| ||This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes.|
Recently, the notable loot page at "Help:Notable loot" has been moved to "Fallout_Wiki:Notable loot policy". This has been done because of its general treatment and acceptance as policy. The vote before us here is to decide on whether or not the community approves of it. For reference, there have been discussions on the fora regarding this matter in the past. Please note that this is a conclusive vote and mainly serves as a formality in order to make the aforementioned policy official once and for all.
Everything that is to be judged in this vote can be found in its entirety on Fallout Wiki:Notable loot policy.
- neutral I'm going to have to cast a neutral vote for the fact that I know many, many, users who are still angered about the removal of skill magazines from the policy, where as myself, a policy is a policy and I will follow it whether I like it or not. -- "This is my road, you'll walk it as I say" 02:28, July 22, 2012 (UTC)
- yes I fully approve of this new notable loot policy. Gothic NekoNeko's Haunt 03:11, July 22, 2012 (UTC)
- neutral If magazines where in that policy making them notable, I would vote yes. Hawk da Barber 2012 - BSHU Graduate 07:00, July 22, 2012 (UTC)
- no Pip-boy 2000 (talk)
neutral I might change my vote. For now, I believe that the list might be longer. Energy X ∞
- yes While I'm not completely satisfied with the final list (I will always err on the side of more content, not less), I will respect the process of dialogue and consensus that was achieved in the original forum. We do need some threshold for inclusion of loot, so while this, to me, is not ideal, I will support the previously achieved consensus. 14:57, July 22, 2012 (UTC)
- yes I'm not sure why people are bringing up the skill magazines again, as that has already been voted and decided on by the community. This is not an appropriate opportunity to announce your resentment against that community decision. The current policy in general is fine as it is right now and has seen inveterate usage. --Skire (talk) 15:03, July 22, 2012 (UTC)
- yes Full support. I'm glad we got around to this. ~ Toci ~ Go ahead, make my day. 16:47, July 22, 2012 (UTC)
- yes I have nothing new to say that I haven't said before. Agent c (talk) 21:20, July 22, 2012 (UTC)
- yes I believe this is the right way forward. Kiwi 13:35, July 24, 2012 (UTC)
- yes As one who suggested most of the changes, I support it. Limmiegirl Talk! ♪
- yes I'm also kind of with Gunny. I feel the focus should be more on adding content, but we should have a standard, and this is what I think is best.-- 03:02, July 25, 2012 (UTC)
- no I don't often vote no in polls, but in this instance, I am. If Skill magazines aren't on the list, then there should not be a policy on or for Noteable Loot.--Ryker6106:14, July 25, 2012 (UTC)~11:13pm 7/24/2012 "For the struggle of survival is a war without end!"
- no I'm voting no because I actually want to see more things removed from the list. We need to lay out a specific criteria for items to qualify as notable loot (such as apparel items that appear more than 5 times in the game don't qualify). It shouldn't be notable loot unless someone would travel to that location for the sole purpose of getting that item. For that reason we should remove things like FO3 Metal Armor and the NV Advanced Radiation Suit. I'm all for less content, not more.
- neutral Yeah, yeah, I know I helped write most of these policy changes out with Jspoel and Sigma. For the most part, I agree with what we currently have, as we need to be strict on what should be considered notable or not. In my opinion though, there are still a lot of changes that need to be made to this policy before the next Fallout title presents itself. I'm under the impression that we either need to only note unique items, special ammunition types, and/or quest items. Orrrr we need to gather ourselves a team of G.E.C.K. experts and list the locations of every fixed item in each game. (Even going as far as listing the random loot tables for every container.) We are an encyclopedia of knowledge, after all, and we need to go the extra mile to provide every ounce of information that the Fallout universe can throw at us. My thoughts on the matter. Skål!
- yes We already discussed this, so why not? Hugs "Say 'ello to my little friend!"
@Stars and Stripes Forever: I am extremely confused about your reasons - we do have a specific criteria that defines general notability, and it is linked to above on this page. If you've actually read the policy how could you have missed it? And all those items listed have been checked with the GECK for a number of fixed locations, which is why they're there in the first place. A lot of time was put into the creation of that list, and many want it to be expanded. So if you want further removal of items I'll tell you now it won't happen. --Skire (talk) 15:46, July 25, 2012 (UTC)
@SigmaDelta54: I was actually, fully aware of the specific criteria, but as said in your own words, it defines general notability. I'm looking for numbers, something that definitively lays out a limit for the maximum number of appearences an item can have in a game before it no longer qualifies as notable loot. Now of course there are exceptions, Nuka-Cola Quantum for example, it appears in FO3 on numerous occasions, but it still qualifies as notable loot because it is essential to a quest. Now to my other main point, I personally wouldn't travel to a location to pick up Metal Armor, because their are bigger and better pieces of apparel in the game. It's a simple question "is the item notable enough to convince the player to travel to that location for the sole purpose of getting that item." Now note, I think this policy should only be used if the item is on the borderline of the number limit I've recommended, and we could answer that question by looking at factors such as the item's monetary value compared to other similar items. Lastly, I'm not concerned if my idea of a notable loot policy isn't considered. I'm just throwing out my two cents on the subject. 22:15, July 25, 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree with this. Items that are unique but intended for low levels may not meet this standard. Agent c (talk) 22:24, July 25, 2012 (UTC)
Our current policy is fine and it has already been trimmed down massively. Around a year ago notable loot sections on our articles contained many more items than they do today. And notability does not equate to rarity, that should be a given. Hence the section name is "notable loot", not "rare items" or "rare loot". There are other things to consider, and they have all been listed on the current policy page (e.g. quest items). And it doesn't matter if you wouldn't travel to a location to pick up metal armour - your personal preferences of armour are irrelevant. And the reason why we don't have "something that definitively lays out a limit for the maximum number of appearances an item can have in a game before it no longer qualifies as notable loot" is because it is more of a blanket, set-in-stone policy and requires less judgement on editors' parts and negates the necessity of case-by-case analysation. --Skire (talk) 15:29, July 26, 2012 (UTC)
- Eh... are broken items like the broken missile launcher notable? Because I've noticed people removing things when the vote isn't even finished yet... Message 17:40, July 27, 2012 (UTC)
- Mara, the policy categorises it as notable since all one-of-a-kind items are notable, no matter the type of item. Hugs "Say 'ello to my little friend!"
- I can't imagine why in the world it would do that... --Skire (talk) 17:31, July 28, 2012 (UTC)
- I mean did you make some new items notable or not? Energy X ∞ 18:16, July 28, 2012 (UTC)
The policy passes. A lot of people have voiced their thoughts about this and/or have done the research by checking the GECK, and reading the comments I feel people see there's been done enough effort and want this subject finalized now. While I think it's not a complete list yet (the GECK is a very large database), the policy is good enough to stand. Jspoel 21:56, July 29, 2012 (UTC)