This talk page is only for discussing improvements to the page "Throwing knife spear."

What is and isn't a bug Edit

First a little cut-paste:

Just because a perk description says it will affect a weapon doesn't mean it always will. If the GECK says it is supposed to be affected by the perk and it isn't working properly THEN it would be considered a bug. Great Mara (talk) 23:14, September 24, 2013 (UTC)

To be blunt, no, that is not the definition of a bug in any way shape or form. Plenty of things have been set in the GECK that are bugs. Remember the bug with the turrets in the Vault 11 Chamber of Sacrifice and the quest The House Always Wins? Destroying them would fail the quest for no reason. Why? The turrets were "set in the GECK" to be in the Lucky 38 faction. It was clearly a bug, it was even patched later, but under your definition it would not be a "bug" because what happened matched what was set in the GECK. Clearly that's wrong.
In short, I'm restoring the bug. I'm also going to skip quite a few steps and get some admins involved in this too. This is a bug. It has been confirmed as a bug. Your definition of what constitutes a bug is incorrect. Please accept these things and move on. -- Yukichigai (talk) 00:10, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
One other thing I'd like to add as background which may factor into this discussion, namely who I am and what I do. I am not just some random dude with his own peculiar definition of bug. I have spent as much time fixing bugs in this game as I have playing it. Bugs are my specialty. -- Yukichigai (talk) 00:19, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
What you just stated is completely absurd. If something is set in the GECK to work a certain way and it actually works that way then it isn't a bug, it would only be a bug if it was working contrary to the way it was programmed. Common sense 101. I'll be moving this to the Throwing Knife Spear talk page. And until someone with GECk checks the settings, I'm restoring the page to the way it was. Don't touch it again. Great Mara (talk) 00:18, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
First off, you're not an admin, as Skire just eloquently demonstrated by locking the article before you could revert me. Don't tell me not to touch an article. You don't have the right.
Second, Common Sense 101 is not Computer Science 101. QA teams don't confine themselves to only ensuring that the game engine does what you tell it to, they also ensure that what its told isn't crap.
However, I realize that won't really sway you much, so instead let me list a bunch of bugs which under your definition are not because the game is doing what it is told:
  1. Craig Boone reholsters his weapon every 5 seconds even in combat, making it such that he does not actively participate in combat most of the time. This is caused by his companion quest script explicitly including a call to "CraigBooneREF.EVP" which triggers every five seconds no matter what due to the way the condition checks in the script are structured. The script is executing correctly as it is written, re-holstering is an expected effect of an EVP call, but this is still clearly a bug.
  2. Several pre-dead NPCs such as Trash are marked as both dead and respawning, meaning that when you encounter them initially they will be dead, but if you return three days later they will be alive and wandering around. Again, the game is doing what it is told, but obviously dead, named NPCs are not meant to come back to life.
  3. Grandma Sparkle is meant to have different dialog depending on whether the Lone Wanderer has good or bad karma, but because she's set to check her own karma she will always use the "good" dialog. Again, she is set in the GECK to check her own karma rather than the player's. This is a bug which exists BECAUSE of the GECK setting.
  4. Completing How Little We Know without talking to Liza O'Malley first will make it impossible to complete For the Republic, Part 2 ever. This is caused by a dialog script "set in the GECK" that hides an objective that needs to be displayed so that FTRP2 can continue.
...and on and on and on. Really, I can name 20, 30 different examples that all follow this same formula of "it's a bug because of how it's set in the GECK". Your definition of a bug is inaccurate. -- Yukichigai (talk) 00:39, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
I am technically a Patroller however, so I will warn you against edit warring like you had been as much as I damn well fucking please along with reporting your behavior to admins as I see fit. I'll read the rest of your post after I get back from a food run since we're leaving now. Great Mara (talk) 00:50, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
And I am too. I've had rollback rights since before "Patroller" was even a user group. -- Yukichigai (talk) 00:56, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
You may want to check more closely, you neither have the tag on your profile nor are listed on the admin page. Furthermore if you were, you should know better. And since you seem to have more examples lined up, feel free to provide something besides programmer error. More along the lines of a weapon being listed in form lists and not working during actual gameplay preferably. Great Mara (talk) 01:15, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
First, this weapon not being on the Loose Cannon list is a programmer error. If you count the above as bugs, you count this as a bug. That's the point.
Second, check Special:ListUsers for rollback rights. I'm on there. Not my fault someone forgot to add me to the second list. -- Yukichigai (talk) 01:23, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

Just throwing it out there, and I'll stay out of this from now on since an Admin is already involved, but the technical definition(s) for a software bug is stated as such:

a. A defect or difficulty, as in a system or design.
b. A defect in the code or routine of a program.

So that means, that if the programmers specifically did not add the throwing spears introduced in DM into the Loose Cannon perk table, then this is not a bug. Clarification: A misleading perk description is not necessarily a bug. It would only be a bug if the (DM) throwing spears were indeed added into the perk table, but still weren't affected as intended. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 00:37, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

The devs actually forgot to add any of the Dead Money weapons to any of the appropriate lists, not even perk lists but general classification lists, e.g. the automatic rifle is not added to the automatic weapons list, the ranged weapons list, the list which is literally named "Everything" that is meant to contain everything. Throwing knife spears not being on that list is just one part of the huge ball the devs dropped with Dead Money. -- Yukichigai (talk) 00:41, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, I would direct you to Talk:Throwing_knife_spear#What_is_and_isn.27t_a_bug for a full explanation of why your assumption is incorrect. -- Yukichigai (talk) 00:43, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
"Forgot"? I would like to see your source for that. It might be obvious. But we are an encyclopedia first, and one doesn't make baseless assumptions on a factual wiki such as ours. I'm also confused as to how I was making assumptions. I gave you the literal dictionary definition of a software bug. Not a wikipedia definition. Not an urban dictionary definition. An actual dictionary. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 00:44, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
Then I direct you to the first portion of the definition of bug, "a defect or difficulty, as in a system or design." These bugs I'm listing are cases of design defects: instances where it is not the implementation which is the source of the problem, but the design itself. Design defects constitute bugs. This is one of them.
Also if you look at the Dead Money script where these things were supposed to be set, it is as you suggest very obvious. -- Yukichigai (talk) 01:00, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
I refer you to me previous words: "So that means, that if the programmers specifically did not add the throwing spears introduced in DM into the Loose Cannon perk table, then this is not a bug. Clarification: A misleading perk description is not necessarily a bug. It would only be a bug if the (DM) throwing spears were indeed added into the perk table, but still weren't affected as intended."

ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 01:10, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

Except a misleading perk description is a bug. It's always a bug. Whether it's a bug on the part of the description or what the perk affects depends on the instance.
Look, Loose Cannon says it affects all thrown weapons, but the throwing knife spear - a thrown weapon - is not affected and is the only thrown weapon not affected. Logically, which one of these is the bug:
  1. The description is inaccurate and should read (in part): "From frag grenades to throwing spears, you can throw weapons 30% faster at the cost of 25% less range, except for throwing knife spears"
  2. The trait mistakenly does not cover throwing knife spears.
I think that illustrates my point pretty well. -- Yukichigai (talk) 01:15, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
A misleading textual description is not a software bug. You can say otherwise until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't make it true. Anyways, this isn't going anywhere. Until someone provides us with an image clearly showing from the G.E.C.K. that the (DM) throwing spears are indeed in the LC perk table, yet aren't behaving as intended, there is nothing at all pointing towards this being a bug of any kind. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 01:18, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
And that is why your assumption of what constitutes a bug is wrong. Again, which is more likely: throwing knife spears are the only thrown weapon in the entire game not affected by the trait, or this is a bug? -- Yukichigai (talk) 01:24, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Prove it. I gave you the literal definition of a software bug. No assumptions there at all. You're just feeding us subjective information off of your own bias. (I say bias, because you specifically said you were right simply because you make mods on the Nexus site. Which doesn't actually prove anything.) So if you are the one in the right, then I'm sure you'll have no problem with providing sources towards your claims. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 01:27, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

You're not going to get any "proof" on this one, because you can't prove a negative, specifically "prove that it's not by design." Also, you're avoiding the question. Which is more likely? -- Yukichigai (talk) 01:30, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
You said you make mods. That means you have access to the G.E.C.K. So, if you're right, then yes, you can prove it by creating a simple screenshot of the (DM) throwing spear in the LC perk table.
That's not proof of a bug. That's proof of an arbitrary incorrect definition of a bug. Not to mention that DLC weapons don't appear in any of the Form Lists for perks since they're added via script. And no, it's not in the script either, because it's a programming error like I laid out above. -- Yukichigai (talk) 01:36, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
And you do realize you're being a hypocrite, right? "Which is more likely?" - Subjective, and is making assumptions. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 01:33, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
Still avoiding the question. Which is more likely: throwing knife spears are the only thrown weapon in the entire game not affected by the trait, or this is a bug? Answer it and this discussion will be over. -- Yukichigai (talk) 01:36, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to answer that question. By answering that question, I'm saying I know better than the developers themselves. And as an Administrator on a factual encyclopedia of knowledge, I will do no such thing. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 01:42, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
If you want to stick to that somewhat unbelievable excuse, rather that just doing a bit of logical thinking so you can understand why I've come to the conclusion that is a bug, I won't stop you. I will say that I don't believe you for a second. -- Yukichigai (talk) 01:46, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

Why is there an objection to this being a bug? The perk states that all thrown weapons are affected; however, this weapon was never added to the list of weapons covered by the perk. We don't know why it wasn't added, but we do know that it's not there. 01:49, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

Because this perk is a vanilla game perk. They've never re-written a vanilla game perk for DLC items. Ever. And if the developers specifically did not add the (DM) throwing spear into the LC perk table, then that means there is not a programming error. Simply that the developers did not want or bother to update the perk. If that's the case, then this is not a bug. Just an oversight that has nothing to do with the programming itself. Until proof is provided, then we have nothing stating that this is a bug. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 01:54, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
Uhm... actually yes they have, or rather they used the function "AddFormToFormList" to update the list. That's why Loose Cannon covers the Tomahawk, Proton throwing axe and variants, and so on. -- Yukichigai (talk) 01:58, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
Did I say re-programmed? No. I said re-written. As in, the textual description. Which is what you're basing your whole argument around. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 02:03, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
No, I'm basing my argument around a simple question: "which is more likely?" I may not have proof, but neither do you, and that's why I'm asking the question. Repeatedly. -- Yukichigai (talk) 02:07, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
Wait wait wait... are you saying that the the only reason I think this is a bug is because they couldn't update the description of the trait to include the phrase "except the throwing knife spear"? Are you seriously arguing that? -- Yukichigai (talk) 02:11, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
Well, a surprisingly insightful comment from an anon-IP. I'd like to emphasize one thing in that: "We don't know why". We do not know why this weapon is not on the list of weapons affected by Loose Cannon. Anyone who says they do who isn't named J.E. Sawyer, etc., is lying. We can only make assumptions based on logic and reason. So (to beat a dead horse) which assumption seems more logical: that throwing knife spears were intentionally not covered by the trait, making them the only thrown weapon not covered by the trait; or that their omission from the list is not intended and thus a bug? -- Yukichigai (talk) 01:58, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
We don't edit based on assumptions. And maybe we should drop Sawyer a line to ask. Great Mara (talk) 01:59, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
Yes we do. We don't make wild assumptions, but this whole wiki has tons of assumptions and bits of logical reasoning in it. That may not be the way you want to edit, but that's been how this wiki operates since forever.
And your suggestion is completely impractical. Are we going to ask Sawyer to verify every single bug on this wiki? There are tons of bugs on this wiki which have been added with far less rationale than the one here, ones that have lasted through numerous edit wars and have been confirmed multiple times. In fact the Bug Verification Project was started specifically to stop these kinds of issues.
There are a great many bugs in this game, far too many for us to have the kind of proof you seem to want for every single one. In the absence of absolute proof we have to use logic and reason to figure out what the case is. The "which is more likely" question I keep asking, the one everyone seems bound and determined not to answer, is the kind of reasoning I'm talking about, the kind of reasoning that's been undertaken all over this wiki. -- Yukichigai (talk) 02:07, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
The "which is more likely" question is making this sound more subjective than it actually is. Basically, we don't need dev confirmation on everything we list as bugs. Like I said above, we haven't asked specifically if the Roach King was intended to have a beard if she spawns as a female, but we can infer that this is an oversight and can be listed in the bugs section. 02:11, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

Why not ask him if the female Roach King was intended to have a beard and if Grandma Sparkle was intended to have good karma dialogue for all pcs? We don't have confirmation that these are unintended, but we have them listed in bugs anyway. 02:02, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
Alright, that's it. I have tried again and again to remain objective. I've given you the literal definition of a software bug. I've refrained from giving my personal opinion over this, and I've asked multiple times now for you to provide some form of proof for your claims. And then, to rub salt into the wound, you tell everyone else that they're making assumptions, the ones that are debating you, at least, while you ask questions such as "which is more likely?", which is absolutely hypocritical.
So, here's the deal: As an Administrator, and off of consensus, I am laying down a decree stating that until proof is provided that this is indeed a bug, and not just something the developers intentionally left untouched, that this information is merely note-worthy, and not to be declared as a software bug.
However, since Skire was indeed the Admin that took over this debate first and locked the page down, I will respect his initial authority over this matter, and I will await his thoughts before proceeding further. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 02:14, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
I will also remove the beard bug from the Roach King's page. We don't have any evidence that it's a bug. 02:17, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
The beard is an effect of the randomizer used to determine the gender of the RK. And since it's the randomizer that causes the beard, and not the gender in which females are not allowed to have beards (as seen using the character creation tool), that means that it is indeed a bug. Same as the Talon Company having multiple pigmentations due to their randomization. So if you remove that from the bug section, I will revert the change. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 02:21, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, and you've completely misinterpreted that definition. The dicdef explicitly includes design defects - things that are a flaw in the design itself, not the implementation - in the definition of bug. You've also set a ridiculously high bar for proof, one that is simply unobtainable for most bugs. Go back and look at the bugs I laid out in my example: under your interpretation of what a bug is, those aren't bugs, yet it's quite obvious they are. -- Yukichigai (talk) 02:20, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
Burden of proof is on you. You say everyone else is wrong. But then refuse to provide sources as to how you're the one that is right. That doesn't sit right with me. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 02:22, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────No, I've said two editors are wrong, and countless others who've worked on the article previously are correct. Remember, this isn't just a bug I'm reporting, this is a bug that's been on this article in this wiki for more than two years and has passed verification under Bug Verification Project. I'm sorry, but the burden of proof goes to the person removing longstanding information from the article, not the person trying to retain it. Where's your proof? -- Yukichigai (talk) 02:26, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

69.I25 outright stated that the weapon isn't on the form list, therefore the program is working correctly from the supplied parameters. Burden of proof as to whether or not this was intended is on you. Great Mara (talk) 02:28, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
And that's a completely incorrect definition of what constitutes a bug. Where's my proof? All those examples I laid out, and the 2+ years this bug has been on the wiki and remained as a bug, even after being edited by an Admin. That pretty well establishes consensus that your requirement for what constitutes proof is not a good requirement. -- Yukichigai (talk) 02:30, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
Yuki. We have over 15k pages. There will be mistakes on some/many of them. Mistakes that have been present since this wiki's creation. That is not an excuse to allow those mistakes to continue, or even spread. And I don't need proof. Stating that something is a bug needs proof. I'm working off of the fact that the alleged bug has a lack of proof. Anyways, you can keep throwing up strawman arguments. I am officially done here until a source is provided. I really don't have all night to argue with circular logic and semantics.
And no, that was not an incorrect definition. How many times do I have to tell you that the definition I provided is straight from the dictionary? You are the one lording your own bias definition over the literal definition. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 02:32, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
If it was just one page, sure, but I've pointed out at least five other examples that fail due to your "lack of proof". Which, by the way, I don't even agree with. In the absence of proof, logical reasoning should be enough to classify something as a bug.
And if you cannot see how part A of the dictionary definition you posted, "a defect or difficulty, as in a system or design", covers a design defect, then I don't know what else to say. -- Yukichigai (talk) 02:40, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

"Remember, this isn't just a bug I'm reporting, this is a bug that's been on this article in this wiki for more than two years". And was originally added (or 'reported you could say') by, you. No DLC weapons were added to the form list, thus none are effected by it. It is not a bug, it is a choice. My bad. Some are added though script; but unless a non-working script for the knife spear exists, it is still not a bug.JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 02:32, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
You left off the part where it was reported by me, then edited, trimmed, reworded, and most importantly verified by at least a dozen other editors. I'm not the only person who thought this was a bug. You'll find I'm the original reporter of a great many bugs on this wiki. -- Yukichigai (talk) 02:40, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
I can't find a broken script, but I can point out that the Dead Money script does not add any items to the "Everything" Form List which is supposed to contain EVERYTHING, which all other DLC adds items to. This bug is a smaller aspect of a larger bug with Dead Money, namely that it doesn't add DLC-specific items to ANY Form Lists. That's obviously not intentional. That's obviously a bug. -- Yukichigai (talk) 02:42, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

"69.I25 outright stated that the weapon isn't on the form list, therefore the program is working correctly from the supplied parameters." Yes, but it's still a bug. The program also works correctly when it does not properly check for karma in the Grandma Sparkle because the GECK does not include a proper check, but this is also still a bug. 02:37, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

Different scenario. That's a programming issue. Yuki's argument is that since the textual description for Loose Cannon specifies that it accounts for every throwable weapon, that the (DM) throwing spear not being in there is a bug. That's not necessarily a programming issues, as there's a chance it could just be a textual issue, since the descriptions for perks have never been changed for DLCs. What we're looking for here is proof as to whether or not this is a textual or programming error. If it's a programming error, then this is a bug. If textual, then this is merely an oversight, and not a bug. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 02:41, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
You've missed part of my argument: throwing knife spears are the only thrown weapon not covered by the trait. Even thrown weapons from other DLCs are covered by the trait. If it's just a textual issue, then what was the text supposed to be changed to, "all thrown weapons except the throwing knife spear"?
You see my point? It's a statistical outlier. It's the odd man out. It's the exception to the rule, with no basis for why it should be exempt from the rules other than a lack of something. That's not proof of something, that's quite literally absence of proof. -- Yukichigai (talk) 02:46, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
"I'm not the only person who thought this was a bug." Just because loads of people agreed doesn't mean that it's right. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 02:43, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
After a point it means consensus was reached, which on a wiki does in fact mean that it's right. -- Yukichigai (talk)
Please stop making up arbitrary meanings. Our wiki has never worked that way. Even consensus can be overturned here, and you are in no position to declare otherwise. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 02:48, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
What's arbitrary about that? A bug was put on the article, multiple editors looked at it, edited it, even verified it under the auspices of the Bug Verification Project. Clearly a consensus was reached. Are you saying a wiki is not edited by consensus? -- Yukichigai (talk) 02:54, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
I think for now the best option would be to move to notes. There's no doubt it's notable, as it's clearly conflicting the definition of the perk. I'm just trying to make sure we have a mention of it, and leaving it as a note until we have solid confirmation that it's a programming error should do. 02:49, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
I can agree with that. (what I was planning to do, anyways) It's definitely notable, like you said. And there is a chance that this is a legit bug. I'm certainly not arguing that. We have a person right now looking for verification in the G.E.C.K. Hopefully we can find some proof as to whether or not this is a bug. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 02:57, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
I've already verified the weapon's absence from the list in the GECK. 02:59, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. Letting this stay as anything but a bug is going to cause chaos for a lot more articles on this wiki as bugs are re-evaluated and stripped en masse. This is a bug. This may be at the extreme outliers of what a bug is, but there's a rationale behind why it's classified as such, and invalidating that rationale is going to invalidate the rationale on a lot of other articles too. -- Yukichigai (talk) 02:54, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
Actually, no. Just because something that is wrong goes unnoticed does not mean it stops being wrong; people who check bugs don't tend to check if the thing in question is a bug or not, only if it is true. The reason that it was still there was because people looked at it and went either
A) That is true
B) I don't know if this is true or not, so I will leave it.
They didn't check "should this be happening". I agree with Anon, as I said from the start this is not worthy, even if it is not a bug. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 02:56, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

It seems that this is quite an attractive debate! It's interesting to read all the different arguments being made here, but in the interest of resolving the issue, I'd like to input a few things...

It seems this is a relatively complex issue. I won't talk about burden of proof for the sake of brevity but I would like to state that a bug is inherently some sort of error, failure, fault etc. on part of the program or system in question. Therefore, oversight by the developers would not qualify as a software bug, and therefore shouldn't be listed as a bug. And since we cannot know for sure what the developers had intended (amongst other uncertainties), this note should belong under "notes" instead of "bugs." All bugs must be notable, but not all notes must be bugs. Readers can access this information just as easily from there.

Finally, I am choosing to pass administrative control of this situation to User:GarouxBloodline from now. --Skire (talk) 03:02, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

If we have to be "sure" about the developer rationale behind every bug, and the "only exception to the rule" thing I've been talking about doesn't count as being "sure", then that's going to be a large upheaval in existing bugs on this wiki. I don't think I can really be around for that. Frankly, it's gonna piss me off too much. I don't come to this wiki to be pissed off, I come to this wiki to provide useful information. So if I'm not around in the immediate future and there's any question as to why, that's why. I'll be doing something that doesn't raise my blood pressure. -- Yukichigai (talk) 03:14, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
You're extending my words beyond their intended scope. We can all agree that this "bug" is not your typical bug. The intentions of the developers are very relevant in this case. It cannot be determined what is root cause of such a weapon not being under the trait's effects, and thus since we do not speculate, we include it under notes. We agree on its notability but not on its characterisation as a bug. --Skire (talk) 03:20, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't think I am. Two things you've said in particular I find very alarming: "oversight by the developers would not qualify as a software bug", and "we do not speculate". The former I simply don't agree with, the latter however undermines the very advantages of a wiki. Again, if we have to have absolute proof on developer intent, if we can't make an educated guess based on existing indicators, then that will mean the elimination of dozens of other bugs from this wiki. -- Yukichigai (talk) 03:50, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
You absolutely are. I am referring to oversight specifically of this kind (i.e. not including an item in a list that should intuitively include the item). Ultimately, all bugs can be attributed to developer "oversight." My lack of clarification and your misinterpretation would be to blame there... Also, the issue is we do not know what happened that resulted in this anomaly; was it or was it not the developers' intention for something like this to happen? Clearly no one knows for sure (at least no one here). And also, we don't speculate. It's in our policies, and it's an important part of a wiki. Whether you agree with it or not doesn't matter. Things that are obvious beyond refute we can apply common sense to and deal with them accordingly, but for an ambiguous case like this, special discussion is required to sort the issue. Extending the results of this discussion to other pages is inappropriate, unless there is enough similarity between the issues... --Skire (talk) 19:46, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
Read below. I've outlined several bugs - some longstanding ones from Fallout 3, I might add - which have nearly identical root causes, i.e. an item missing from a form list when the associated perk/etc. description indicates it should be on that list. For most, that is the only thing that identifies them as a bug; they don't even have the whole "Dead Money doesn't add to hardly any lists like it should" thing going for them like this bug has. Whatever decision is made here will affect those bugs as well, and those are just the ones I could find after fifteen minutes of searching. That is why I find your statement so alarming: what you've said would mean removing bugs which were reported and established years before Fallout: New Vegas was even released. -- Yukichigai (talk) 21:49, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

( Fantastic. If there are other similar cases that need to be resolved, then so be it. What's so alarming about correcting mistakes that have previously gone unnoticed? They would simply be moved from bugs to notes, should they truly be notable. No harm done. --Skire (talk) 21:58, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

Because you are letting bureaucracy get in the way of common sense. The point of this wiki is to provide information on the Fallout universe and its associated games, not to cram that square peg of information in to the round hole of rigid peer review standards. If we wanted that we'd just be doing this over at Wikipedia. The minute you honestly think to yourself "it's the only reasonable explanation, but we can't include it because we don't have proof" you have failed the purpose of the wiki. -- Yukichigai (talk) 22:11, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
Provide true and verifiable information, that is. We don't speculate. Clearly there is more than one "reasonable explanation" for the matter at hand, otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate, right? And as for my arguments, they will end here. You're welcome to help fix other notes of the same sort that are under bugs, provided they are there under the same circumstances. --Skire (talk) 22:17, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
I fail to see how any other explanation is reasonable, simply on the basis that the explanation that it was an unintentional omission is the only one with any evidence to support it. There's nothing to suggest the devs intentionally left the weapon out of the list, other than statements that start with "they might" and "what if".
And no, I will not be assisting in any other similar edits to articles. These are bugs and will always be bugs as far as I'm concerned, and my ethics won't allow me to participate in any effort to obfuscate that information. -- Yukichigai (talk) 22:28, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

Administrative Decree Edit

Since this is such a popular debate as of now, I do not want to make any rash decisions regarding how we proceed from here. I will take what everyone has said into consideration, and I will come back tomorrow with a final decision.

Also, keep in mind that my decision is up for further debate if someone has the sources to continue it. If something to the contrary turns up, I will be more than happy to revert my changes and add this information into its proper context. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 03:18, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

For what it matters, let me just lay out again what my reasons are for wanting this in the "bugs" category:
  1. It matches the description of the weapons covered by the Loose Cannon trait.
  2. It is the only thrown weapon not covered by the perk, including weapons from other DLCs.
  3. The script NVDLC01MQ00 (where this weapon would presumably be added to the Loose Cannon weapons list) also fails to add any Dead Money items to various other Form Lists. Notably, this includes the Form List "Everything", one for tracking hats and headwear ("Hats"), one for tracking all weapons ("NVAllWeapons"), one for grenades and mines ("WeaponGrenadeMineLIST"), one for tracking melee weapons ("WeaponListMeleeALL"), one for tracking ranged weapons ("WeaponListRangedALL"), etc. etc. etc. It does add items to the holdout weapons list, adds Vera's dress to the items you can give Veronica to learn Scribe Counter, and makes the Holorifle explode gas traps on hit, but that's ALL it does. This in particular I cannot believe is intentional, since every other DLC adds its items to the appropriate lists.
So that's what's out there so far. -- Yukichigai (talk) 03:39, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
One other thing I will point out about #3: the script also fails to add demolition charges and gas bombs to the list that was used by the Demolition Expert perk. I say "was" because a later patch changed that perk to not use the list and instead just check if the weapon is an Explosives skill weapon, thus making those two weapons covered by the perk. -- Yukichigai (talk) 03:54, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
And to establish that this isn't a unique case, here is a list of other bugs which are functionally identical, i.e. their base cause is that they are absent from a form list despite a challenge/perk/etc. description indicating they should otherwise be included:
Whatever decision is made here is likely to directly affect these other bugs as well. -- Yukichigai (talk) 07:19, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+