)
Fallout 3 miscellaneous
Jspoel 
20:35, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
To me, its either notable, or its not. Perhaps instead we should be lessening the "notable" definition to include "rare/uncommon" items that would cover these? Agent c 20:58, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
- You keep missing the point of this debate entirely... Notable loot needs to stay the way it is. We are merely wanting to list a few fixed locations for certain items. Skål! 21:02, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
- As I said above, I think this list works. You've all spent a lot of time compiling it and it deserves to be met with at least constructive feedback. Having a list of set, fixed-location items will definitely improve our content and overall present more information to readers, which is the ultimate goal. --Skire (talk) 21:04, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
Quick question:Why is there a need for a limit to noteable/rare loot? If one of the answers is space considerations, there are other ways we can attack the issue. Please see [1] where the section has been modified with an expand section tag. I understand the need to keep truly non-notable loot off the pages, but if space considerations are an issue for the notable/rare loot we're discussing here, that expandable section may be a possible solution. Of course, it could also be a solution to a number of other things, eg quote limits, etc. The Gunny 03:08, June 1, 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, and this may draw some criticism to myself, I don't see why all of these items shouldn't be notable. I"m not positive of their exact frequency, but I know them all to be valuable, and most definitely worth a mention when concerning a fixed location. I'm just sick of all the things that our articles are missing out on, let's focus on putting them back in, rather than just removing them. I agree that mundane items should be kept off the pages, but a missile launcher? Come on, that's worth a mention I think.--
17:29, June 1, 2012 (UTC)
- You know, Ryan, I agree 100% with you, honestly. These notable loot policies are getting so restrictive that it isn't doing anything but limiting our content potential. Let's be practical - why should these items not be mentioned on pages? Because our current "policy" dictates so? Over the last few months plenty has been removed and now notable loot sections for most pages are rather bare. We want to provide the most valuable information to our readers, and this is it - this is important and needs to be incorporated into articles. Has anyone actually seen that many cluttered notable loot section nowadays? The reality is our notable loot sections have been reduced to the absolute minimum, and that is hurting, not improving our content. This fixed location list that GarouxBloodline and Jspoelstra have compiled will help alleviate the fact that our notable loot sections are being ridiculously cut down. Let's just finish this business before it drags on ad nauseam. --Skire (talk) 18:42, June 1, 2012 (UTC)
This debate has now been completely derailed from its original purpose. Can we please stick to why this forum was made in the first place? Now, the Notable Loot policies are strict for a reason. We need to have an iron-set boundary that shows what is notable or not. Unique items? Items that are involved in quests or can only be found in a limited number? These makes sense. Now something like a missile launcher, you can find this off of: enemies, off of merchants, from random loot, in set locations, blah blah blah. So there is absolutely no way we could defend its notability. If we allowed that, then other users could come along and reinforce that shaky logic by asking why we don't have weapons included like the assault rifle or the cowboy repeater. We couldn't dispute it, because usefulness is a personal view, not a fact, and because we've already added in weapons that have no boundary. They have nothing to set themselves apart like unique weapons and the others I mentioned above. Skål! 18:48, June 1, 2012 (UTC)
- Which is why we need the items of this list to be in our pages. They have been researched and put together through a long process. Only these set locations exist for them, and so that is a quantitative measurement that is a matter of fact and not opinion. --Skire (talk) 18:51, June 1, 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly! I'm glad someone is actually getting the point of this forum debate. The notable loot policies need to stay the same. And I would like it if you all stopped talking about it here, as this forum is of a completely different nature. Skål! 19:01, June 1, 2012 (UTC)
- Leon, I think its a case that we don't understand what you're trying to achieve here - that's why we're asking why not make it notable loot. Maybe it would help if you stopped, and reworded exactly what you're trying to achieve. Agent c 19:05, June 1, 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm just an idiot, but I'm really not seeing what your goal is here. I'm just saying that I feel those items have a place when they're fixed. I suppose if that isn't what it's about, I'll keep my mouth closed.-- 20:06, June 1, 2012 (UTC)
- No, you're not an idiot. I actually seem to have glossed over most of your comment initially. I've read it thoroughly now though, and it seems you're getting the jist of this as well. I was mostly referring to the first comments being made and the one by Gunny talking about notable loot in general. Anyways, consider this forum closed for now. I will be gathering my thoughts for now, and later I will hopefully be able to resume this debate with a little more clarity for the readers. Skål! 20:12, June 1, 2012 (UTC)
- No, you're not an idiot. I actually seem to have glossed over most of your comment initially. I've read it thoroughly now though, and it seems you're getting the jist of this as well. I was mostly referring to the first comments being made and the one by Gunny talking about notable loot in general. Anyways, consider this forum closed for now. I will be gathering my thoughts for now, and later I will hopefully be able to resume this debate with a little more clarity for the readers.
- Maybe I'm just an idiot, but I'm really not seeing what your goal is here. I'm just saying that I feel those items have a place when they're fixed. I suppose if that isn't what it's about, I'll keep my mouth closed.--
- Leon, I think its a case that we don't understand what you're trying to achieve here - that's why we're asking why not make it notable loot. Maybe it would help if you stopped, and reworded exactly what you're trying to achieve. Agent c 19:05, June 1, 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly! I'm glad someone is actually getting the point of this forum debate. The notable loot policies need to stay the same. And I would like it if you all stopped talking about it here, as this forum is of a completely different nature.
(←) Fine. Strike my last comment and let me rephrase it:At an absolute minimum, add this list to the policy. And at the risk of going off topic, if the addition of the content makes the pages too cluttered, I have a solution. Did I get the point? The Gunny 
20:26, June 1, 2012 (UTC)
- Gunny, that might not be so easy a solution. When you're around in chat I will explain why in a bit more detail. 20:44, June 1, 2012 (UTC)