Difference between revisions of "Team Fortress Wiki:Discussion"

From Team Fortress Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (right, noncapitalized)
(Separating major updates from content packs)
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 198: Line 198:
The [[Template:Major updates nav|major updates nav]] lists both [[Patches#MU|major updates]] (which copies http://www.tf2.com/history.php) and [[Patches#Content_packs|content packs]] together, unlike any other place on the wiki (or any valve site), as far as I'm aware. Is there a reason for this, other than to bloat the 2011 category? If not, can we split that nav in two, one for major updates and one for content packs? <br>I've taken the liberty of drawing up a split [[User:Armisael/Update_navs|here]]. — [[User:Armisael |'''Armisael''']] <small>([[User_talk:Armisael |T]] · [[Special:Contributions/Armisael |C]])</small> 07:30, 24 May 2013 (PDT)
The [[Template:Major updates nav|major updates nav]] lists both [[Patches#MU|major updates]] (which copies http://www.tf2.com/history.php) and [[Patches#Content_packs|content packs]] together, unlike any other place on the wiki (or any valve site), as far as I'm aware. Is there a reason for this, other than to bloat the 2011 category? If not, can we split that nav in two, one for major updates and one for content packs? <br>I've taken the liberty of drawing up a split [[User:Armisael/Update_navs|here]]. — [[User:Armisael |'''Armisael''']] <small>([[User_talk:Armisael |T]] · [[Special:Contributions/Armisael |C]])</small> 07:30, 24 May 2013 (PDT)
: Yea, our major updates should match Valve's definition. [[User:Balladofwindfishes|Balladofwindfishes]] 00:33, 24 May 2013 (PDT)

Revision as of 07:33, 24 May 2013

Protecting class basic tips from tampering

I'm guessing a fair amount of new users make edits to the basic tips on the class pages that have to be undone. Maybe we should make subpages such as [[Class/tips]] that contain the basic tips and protect it with a reason like "Page has official, basic tips that should not be changed in any way". Even just including it as a separate page may turn away wikinoobs. I know List of official tips has been protected in the past for a similar reason, only really unprotected because those tips actually get updated. Toomai Glittershine 19:10, 23 October 2012 (PDT)

A simpler, and less restrictive (to actual editors--i.e. if it ever gets updated) solution would be to add __NOEDITSECTION__ to the section in question; thus it could only be edited from a general page edit. This would defer any casual editor; but can be circumvented by simply editing the entire page. Darkid (talk|contribs) 19:13, 23 October 2012 (PDT)
Clarification: __NOEDITSECTION__ will remove all section edit links (i.e. [edit]) on the entire page—I'm still for this idea. Darkid (talk|contribs) 20:00, 23 October 2012 (PDT)
Is it possible to have a page for those tips that are in consideration? This way people could submit tips they have found useful while playing for others to see. Or would that be just too much work? Lud1colo 18:19, 6 March 2013 (PST)
A bit of an old discussion. However, I feel you have missed the point of this section. The tips are not supposed to be edited. They are official! We have community strategy pages for user submissions. Darkid (talk|contribs) 18:55, 6 March 2013 (PST)
Whoops, didn't look. Sorry. Lud1colo 15:19, 12 March 2013 (PDT)
Well,I only edited SOME stuff like degrootkeep trivia,tux,long way more from wiki cap :/ yunodie 14:33, 13 March 2013 (PDT)

What should we do to Template:Promo nav

It's really pain to edit this template and look that where are items in the promo and that promo item is for which slot (Weapons/Hats/Misc). My opinion are :

  • Split this template to 3 pages of templates (Weapons Promo nav, Hats Promo nav and Misc Promo nav)
  • Split this template to 3 categories but still on single template (Cause a lot of size larger and ugh! to editors)
  • Split this template to 2 pages of templates (Games Promo nav and Events Promo nav)
  • Do nothing

I don't think do nothing is the best way. I think we should do somethings before this template grow larger and harder to edit. User Hinaomi Hinaomi-sig.png Hinaomi (talk) • (contributions) 07:11, 27 February 2013 (PST)

Least edited languages

So i got bored today, and i decided to see what languages on the wiki are least edited. So, today is 3rd March, 02:50 PST, and i used 500 changes on 30 days.

Results: Below, but i decided to post only language edits i managed to count.
7.zh-hans, 53 edits
6.no, 48 edits
5.hu, 45 edits
4.tr, 43 edits
3.pt (not pt-br!),41 edits
2.da, 31 edits
Aand number one is ar, with...16 EDITS!

As you can see, we need bigger community for the arabian tf2 wiki.
\theguy299\talk\contribs\ 02:50, 3 March 2013

In pt I only saw User:Lumpy3 as active editor, he said it really huge job due low editor in pt. User Hinaomi Hinaomi-sig.png Hinaomi (talk) • (contributions) 03:46, 3 March 2013 (PST)
A more useful metric is here, and that would put arabic, hungarian, danish, portuguese, and turkish as the most needed languages. However, this entire discussion is rather moot since translations are on a volunteer, not commission, basis. Darkid (talk|contribs) 05:18, 3 March 2013 (PST)

Competitive Section Rework

Hi all, I'm RJ, an aspiring contributor here.

I'm suggesting that we revamp the competitive section of this wiki. In its current state, it really only explains the the basics of each format, such as the class restrictions and the basic dynamics, when really there is much more to the competitive scene. For example, it doesn't cover common rollouts for maps, it doesn't cover common callout locations, it doesn't cover good Engineer spots for specific maps, and there are many other things that our current section doesn't cover. Also, it doesn't go into depth how someone interested in the format could get into competitive TF2.

I was discussing with Xenak that I would like to help out revamp the Competitive page on this wiki. I had the idea of listing all current weapon bans for each league, a short history on each game type, and general know-how on each game type. Though this might have already been discussed, I suggested that I add some more in-depth information about each league, division, or game type.

I have played in a few seasons of Highlander unofficially in High Gold and Low Platinum divisions, and have played a lot of PUGs and Scrims with some of the best players in the Highlander community--I've come to know them all, and I feel like I have the first hand experience!

I was also thinking of hopefully making the Competitive page more of an encyclopedia for all things competitive--from specific map strategies, to dynamics of specific maps as well. I suggested to link to specific video guides or text guides from Reddit and other sources from higher ranked players with their input on a specific idea.

With this idea of making the encyclopedia-style pages, I also suggest there be competitive version for the specific maps. On the main Competitive page, there could be a link to something along the lines of "Badlands (Competitive)" -- this page could be an in-depth look at the map itself. Include a bit of history of when the map came into the rotation for each league (Badlands may not work in this case, but maps like cp_process and cp_steel would be an example), specific callout locations, and specific strategies. If there are maps that are played in both Highlander and 6v6, there could be a specific section for both types--specific offclassing suggestions, which classes work and which do not.

The only concern here about these competitive versions of these maps would be picking which maps are to have their own page. The simple solution to this is to use the maps that leagues find acceptable. No need to vote on which maps get their own page; if ETF2L has koth_lolcano in it's rotation that season, and teams have strategies for it, then it will get it's own page!

If you think that the Competitive page needs a revamp or reformat, feel free to talk about it here!

RJ 21:02, 6 March 2013 (PST)

Badlands (competitive), etc. If you plan on doing a revamp, look at pages such as Soldier (competitive). Map pages are fair game, but large-scale revamps are going to need community agreement. Try to find a large enough (multiple teams) player basis to reach what looks like a naming convention consensus. Also, {{Weapon Ban List}}. Start looking here. Darkid (talk|contribs) 21:07, 6 March 2013 (PST)
Pictogram plus.png Support I agree that the competitive section needs a rework. It really only offers the bare bones of competitive TF2, with little to no mention towards how to get started in competitive, or specific class strategies for specific maps. Improving these areas can possibly help introduce other people to the competitive scene who normally wouldn't bother, as it would provide a defined way to get involved in comp. Many people I've talked to are interested in it but have no idea where to even start, and maybe this new and improved section can serve as both a gateway for them and an vault of knowledge for any questions they might have. As it is right now, it just seems unfinished and unrefined, and hopefully we can change that. Just my 1/50th of a dollar. — Xenak (Talk|Contribs) 21:22, 6 March 2013 (PST)
Thanks for the ideas, you two! I'll see if I can get to work on gathering some consistent information from teams of various leagues and divisions. Maybe I could add a specific note on if specific places are called differently in different leagues? (An example would be that the Flank on Second near Gray Bridge on Badlands is called "Finland" in Europe) RJ 21:32, 6 March 2013 (PST)
Honestly, that'd be one of my later priorities. At this point, I feel that the three of us (hopefully more) should decide what area we should work on (maps, classes, matchups, e.g.) and work on cleanup. Maps is a pretty easy way to go, (which is not bad) but does take a lot of consistent names. One thing to do before you dive in would be to take a page (the badlands page e.g.) and devise a nicely-reading page layout. The current one feels droll to me, and besides you'd need to work in the class strategy. Darkid (talk|contribs) 03:59, 7 March 2013 (PST)

Classes as Characters Section/Article

Hiya I'm Krubby. I noticed that nowhere on the wiki is there an in-depth description of the classes about them as characters. I was thinking there should be a section on each of their pages or a combined article for all describing their personality, interests, etc. Thanks! Krubby 09:50, 7 March 2013 (PST)

Hi there. I do agree that, for a game that is full of personality, some of the class articles are lacking with respect to describing the class's character. I don't think a whole section or new article is necessary, but rather a few more sentences about their personalities would be nice. User Moussekateer signature sprite.pngMoussekateer·talk 10:46, 7 March 2013 (PST)

Unpaintable hats in the Paintable hats table.

So I've been adding hats to the Paintable hats table as they come out. I've noticed that there are hats and miscs that are on the table that are unpaintable. So some input is needed. Should we include unpaintable hats on the table or not? Considering there are some already on them. Should we leave them or remove them? Ashes 12:08, 14 March 2013 (PDT)

Just forgot. Template:Paintable items list/All class items
I think we mustn't include a unpaintable hats table. I think we must delete unpaintable hats from the list.--MarcoDoctorwho 10:24, 17 March 2013 (PDT)
I'll split it as soon as I'm done with Update history... User Hinaomi Hinaomi-sig.png Rikka Takanashi (talk) • (contributions) 12:25, 17 March 2013 (PDT)
Pictogram plus.png Agree I don't see a need to keep all unpaintable hats in those lists -- so go ahead. – Epic Eric (T | C) 12:34, 17 March 2013 (PDT)
Pictogram tick.png Done Moved all unpaintable to Template:Unpaintable items list‎, took me 8 hours for only this template... User Hinaomi Hinaomi-sig.png Rikka Takanashi (talk) • (contributions) 03:06, 18 March 2013 (PDT)

About the "Marketable" in {{Item infobox‎}}

Hello, recently I have noticed that there's a "Marketable" info in infobox, which can identify the items can be sold or not. However, I think there's many problems with that.
The default setting of the info is "No" , but many genuine items can be sold onto the Market, and the label would still be "No" if no one put another setting inside the individual page. When the promo is over, the items become unique quality and thus cannot be sold. The editors need to do another edit to removed it. Plus, there's many tool items which is labeled "cannot be sold" at this moment. I personally think it is a huge work for every language to label or remove "market = yes" setting manually.
Due to the wrong info sometimes cause, I think either we removed the Market part in the infobox, or the codes inside the infobox should be modified. If we decided to removed it, then the Steam Community Market page can do the record job. I think the information there is already sufficient by displaying the rules of Market and record the items which can be sold with a template. In sum, I don't think the Marketable label is necessary in infobox. Please let me know what's your opinion on this or what shall we do with the template. Thanks.
~www~ 07:42, 14 March 2013 (PDT)

I agree, I don't think that attribute is necessary. Mostly because I believe Valve intend to allow all items to be sold in the Steam Market in the near future, making this information nearly redundant. The Steam Community Market page should suffice for now until Valves plans are clearer. User Moussekateer signature sprite.pngMoussekateer·talk 18:37, 14 March 2013 (PDT)
Alright, let's kill dis — Wind 18:46, 14 March 2013 (PDT)
So...we can removed that area now? Or shall we wait for more comments about this? ~www~ 00:58, 15 March 2013 (PDT)
Well, let's vote!
Pictogram plus.png Agree Remove it is better, maybe Valve will open to marketable all items soon. User Hinaomi Hinaomi-sig.png Rikka Takanashi (talk) • (contributions) 02:38, 15 March 2013 (PDT)
Don't be overly bureaucratic when you already know the majority supports it. -- Lagg Backpack Stickybomb Launcher.png 04:30, 15 March 2013 (PDT)
ded. is good — Wind 12:22, 15 March 2013 (PDT)
Pictogram plus.png Agree so much, is like a paradox. Example: A Genuine Ham Shank is not tradable yet, but the wiki says is Marketable. Is like a paradox --MarcoDoctorwho 08:34, 17 March 2013 (PDT)


Stickybomb Launcher and Sticky Jumper link to that section but it does not exist. I suggest changing the link to Jumping#Basic_sticky_jump. Teyandee 12:25, 23 March 2013 (PDT)

I went ahead and did it. For future reference, you don't need to ask permission to make a change like that - when it's small, and there's clearly a bug, go ahead and fix it. — Armisael (T · C) 12:30, 23 March 2013 (PDT)

Painted images. Specified guidelines/rules?

I'm bringing this up mainly because, Due to some confusion in the IRC. What would we think would be the "average" resolution for painted hats/miscs. Also any other guidelines that could possibly fit in. (unless it differs per hat) If there should be a set or at least a minimum resolution why have we not came up with one? Ashes 13:32, 23 March 2013 (PDT)

TheDoctor suggested it be at least 500 pixels. But, most of the images are under that suggestion. We would have to revamp many of the painted images. --Samuel Enthers 14:01, 23 March 2013 (PDT)
Perhaps specific resolutions based on size of hats and miscs. Ex. Small 500px Large: 600x (These are examples do not actually use them) Ashes 14:02, 23 March 2013 (PDT)
Off topic but along the same lines: many images have a visible fire overlay. This might not be visible in the small (thumbnail) images, but on the actual file page they are somewhat of a nuisance. Eels 14:07, 23 March 2013 (PDT)
The tale about the problems with resolutions and pictures: There was once a ballon item which isnt vertically much but horizontal a lot. There is a horizontal big hat but not much veritcally. ; (fairy tale ends) ; In the end i only suggested one restriction for this case: 500px . this can result in 100x500 or 500x100 or 500x500. All this depends on the hat. But to get at least a decent seeable quality i suggested 500px. I hope i didnt started something terrible. δ³Σx² > Add + or - skills for me 14:09, 23 March 2013 (PDT)
I think all of this is moot, just because the templates only need 150px images. --Samuel Enthers 16:16, 25 March 2013 (PDT)
When we decide on this, we can stop the link to the image itself. Because it doesnt get bigger. Which itself makes only thumbnails without a normal (hq) version pretty useless if you want to see it sharply. But the staff members havent said anything about this yet, so we wait for some official thoughts, maybe? δ³Σx² > Add + or - skills for me 05:33, 26 March 2013 (PDT)
There isn't any need for a specific minimum resolution as long as the final image looks good when viewed on its file page. If your monitor is set to at least 1280x1024 your images should be fine for the most part but again this depends on the type of image being taken. The problem with these images is not necessarily the final image resolution but things like transparency, rotation, aliasing, and texture resolution. Compare the most recent version of this file to the initial version, for instance. There are docs available, so if you're having a specific problem just ask. i-ghost 06:08, 26 March 2013 (PDT)
I don't understand something about the image. Is it supposed to be an improvement, or a downgrade? --Samuel Enthers 11:06, 26 March 2013 (PDT)
The recent version at that time had aliasing issues, sorry for not mentioning that. i-ghost 05:38, 22 May 2013 (PDT)


What should be done with multi-class items like Crafty Hair? Should they have the nav of every class that can wear the item, or just the general Hat nav? 5 navs plus the promo nav plus the hat nav just seems a tad exaggerated. Eels 14:05, 24 March 2013 (PDT)

The alternative is to add a "multi-class nav" which would result in things like the crafty hair being linked to on all the classes' pages, since each would need to transclude that template--each needs to reference their classes' items. This option allows each class to reference only and all of their own items. Darkid (talk|contribs) 14:09, 26 April 2013 (PDT)

Disguise and Disguise Kit

I feel these should be merged onto Disguise Kit. No other class can disguise, and it's not exactly where one would expect to see the information in the first place. Darkid (talk|contribs) 14:20, 26 April 2013 (PDT)

Pictogram minus.png Oppose One is about the item, the other is about the mechanic and all its gameplay implication. The former needs to exist, and the latter won't fit in the context of the former, because it goes in details like gameplay changes and hitboxes when disguised. These don't really belong on an item page. I think however that both articles merit a disambiguation link at the top linking to the other — Wind 14:25, 26 April 2013 (PDT)
+1 for the disambiguation link. i-ghost 05:38, 22 May 2013 (PDT)

Deleting the AA, AB, AC… disambiguation pages.

This seems to be a change that has already been decided on, but I'd like to see what the consensus is. The arguments I've heard so far are:
Pictogram plus.png Pro:

  • Pages allow users to look up items more quickly, akin to an index

Pictogram minus.png Con:

  • Pages are not necessary, "The wiki is not a rolodex"
Darkid (talk|contribs) 12:21, 30 April 2013 (PDT)
It's not really something up for discussion. These pages really shouldn't have existed in the first place, because if you already know what you're looking for, you can go directly to the thing in question. The only purpose these pages serve is for useless trivia about how many different things the same abbreviation stands for. As I pointed out in IRC, such pages serve no purpose in languages outside of English, which complicates translation efforts considerably. On top of which, every time a new item, map, etc. comes out, it doubles the workload required to propagate the changes made, when the focus of the Wiki should be on documenting meaningful content (such as what the actual item does). --User LordKelvin Signature.png LordKelvin 12:32, 30 April 2013 (PDT)
The abbreviation redirects make it a lot faster to navigate (typing wiki.tf/FJ is a lot faster than wiki.tf/Frontier_Justice), even if you know what you're looking for. I think they should be kept.
The abbreviation disambiguations pages don't make it faster to navigate, as generally the extra load time isn't worth the keystroke savings. It also doesn't make sense to translate them in the usual way. However, they are useful to newbies not knowing what some weapon abbreviation they've seen on a forum or chat log or whatever. This is a problem that exists, and which the wiki is probably the least-bad place to solve. However, perhaps disambiguation pages aren't the ideal solution to it. Instead, perhaps a single page such as Abbreviations would be in order. Translating such a page would make a little more sense as well, as the translated version of this page would contain abbreviations of the weapons in the other language (which, interestingly, would make it one of the few wiki pages to have its translated versions not directly follow the english version) — Wind 15:03, 30 April 2013 (PDT)
Another option is to add those abbreviations/most important ones into Glossary page. This will, however, raise a question of "what is considered as important abbreviation" and "should Glossary page be translated 'normally' from English page, or language-specifically, e.g. include language's own abbreviations, terms, etc, and not straight copy-paste-translate from English version". -Asplode 15:14, 30 April 2013 (PDT)
Coincidentally, this is exactly what Wiki editors should be doing by default when maintaining a page. These abbreviations and acronyms will fit just fine inside Glossary, instead of being spread out on what eventually amounted to a separate Wiki of its own in the form of a Rolodex. i-ghost 05:38, 22 May 2013 (PDT)
Here's the list of deleted abbreviations, for reference — Wind 12:23, 4 May 2013 (PDT)

Naming consistency.

I notice a difference between Sawmill (Capture the Flag) and Community Sawmill (CTF) Strategy. Should the latter be changed to read Community Sawmill (Capture the Flag) Strategy?
Note: This effects Capture the Flag (CTF), King of the Hill (KOTH), and Control Point (CP). Darkid (talk|contribs) 16:01, 1 May 2013 (PDT)

Nope. i-ghost 16:11, 1 May 2013 (PDT)
Any particular reason? Darkid (talk|contribs) 18:17, 1 May 2013 (PDT)
Not before you state why you want to move these pages first, no. i-ghost 06:10, 3 May 2013 (PDT)
One set is named incorrectly. This means that when listed in categories (Such as Category:Maps) they appear out-of-order. Darkid (talk|contribs) 07:15, 6 May 2013 (PDT)
I'd say go ahead. It keeps things less confusing. Demoman emblem RED beta2.pngMedic emblem BLU.png "Thanks, Doc!" 11:22, 11 May 2013 (PDT)

Robo Keys And Items Ideas

Hi We Are All Wondering What Items And Key Designs That Are For The Robo-Crate.

I though Of This Idea

is that they'll be releasing a new MvM mission, which when completed in Mann up mode will reward you with a robo-key. This key will open the robo-crate, which will contain any one of the newly released Mk. II stranges, or unusual robo-hats.

In The Crates You Would Think Of Nuts N Bults As the Effect

but I think differently. Maybe Its Some Sort Of Poison oribiting the hat

You Can Email Me If u Have any Other Ideas

But I Didn't Mention the Key

I Think It Would Be Like a Metal Key All Siver But With Nuts in it

Email Me If u have some ideas :)

The preceding unsigned comment was added by Y0L0 McSwag :D (talk) • (contribs)

Speculation goes to SPUF, thanks. -Asplode 11:00, 14 May 2013 (PDT)

I hate to be a killjoy but…

I was trying to clean up Category:Templates, which could be used to create a more comprehensive list of templates in use on the wiki. In cleaning it up, I encountered quite a bit of randomness... including a few user templates (Which shouldn't ideally be in the category) and a few horridly outdated and/or humorous (perish the thought) templates. The question I'd like to ask is:
Should this category be cleaned out and re-purposed (including the deletion, re-purposing, or re-categorization of the random templates) or should it remain the way it is, in a general state of disrepair? Darkid (talk|contribs) 11:35, 18 May 2013 (PDT)

I don't see anything wrong with the templates. --Samuel Enthers 13:08, 20 May 2013 (PDT)
Some are merely unused, others are simply out-of-use, and there is the thought that things should be cleaned up. Darkid (talk|contribs) 13:20, 20 May 2013 (PDT)
Being unused or out of use does not qualify a template for being removed from a category. That category exists both as a root for the sub-categories and for templates which don't fit the sub-categories; please use your own judgement to recategorise anything you feel is out of place (or leave it as it is if a template is fine where it is). The user templates should have their categorisations commented-out in their source. i-ghost 05:38, 22 May 2013 (PDT)

Add in robot responses and voice lines?

I have noticed that there is no real directory for all of the MvM robot responses and voice lines, While it is true that these are just modified versions of the default player voices, they all have their own separate sound files in the .VPK sound directory. I believe that in the interest of full information, we should add in these sound files to a separate page like the player responses do. --Samuel Enthers 09:08, 20 May 2013 (PDT)

I noticed the same thing and I'd love to upload them for you but I don't understand the new VPK system. If you could explain it to me I'd gladly do it for you. Eels 09:14, 20 May 2013 (PDT)
Thanks for the help. All of my trouble is in designing and making a new page, however. I'll make a cheat sheet for the VPK system. --Samuel Enthers 11:23, 20 May 2013 (PDT)
The Wiki is not a mirror for all game content. It is sufficient to simply state that the lines are altered versions of the originals, with perhaps an example or two, rather than mirror the existing response pages. i-ghost 05:38, 22 May 2013 (PDT)

Separating major updates from content packs

The major updates nav lists both major updates (which copies http://www.tf2.com/history.php) and content packs together, unlike any other place on the wiki (or any valve site), as far as I'm aware. Is there a reason for this, other than to bloat the 2011 category? If not, can we split that nav in two, one for major updates and one for content packs?
I've taken the liberty of drawing up a split here. — Armisael (T · C) 07:30, 24 May 2013 (PDT)

Yea, our major updates should match Valve's definition. Balladofwindfishes 00:33, 24 May 2013 (PDT)