Difference between revisions of "Team Fortress Wiki:Discussion"

From Team Fortress Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Team Fortress Wiki SOPA blackout v2)
m (Case closed...)
Line 354: Line 354:
 
::[[User:I-ghost|i-ghost]] 21:13, 18 January 2012 (PST)
 
::[[User:I-ghost|i-ghost]] 21:13, 18 January 2012 (PST)
 
::: I think a lot of you are being ridiculous... It's not a huge deal. It's no different than posting a message about supporting breast cancer on a personal blog. The FBI isn't going to come smashing down Valve's door, and Valve probably honestly doesn't give a crap. At this point, I'll be honest. I'm willing to say no to the SOPA protest on the Wiki. I still want it to happen though. But at this point some of the opposing points have become so stupidly over thought and worried about stupid things that it's honestly worth just leaving alone. MOST OF THE INTERNET IS DOING THIS. IT DOESN'T HURT ANYONE! It's just a bit of "fun" (in the sense that it's not getting anyone caught up in anything) and shows support. It does nothing but help and the dramatic way some of you see this is just dumb. I'm out from now. I've made all the points I can. I still support the idea, but clearly some of you are too paranoid and worried about what 5 people may think than making a difference. -- [[User:Benjamuffin|<span style="color:#0e5c76;font-size:13px;font-family:'TF2 Build';text-shadow:#e3e3e3 1px 1px 0px;">Benjamoose</span>]] <span style="font-size:10px">[[File:BenjamuffinSig.png|Om nom nom!]] ([[User talk:Benjamuffin|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Benjamuffin|contribs]])</span> 22:04, 18 January 2012 (PST)
 
::: I think a lot of you are being ridiculous... It's not a huge deal. It's no different than posting a message about supporting breast cancer on a personal blog. The FBI isn't going to come smashing down Valve's door, and Valve probably honestly doesn't give a crap. At this point, I'll be honest. I'm willing to say no to the SOPA protest on the Wiki. I still want it to happen though. But at this point some of the opposing points have become so stupidly over thought and worried about stupid things that it's honestly worth just leaving alone. MOST OF THE INTERNET IS DOING THIS. IT DOESN'T HURT ANYONE! It's just a bit of "fun" (in the sense that it's not getting anyone caught up in anything) and shows support. It does nothing but help and the dramatic way some of you see this is just dumb. I'm out from now. I've made all the points I can. I still support the idea, but clearly some of you are too paranoid and worried about what 5 people may think than making a difference. -- [[User:Benjamuffin|<span style="color:#0e5c76;font-size:13px;font-family:'TF2 Build';text-shadow:#e3e3e3 1px 1px 0px;">Benjamoose</span>]] <span style="font-size:10px">[[File:BenjamuffinSig.png|Om nom nom!]] ([[User talk:Benjamuffin|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Benjamuffin|contribs]])</span> 22:04, 18 January 2012 (PST)
 +
 +
:: http://i39.tinypic.com/zuqa74.png
 +
:: To quote what I said on the IRC - "Well what a waste of time we were. We had a chance to be part of something there. Even if it was for an hour, you could say "hey, we stood up against that and won". But we didn't. We just sat around and debated while the rest of the world solved the problem for us." P.S. Beautifully made SOPA screen WindPower. I honestly love that. -- [[User:Benjamuffin|<span style="color:#0e5c76;font-size:13px;font-family:'TF2 Build';text-shadow:#e3e3e3 1px 1px 0px;">Benjamoose</span>]] <span style="font-size:10px">[[File:BenjamuffinSig.png|Om nom nom!]] ([[User talk:Benjamuffin|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Benjamuffin|contribs]])</span> 22:18, 18 January 2012 (PST)

Revision as of 06:18, 19 January 2012

Template:Discussion archives/2011 Template:Discussion archives/2010

Why aren't bugs subjected to the same scrutiny as trivia

The bugs section on certain pages are getting quite large and getting filled with what I'd argue are trivial 'bugs'.

Why aren't we subjecting bugs to the same moderation process as trivia? I.e. why are we listing casual observations (clipping bugs), in addition to actual, substantial bugs (not working in the correct manner). Frankly, clipping bugs aren't interesting in the slightest (something is bound to clip with something else given the huge number of potential combinations in cosmetics/weapons we have, it's simply inconceivable to think Valve will cook up potentially thousands of different animation libraries to satisfy some minor clipping issue between items); I believe they should be removed altogether and replace with a note on the Hats/Misc/Weapon pages saying along the lines of "due to the limited animation set of the classes and weapons, certain items may not fit ideally with the class' pose and animations". We even have an (albeit small) section in the style guide about bugs and clipping; so why aren't we filtering?

I guess this will naturally lead into a discussion about redefining exactly what a bug is. Where do we draw the line between aesthetics/functionality/clipping? Is the lack of a fitting reload animation for the Loch-n-Load truly a bug in the strictest sense, or can we expand the definition to include cases like that? i.e. Can we justify its inclusion based on the assumption that the Demoman should be loading his grenades into the chambers ala the Grenade Launcher rather than seemingly dropping them? The weapon still functionally works, only the aesthetics are messed up. I'd argue that is a bug by the way, as it runs contrary to expected user behaviour.

Then there's the issue of view/world model discrepancies. They aren't always bugs; part of basic modelling theory is that you try and make the view model more interesting than the world model and remove parts that the user won't see on your game/mods default fov, ergo it follows that there will be discrepancies, however small, between the view/world models. Take a look at any Valve game in the past, the viewmodel is intentionally skewed. Now there's an exception with c_models where there's only one model which the game displays, so it follows that there shouldn't be any differences in world/view, so there may be a bug to note.

What about shared content? Let's take the case of the Crusader's Crossbow, it reuses the sound and arrow of the Hunstman but is that a bug in itself? I'd argue no; it's simply Valve reusing existing assets to avoid the need to record or model new assets. But then a counterpoint could be raised by way of the item's description, which states clearly that the item fires a "bolt"; what then is the definition of a "bolt"? Does an arrow fall into this definition? If yes, then it's not a bug. If no, then by all means list it as such, but don't list the re-used sound, as there's no indication that it should use unique sounds. This is the kind of moderation I'd like to see employed by the Wiki.

Although this next point extends from the previous one, there's the issue of certain weapons reusing sounds where they clearly shouldn't (Scout melees for instance); my stance is simply so: if the item has the sound override defined in the item schema, then it's not a bug except where that override is not working. We know for a fact that The Solemn Vow uses the Ubersaw sounds on purpose from only a casual glance at the schema, and I know this runs contrary to what I noted earlier about "expected user behaviour", so we should note cases like that in the opening paragraph rather than as a bug.

Which brings me to the point of unused content; these are not bugs by their very definition, they are simply unused. However, in the case where the content is clearly supposed to be used (i.e. the schema defines it as such) but isn't, then it's a bug, as we expect that content to be used but through some programmatic error either related or unrelated to the schema example, it isn't.

My stance is that there's a bug if:

  • It runs contrary to the info listed in the backpack description
  • There is significant disruption in the animation of the item
  • The behaviour of the item was broken by a patch or through interaction from another item (i.e. unlimited Spy revolver crits from the interaction between the Sapper, Kritzkrieg and Buildings).

In addition, I feel we should:

  • Discuss the bug on the relevant talk page as exemplified in the above Crossbow example; and
  • Bring proof of the bug to bear, the burden of proof lies with the one posting the bug and as always we should assume good faith but also investigate if the bug is true rather than let it slip by; and
  • Write up thorough guidelines defining what may be considered a bug, replacing the pitiful three lines we currently have that pretty much every editor has ignored or failed to enforce judging by the lists upon lists of clipping issues we had/have noted.

Thoughts, please. i-ghost 07:03, 18 November 2011 (PST)

Pictogram plus.png Support I think this is a very good idea, at the very least discussion about stricter bug guidelines should be started. Personally, however, at this point I agree with the ideas for bug/not bug that you have put there. -Mr. Magoolachub 16:51, 18 November 2011 (PST)
Pictogram plus.png Support I agree 100% with the clipping bugs thing. I see a lot of 'bugs' of the form 'this item will clip with the character model for a split second during a taunt if you look hard enough'. Clipping happens, it's impossible to eliminate. The only instances where I think it should be noted is when it's extreme, like the Larrikin Robin taunt. Otherwise, not noteworthy and just article clutter. In regards to other bugs, I think it's only notable if the behaviour is unintended or it's so noticeable it breaks the immersion. Basically I agree with that short list you posted. User Moussekateer signature sprite.pngMoussekateer·talk 16:55, 18 November 2011 (PST)
Pictogram plus.png Support The bug section certainly needs a good cleanup, but I think there's probably going to need to be a little more give in the rules compared to trivia. Sometimes a weapon might be working completely as intended, but it's just "off" like the Loch-n-Load and the Crossbow Bolts. And then there's the instance of something not being there when other, similar weapons have that. Stuff like crit glow, melee crit animations, crit sounds, etc. Something like the Detonator uses the Flaregun's crit sound when firing. This is using the sound the weapon is coded for, however, it's just odd and the player is bound to notice and think something is wrong. Something, however, like incredibly minor clipping like the Chargin' Targe clipping can totally get culled. Balladofwindfishes 17:03, 18 November 2011 (PST)
Pictogram plus.png Support Lots of good points and I agree with most, however I do think that clipping issues should still be listed for all hats and misc items. Some people put a lot of effort into gathering tems that they want for their classes to wear, and it can be annoying to find that two items clip when worn together. » Cooper Kid (blether) • (contreebs) 17:35, 18 November 2011 (PST)
Pictogram comment.png Comment That's actually a very good point. There's no easy way to see two items previewed on at the same time, and people may rely on the Wiki to see if there's specific major clipping errors with items. We may not want to make a hard rule eliminating all clipping errors. Balladofwindfishes 18:04, 18 November 2011 (PST)
In most cases it's fairly obvious if the item will clip, especially now that we have equip regions. A reader will simply go "oh, that goes in the this equip region, it'll probably clip with other items which go near this one", or, judging from the class images we have they'll go "oh, that's going to clip with x, y and z". These are simple observations, again something we don't allow in the trivia sections. For instance, it's fairly obvious that the Googly Gazer will clip with the Clockwerk's Helm; so would that need to be noted (as indeed it is already)? If it's obvious that it's going to clip simply from imagining the two items together on the class, does it need to be noted? i-ghost 09:38, 19 November 2011 (PST)
There's a few that aren't too obvious. The Apparition's Aspect, for example, looks like it could work with a number of items, but actually has a great deal of clipping. But those are pretty rare exceptions, so yea, I agree that maybe such a robust documentation of clipping errors on cosmetics may not be as needed. Balladofwindfishes 14:13, 19 November 2011 (PST)
Pictogram comment.png Comment What if we just remove all clipping errors about the item itself? Like the Warrior's Spirit clipping itself, or the Soda Popper's bands with the Scout's hands and also things like "The Shortstop's hammer doesn't move when firing" should also be removed. Only if it's really noticeable, like the Overdose's air cylinders. GianAwesome 09:33, 19 November 2011 (PST)
That's what I've been getting at. It simply follows from simple logical deductions and observation (again something we don't allow on the trivia sections) that new items may not always fit with old poses. i-ghost 09:38, 19 November 2011 (PST)
The case of the Warrior's Spirit clipping is because of an error the creator made with the version he submitted during the contest. It was intended to fit like it does on the current version he re-submitted on the workshop, but something apparently went wrong with the submission and we have what we have now. That's a bug in my eyes, not a generic clipping error like the Pocket Medic's ridiculous clipping bug with the laughing taunt (which I think shouldn't even be listed). In some cases I don't like a blanket rules that all clipping errors shouldn't be listed because many of them actually are errors. The blighted beak back in the day was placed incorrectly on Medic's head. Valve knew this, the creator knew this. It was wrong, and a bug. And yet a blanket statement that all item clipping shouldn't be mentioned would mean this isn't a bug in the Wiki's eyes, when even in Valve's eyes it was a bug. I don't think bugs should be as easy and rigid to moderate as trivia, because trivia is generally a fun fact about the item, but is usually unrelated to the in-game experience. For bugs, every single one of those the player has a chance to experience. I think we need a more adaptive rule of "if the player thinks this looks wrong, and it looks wrong to me as an editor, and it's reasonably fixable, is blatantly noticeable even in still screenshots, it's probably worth mentioning." However, I do have to say I agree the rest of those bugs (Soda Popper clipping and the Shortstop's hammer) are not worth mentioning. That's another thing with clipping errors in client view. Many of these errors stem from a high viewmodel setting, but I don't think Valve takes that into consideration, so those may not be bugs. Many of the clipping bugs in that case shouldn't be mentioned because, while Valve gives the option of higher view models, they don't seem too concerned with making sure things don't clip at that high of a view. Well, this is a pretty long post right now, so I just want to end it by saying I really do think we need better bug rules and a general bug cleanup, I just don't agree with a hard, inflexible rule system that wouldn't allow for bugs that the average player would perceive as a bug and would feel is missing from the article. Balladofwindfishes 14:13, 19 November 2011 (PST)
Pictogram plus.png Support I missed this discussion up until now. I definitely support it. I recently removed a "bug" from the Sight for Sore Eyes article about the model's jiggle bones freezing in place when the client's framerate drops below 45fps, complete with an explanation of the cvar that causes that behavior. How anyone can post that as a bug is beyond me. If we mention clipping it should only be in extreme cases. Likewise for view model issues; if it doesn't show up on viewmodel_fov 54 don't mention it. Dragonsbrethren 13:47, 23 November 2011 (PST)
Pictogram plus.png Support with a proposal - how about listing cosmetic and gameplay bugs in different subsections? SiPlus 03:17, 25 November 2011 (PST)
Pictogram neutral.png Neutral The bug section, ever since it was implemented on weapon pages, has always come under fire from the self-righteous editors who feel strict control is necessary over 'unruly' sections. This is something I have always found obnoxious and unnecessary (why they don't turn their attention to more needy pages is beyond me), as it led to elitism and edit wars that should not be part of a community project. The point of the wiki is to inform and educate, and it is one of many sources for the community. If you start removing things that you, a select bunch of unelected people, consider irrelevant and unnecessary, you are doing nothing beneficial. You only need to look at SPUF, for instance, to see people still talking about clipping and errors that you have removed. Furthermore, you only incite new editors to try and replace this information (assuming they have not seen the discussion about removing it), thus leading to more reverts and consequently more work for yourselves. I had already attempted to bring some order to the bugs section, such as sorting by priority according to game-breaking ability. If this is not enough for some of you, I do not know what to suggest. Hence, a neutral vote. Of course I am strictly against any kind of cull you are trying to propose, but I do agree some sort of order needs to be made (hat pages possibly do not need clipping bugs). But it will be a sad day for the wiki when you start getting 'Bug executioners'. You notice how Trivia is now barren and barely touched? Bugs is likely to go the same way. --Focusknock 04:07, 26 November 2011 (PST)
Why not just move to remove the bug sections if you feel it's so much trouble? I'm only asking for some moderation, something which is mentioned in the Style Guide yet something that's somehow slipped by without being enforced or elaborated upon. You can think of this discussion as a movement to simply finish that section of the Style Guide; this isn't a self-righteous quest for some ulterior motive, I'm here for the same reason you are: to improve the Wiki. "This weapon/item can grant infinite critical hits if used in a certain way" is infinitely more useful to the reader than "this weapon/item will clip with the Demoman's left ass cheek if he performs the x taunt, but only if you move the camera to this y position". Yes, certain clipping bugs do need to be mentioned outside of the incredibly obvious ones as we've discussed above (where the reader can deduce this from images on the Wiki), but obscure clipping bugs aren't useful in the slightest, we need some sort of middle ground. Clipping happens; it's happened since launch and is a natural occurrence in virtually every video game ever, but we don't call all instances of it a 'bug'. Well, only here it seems. i-ghost 07:52, 30 November 2011 (PST)
I'm going to have to go with Focusknock on this. I've already stated this in the discussion, but just to reiterate, I think it's important that we allow bugs to be a lot more flexible than trivia because bugs are more integral to the game and are more noticed when they are missing. It's going to be a lot harder than just banning clipping bugs because some of the clipping bugs are very much bugs and are fixable (like the Blighted Beak, Dr. Woah). And if we remove the clipping bugs from a hot topic like the Loch-n-Load people are going to notice and they're going to feel that the wiki is missing information because it's not there, and I don't think we want that. Especially when we have to revert it over and over again, when having it on the page was harmless and added something to the article that people would want to read about. Balladofwindfishes 17:43, 26 November 2011 (PST)
It seems to me a solution would be to create separate bugs articles for articles with sections that get out of hand. I'm all for gameplay-affecting bugs getting prominent display in the weapon articles, but I don't think petty stuff like The Original slightly clipping through the Soldier's shoulder is worth listing in the main article at all. Dragonsbrethren 23:30, 27 November 2011 (PST)
I am strongly in Pictogram plus.png Support of removing most or all item clipping bugs. I think they're not notable at all, and people who are trying to mix and match outfits should just go do that on their own. Maybe it would be more useful to provide a HOWTO article for using itemtest. It's not in the best interest of the Wiki to enumerate such trivial things alongside real bugs. If there is a guide section for bugs best practices, I hope "item clipping" is right at the top of the list of "do not include". --Fashnek 13:42, 1 December 2011 (PST)
This is exactly how I feel about the clipping issues. We don't need to cater to people who want to play dress up. Purely cosmetic. SS2R 11:47, 7 December 2011 (PST)
Cosmetic items are now an intergral part of the game, and is well beyond simply calling it "dress up". Further, some cosmetics just plain don't work in ItemTest, so telling users to just go use that wouldn't work. I'm not 100% against removing clipping bugs, but I just needed to reply to the two previous comments. Balladofwindfishes 11:52, 7 December 2011 (PST)
May I suggest instead that what you consider as genuine bugs and what are clipping errors be separated instead? Since there seem to be a significant number of clipping errors, but also quite a few genuine bugs, it seems more logical to separate the two, such that those genuinely interested in only either one will be able to immediately get what they want. While clipping issues might seem trivial to some, it is undeniable that some people will want to check if there are clipping issues with their desired item combinations. Naturally there will be a slight problem of what constitutes a bug and/or a clipping error, as well as errors with ragdoll physics, etc etc, but this should be a start. Chaosshaun 21:06, 6 December 2011 (PST)

New point to raise: holding multiple actions

What about this so called 'bug': "While holding reload and firing" or "while holding primary and secondary fire you can (insert looping animations here)". This is taken from the Pistol and various rocket launcher pages. This is only a side effect of Valve introducing the ability to cancel all reload animations at any time, a feature not present at launch for all weapons (I can't cite the exact patch, but I have the SFM build and it's not present there). As a result, it only follows that you'll be able to force the animations to behave a little weirdly, and it's not something that's happening 'naturally' by the game; the user is forcing it (contrast with the Loch-n-Load where the messed up animations are there by default without any user intervention). Thoughts? i-ghost 07:52, 30 November 2011 (PST)
I think that is a bug, in the sense that your gun should not be trying to reload while you are holding +reload if you are holding +attack or +attack2. Even if you do remove this behavior from the lists, I think enough people will consider them bugs that they will get added over and over, and I don't think this particular instance is far enough from a bug (if it even is a non-bug) to warrant that kind of effort. I say leave +reload plus (other action) animation behaviors as bugs. As for the matter of forcing it, a great percentage of the bugs must be manually produced. The fact that some undesirable action is possible is generally a bug, in my opinion. This is especially true if it causes a sound effect in the world (Syringe gun +reload/+attack). --Fashnek 13:42, 1 December 2011 (PST)
I think in this case the user has to actively try to do the bug, doing something Valve didn't intend. Now, that doesn't mean entirely that doing things against what Valve intends is outright not a bug, but in this case, this is such a minor graphical oddity, I don't think removing it would cause people to wonder where it went. I don't forsee any edit wars trying to add it back in. Balladofwindfishes 13:53, 1 December 2011 (PST)
I've started removing all of these. Calling them "forced bugs". It's catchy. SS2R 05:46, 3 December 2011 (PST)

Does it Being Acknowledged as a Bug by the Creator Override Rules?

I think this is something that needs to be addressed before we put in hard rules to be enforced. What if the creator, for whatever reason, says something is a bug even if goes against the rules? I'm reminded of Hermes which has minor clipping, however, that clipping is apparently an actual bug and the version the creator submitted did not clip. When Valve implemented it, they did it incorrectly and the creator is working with them to try and fix it. What would we do in that case? I know in trivia, generally whatever a creator (or Valve) says about an item is deemed okay, but what about bugs? Balladofwindfishes 17:46, 5 December 2011 (PST)

Anything that a creator says in regards to an item I would call worthy of being a bug, despite whatever rules we end up deciding on. Hermes is a perfect example. SS2R 04:01, 6 December 2011 (PST)

Left Handed "Bugs"

Going through some pages, I noticed some bugs (and one trivia entry) that noted something was suppose to be the right hand version, but it appears left handed, etc. Like the Direct Hit kill icon or the Sharp Dresser. But TF2 allows the player to pick which hand the character uses. If the player wants, the character can be left handed, and this is just a simple option in the game. So are these really bugs? We don't know if the class's are right or left handed, and in the game they can be either, it just defaults to right. Further, some of these kill icons are done that way because of visual interest. The Direct Hit kill icon would look confusing and boring and confusing if it were facing right rather than left. The kill icons weren't made on accident, so I don't think it's really a bug. Balladofwindfishes 07:30, 8 December 2011 (PST)

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Kill icons or viewmodels? Left handed models are an option within the game, so it is expected they should be held to the same standard as the right handed models. I do not think the Electrosapper text appearing backwards in left handed mode is acceptable. It's an oversight from flipping the viewmodel, and is probably unintended; you can't look at it and go hmm that's normal. As for kill icons, it's part of consistency. The Tribalman's Shiv kill icon, for example, is upside down and inconsistant with the in game model, yet a fix is being made for that by the creator. Why shouldn't the same apply to other items? I can probably agree Direct Hit is a moot point since the scope is one of its features and so needs to be visible, but it should be recognisble simply from the shape even if facing the other way with the scope hidden. It was probably not made by accident, but then is that an excuse to let it slide?--Focusknock 10:14, 8 December 2011 (PST)
But there isn't consistency in kill icons. Looking at all the icons in the game, the stock icons are very different from the new unlockables, which are all even more still different from the Uber update icons. And there isn't really any "buggy" thing about the kill icons not totally being accurate to the original weapon. Even stock kill icons were kind of weird and may have differences in them (like the pistol or the original fist icon). The flipping text thing is sort of buggy, and when making this discussion those cases didn't actually cross my mind. I was thinking more along the lines of "this item is shown as left handed here, but in-game it is right handed" type bugs. Because saying the class is right handed isn't exactly true and is information I don't think we know as a fact, and it's information that can be changed at the user's choice. Balladofwindfishes 10:21, 8 December 2011 (PST)
Left handed view-models are simply a model flip and texture flip and is not how the game plays by default; it's the same as listing auto-reload bugs, cl_autoreload is off by default so we shouldn't list any associated bugs. TF2 doesn't have a way to magically transform the text on textures to not read backwards; if this was a case of true independent left-handed viewmodels which have independent textures but still loaded the right-handed textures, then sure it would be a bug. i-ghost 10:22, 8 December 2011 (PST)
I'm inclined to agree. Sure, backward text and oddities resulting from left-handed views are probably unintended, but they are expected results given that the view-models are simply flipped. Additionally, if any of the kill icons portray the left-handed model shouldn't be listed. The kill icons are meant to be symbolic so it shouldn't matter that the icon is 100% accurate, only that it portrays the weapon such that it is recognizable. A bit of artistic license shouldn't be considered a bug. -- Alex2539 - (talk | contribs) -- 10:37, 8 December 2011 (PST)
Ballad, I shall have to agree. Whether the kill icons are bugs or not comes down to defining what is a bug. My argument is the kill icons should be consistant and the fact they are not consistant is credible for this wiki. Once again, the adage 'someone will notice it anyway' comes into play, eg 'Hey that direct hit icon is facing the wrong way!'. The fact it looks boring facing the right way is irrelevant. I'd have to agree, however, that the kill icon inconsistency isn't so much a bug under these new rules as an annoying hitch. As for I-ghost, fair enough.--Focusknock 10:45, 8 December 2011 (PST)

Removal Starting

I've spent the morning going through all the weapons for Scout, Soldier, Pyro and Demoman. I went through each Bugs section and, based on the general consensus here and while discussing it in IRC, removed all the bugs I believed no longer served a purpose. Right off the bat, there was a debate about some, and others everyone agreed on. For the time being, I'll stop and see what people think about going this direction in regards to removal. What's left behind is also things I was unsure about. As important as adding information is to the site removing it is just as important, and having fresh eyes go over things sounds good. I'll admit, reading bugs that actually feel/sound like bugs looks nice. I can't tell you how excited I am to not see that every single Scout weapon clips with his palm on every page. Removing the clipping things is going to be much easier on hats due to their cosmetic nature, but there are plenty of bugs in within the weapons that are debatable. SS2R 05:46, 3 December 2011 (PST)

Weapons are done, at least for their once over. 305 hat/misc pages to go. SS2R 11:40, 7 December 2011 (PST)
I've edited the weapon guidelines to reflect the decision. --Focusknock 03:29, 8 December 2011 (PST)
Thank you. SS2R 00:42, 9 December 2011 (PST)

Scout, Soldier, Pyro and Demoman hats/misc done. Incoming break time. SS2R 01:53, 10 December 2011 (PST)

Crit-boost glowing

We know that items need a certain set of parameters to glow correctly in their VMT, and those are fine as bugs if said parameters are omitted, but what about items with multiple textures? I've done some research around this and it seems that the game can only colour/tint one texture per item at a time. So if a weapon references/includes more than one texture, only one of them will glow (assuming both are set up correctly). This is why the only the Scottish Resistance attachment glows, and why the Phlogistinator's canister doesn't glow (although the canister's team-colours are also set via $color2; another reason why it can't glow). Knowing this, it looks more like an engine limitation than a bug. I'm inclined to remove these, or at least not note them as 'bugs'. i-ghost 06:07, 6 January 2012 (PST)

I think if we don't list them, but list the others that don't glow at all, players are going to think those pages are missing the bug. If we were going to note them on the page at all, they fit better in bugs than they would in trivia anyway. Balladofwindfishes 06:20, 6 January 2012 (PST)

Item owner lists addition (HOUWAR)

You know how we have pages for owners of various items such as wiki caps and golden wrenches, should we also have one for people that own HOUWAR? (Hat of undeniable wealth and respect) Ihasnotomato

I would say maybe that kind of list would not be so good as people trade the HOUWAR all the time. It is also unknown how many people actually completed the potato pack. If there is hundreds it may not be so easy for us to list every one. seb26 17:48, 26 November 2011 (PST)
Pictogram minus.png Disagree Wiki caps are given out by the wiki and Golden Wrench owners are listed. As for as I know, there is no such list for the HOUWAR. Ownership tends to change a lot as well, making it hard to track. Scootz 17:51, 26 November 2011 (PST)
Ah, ok i didn't realize it was tradeable, thanks! Ihasnotomato
Well it is not tradable but it can be gift-wrapped (Wiki Cap, Saxxy, etc cannot) I recall seeing a number of HOUWARs on SourceOP selling for a lot in cash, it would be a nightmare to try and maintain a list like that D: seb26 22:33, 26 November 2011 (PST)
I know for a fact some people own more then one HOUWAR and they are traded quite regularly too. I don't think there is any point for a list. Wariopunk 08:00, 5 December 2011 (PST)

Gathering more user input before making changes to the Wiki

I do not think it would be unfair to say that most regular users of the Wiki are unaware that this page even exists, and why would they be, to someone who doesn't actively edit, discussion pages on the whole wouldn't be looked at, especially not a kinda less obvious one like this. While this isn't usually a problem, Focusknock's post in the Why aren't bugs subjected to the same scrutiny as trivia section of this page led me to ponder something. He makes a point about editors being a "select bunch of unelected people" making decisions for a whole community. At first I thought this unfair; the whole point of the Wiki is that we are unelected and anyone at all can join in and edit/contribute to discussions. But then I realised that, while that was true, most users of the Wiki don't do that and in fact would never even see a change like this being proposed before it was implemented.

Even though the Wiki holds doors open for any who want to contribute, many don't and don't know that changes are being proposed, but if they did may in fact not want the change at all as Focusknock suggested. When it is something that is being added this is obviously much less of an issue, but when we are taking something away, I feel the active users of the Wiki should have more of a chance to say whether they want it to happen or not. Therefore, I suggest that if someone has suggested a major revision to the Wiki's content and it has generally been agreed upon, before it is implemented there should be some form of notice on the main page perhaps, so users who don't really edit can be notified that something major is about to happen, a link to the discussion is given and they too can give their input on whether it should happen or not.

Like I said, when something is only being added or it is something somwhat minor this is not so important, and there is also the possibility that things could get a bit out of hand if a mass influx of users started giving input on something. However I feel Focusknock made a good point about a small group of people making decisions for a much larger one, even if anyone can join the smaller group. -Mr. Magoolachub 21:53, 27 November 2011 (PST)

Here's an idea; try posting on the Main Page any heated ongoing discussions. It could be something like, "Why aren't bugs subjected to the same scrutiny as trivia discussion is currently ongoing. Participate now!" or some other promotional caption to alert people to this issue. Painted Vintage Merryweather 803020.pngFyahweather 21:56, 27 November 2011 (PST)
At the very least, people should be adding their discussions to the Template:CentralDiscussion template, and removing them when the discussions are removed, but they're not doing that. I was the last one to fix it up, and it's already out of date again. Even when people do adjust the template, that bar seems to go unnoticed by most people and the discussions never really get surfaced. I don't really have a solution. It's the nature of a wiki that if it hasn't reached critical mass (and I don't think a TF2 wiki ever will), there aren't enough people to have government/process self-operate. The fact is, not enough people are "on the same page" with the same level of commitment as a bigger wiki. I think the best you can do is try to surface your discussion via IRC and Template:CentralDiscussion. Maybe it's also time to look again at that navbar and decide whether that's really the best way to float up active discussions to the people who want to participate. --Fashnek 13:52, 1 December 2011 (PST)

New buy button - which positioning do you prefer.

I've been working on integrating the buy button into the item infobox... here's a few variants with the button positioned in different places, please comment and note which one you prefer - with the topmost infobox being #1, and the bottommost infobox being #4. Ignore the 'Buy now' button in the top right of the page - that's the current implementation that I'm wanting to replace. -RJ 12:50, 2 December 2011 (PST)

1st positioning is the best.  –  Cructo [T][C] 12:51, 2 December 2011 (PST)
That first one is definitely superior in both placement and detail. Mainman (TalkContribs.) 12:54, 2 December 2011 (PST)
Numero uno. MousseBOT 13:00, 2 December 2011 (PST)
Pictogram info.png Notice Style 1 has been implemented, but I am still interested in opinions with regards to the positioning of the button, so this discussion remains open. :) -RJ 14:47, 2 December 2011 (PST)
I personally enjoyed style 3. It's not too distracting, but still visible. Mpnov 14:58, 2 December 2011 (PST)
I liked style 3 the best by far. I set up the discussion but I forgot to say anything. If this is done, please adjust Template:CentralDiscussion. --Fashnek 17:08, 2 December 2011 (PST)
Style 4. SS2R 17:13, 2 December 2011 (PST)
I like Style 3 much moreso than the current positioning, the current positioning makes it seem too much like this is a shop - it's not, it's a wiki. While I'd say Style 3, I would much rather any of styles 2, 3 or 4 over the current style 1. -Mr. Magoolachub 03:32, 3 December 2011 (PST)
I like Styles 1, 2, and 4. 1 and 4 more than 2, and I think 3 gets "lost" under the item loadout; not enough contrast. I'd be okay with 1 staying. Dragonsbrethren 15:12, 3 December 2011 (PST)
I support Style 2. It keeps the button from being too prevalent (which makes the wiki look like a store, as was mentioned) without burying it too far down. Building icon Metal.png Mar 15:13, 7 December 2011 (PST)
Why is it being included at all? It seems rather gauche to commercialize a community-driven portal of information. Atmo 09:46, 10 December 2011 (PST)
It may indeed seem a bit gauche (what in the blue hell does gauche even mean?), but frankly, it's a wonderful addition in my personal opinion. Thusly allows us to search for a specific item here on the Wiki and purchase it straight from the site as opposed to firing up TF2, sitting through the initial loading phase of the game, then rummaging through the store. Isn't technology wonderful? 404: User Not Found (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2011 (PST)
It may be a convenience to some, but only 20-30% of players have purchased anything. In fact in other F2P games only 3-5% of players actually purchase anything, so it is possible that the additional 15-25% on top of that would be simply their only purchase as an upgrade to premium. That makes the button useful to about 10% of players, tops (One time spenders wouldn't find the button nearly as useful as someone who constantly buys items). If we were only able to track how many people have clicked those buttons. Additionally, Style 1 is also the most intrusive style, smacking the button right under the eye-catching picture. If this button has to be on the pages (which it evidently has to be considering it's already implemented), it should be Style 2, or even 3, in my opinion. Less intrusive, and sure, spenders should be able to tolerate a little scrolling. —User Rocket Ship BBQ Awesomepyro.pngRocket Ship BBQ(Speech voice.pngIntel neutral pickedup.png) 14:25, 29 December 2011 (PST)

Trusted editors

What about "Trusted editors" group? We have a lot of users who don't have moderator flag but who can get rights to edit protected pages and not type CAPTCHA each time they add links. --Login Soldier.pngDaniil 06:28, 3 December 2011 (PST)

I'm also for that. Or if it is not possible a refresh captcha button please, sometimes you cant see it or write it correct. TheDoctor(without a small pic) 06:33, 3 December 2011 (PST)
Indeed it can be very annoying if you do lots of small edits. I approve this -- Keisari BottleScreen.png 06:56, 3 December 2011 (PST)
Approve. Nero123 (talk | contribution) 06:57, 3 December 2011 (PST)
Gud idea HikkieUser Restline Signature.png 07:03, 3 December 2011 (PST)
I'm rather uncomfortable about the idea because other newer editors may think that these people are just plain better than others. I don't think that EVERY good editor has rights to edit protected pages. Painted Vintage Merryweather 803020.pngFyahweather 09:00, 3 December 2011 (PST)
You forgot about the Wiki Cap :) --Login Soldier.pngDaniil 09:31, 3 December 2011 (PST)
Pictogram plus.png Support It'd be nice to not have to type the captcha everytime. But I think protected pages are just to much, we should leave them to the mods. Also, we already have a group like that right? The people with green names in the iRC channel. GianAwesome 09:41, 3 December 2011 (PST)
It would be nice to not have to go through the really annoying and sometimes broken Captcha. Seriously, yesterday I was adding in like 3 words and it made me do one because it said I added a new link when I didn't do anything like that at all... However, I don't think users should have access to protected pages. They're protected for a reason, and I think even trusted editors could lose their cool and get into edit wars, or accidentally edit a backbone template (thinking they know what they're doing) and crash the wiki. But yea, being exempt from Captcha would be awesome! Balladofwindfishes 09:58, 3 December 2011 (PST)
Captchas should be fixed but I am not sure about the 'trusted editor' group. There are editors who are more trustworthy than others but to turn it into some exclusive group that is rewarded with no captchas / edit any page they want .. (not to mention people will think Wiki Cap = trusted) seb26 11:20, 3 December 2011 (PST)
Pictogram plus.png Support Put a disclaimer somewhere that states that it does not boost wikicap eligibility. --Bigbangbilly 19:26, 4 December 2011 (PST)
Pictogram neutral.png Neutral I know I'm a few days late on the topic, but I would like to give my two cents. It would be nice to give certain users more abilities, but at the say time it might develop a bit more of a hierarchy here at the wiki. Currently its simple, Admins > Mods > Users; ignoring the other groups such as bots or bureaucrats. Adding trusted users might not go over so well; as Fyahweather and seb pointed out, some might turn it into an exclusive group of sorts. On the other hand, as a lot of you may have seen, people like me make tons of small edits in small periods of time. So I guess I personally like the idea, but there are some kinks to be dealt with. User M-NINJA Signature.png 19:32, 5 December 2011 (PST)
I was going to suggest maybe setting up an editing-based quiz of sorts that users can do to qualify to have Captcha removed from their editing. But that could be open to exploitation by users giving other users the answers. So I'm stumped on this. 404: User Not Found (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2011 (PST)
Well, apparently the greatest reason to create this group is the captcha. So why not make something like a "Global Captcha"? A user is given permission to use it, and after he types it once in a captcha box, he won't be asked to do it again for the next X days. So we can change the global captcha periodicaly, in case we need it. And it wouldn't need a special group for that. GianAwesome 03:58, 6 December 2011 (PST)
There is the 'autoconfirmed' group which is auto given to users who have been registered for x days or made x edits (with these numbers configurable). It is not enabled on this wiki however. I think it would be best to use this group to disable captchas. seb26 11:26, 6 December 2011 (PST)
It's been in discussion for a long time... We kinda stopped talking about it since last summer, but Pilk has been wanting to use the autoconfirmed group to get captcha removal. We should restart talking about it. The question is not of creating a "trusted" editor group, because we have good faith and trust that any editor will try to do good things, but it's true we should get something working for competent editors in order for them not to haev captchas. Tturbo Killicon ambassadorhs unused.png (Speech voice.png / Intel neutral pickedup.png) 11:52, 6 December 2011 (PST)
Sorry to get off-topic, but Pilk is a she? O_o 404: User Not Found (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2011 (PST)
No it's just me who's a dumbass and typoes a lot (especially in english)... ¬¬ Tturbo Killicon ambassadorhs unused.png (Speech voice.png / Intel neutral pickedup.png) 20:38, 6 December 2011 (PST)
So...what's the decision? GianAwesome 17:52, 10 December 2011 (PST)
Pictogram plus.png Support I had to type in capchas when I edited my own userpage. That's just silly. --Stevoisiak 08:22, 17 December 2011 (PST)

Disambigs based on item type

There has been some discussions regarding adding disambigs on some pages (such as Rocket Launcher) with the criteria being item types (those shown next to the item level, like "Level 1 Rocket Launcher"). The main argument, apparently, is to separate items as to what they would correspond to in real-life. I'd like to know whether you support the addition of these hat notes or not.  –  Epic Eric (T | C) 07:10, 13 December 2011 (PST)

First, let me start. I Pictogram minus.png Disagree. It'd only make searching for weapons more complicated. I mean, why would people bother to look it for the item type if they can search it for its kill icon/model (on the Weapons page) or by the class wielding it? (both Weapons page and class navigational boxes, like the one shown at the bottom of the Rocket Launcher page). Separating them with the criteria mentioned would only cause more trouble finding a certain weapon, such as the Cow Mangler 5000, which is not listed as a "Rocket Launcher", or the Sniper's melees, which are listed as "Daggers" (you can see more about the first example in my talk page). Finally, for all the unpracticity and redundancy it brings, I'm not in favour of adding these disambiguations.  –  Epic Eric (T | C) 07:10, 13 December 2011 (PST)
Pictogram plus.png Agreeish While they might not be essential, they certainly aren't doing any harm. I'll add though that the disambig pages for the likes of pistol and knife are very important, as there are options there used by several classes, in different weapon slots. » Cooper Kid (blether) • (contreebs) 08:22, 13 December 2011 (PST)
Pictogram minus.png Naw TF2 has too many silly item types (i.e. fish, indivisible particle smasher, stick bomb), which can cause much confusion (non-milk substance), and these "item types" are rarely used to refer to items. Additionally, they are purely cosmetic, and many items have unique item types, and therefore have similar performing items with different item types. —User Rocket Ship BBQ Awesomepyro.pngRocket Ship BBQ(Speech voice.pngIntel neutral pickedup.png) 14:41, 29 December 2011 (PST)

Festive Weapons

Festive isn't a new quality (though I haven't checked items_game.txt). From what I can see on TF2Items, they are quality 6 (Unique, which is the norm) which means they are completely new items. The fact that the articles for Festive weapons themselves redirect to the Stock weapon page worries me, and prevents me from adding the items to the Item checklist template. Essentially, someone needs to go through all the articles for Stock weapons with Festive versions and remove the update lines about "Added Festive Quality", get rid of the actual Festive article which I believe redirects to Item quality, and add proper pages for all the "Festive" weapons. 404: User Not Found (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2011 (PST)

Oh, and you might want to check this list of all items on TF2Items, because it seems Valve went and added a ton of new UGC tournament medals which I don't think we have an article for or images for. The new medal ID's are from 680 to 698, and there appears to be 3 or 4 different icons in use, for the medals. 404: User Not Found (talk) 08:46, 16 December 2011 (PST)
Essentially these items are treated no different than reskins by the game. Since we have articles for the likes of... well any other reskin, these weapons should probably have their own articles. It doesn't matter that they share the base models, because lots of weapons do this (like the Kritzkreig). The game treats them as their own weapons, so we should also. And it's not like the medals with many variants that become a hassle to maintain, these are unique weapons that don't have "Festive" as quality, and are no different to maintain than the other reskin articles. Festive is part of their name. To sum up, they have their own schema id, their own backpack icon, and have a unique appearance, they are no different than a reskin (actually, I'd call them reskins). Give them their own articles. Balladofwindfishes 17:57, 18 December 2011 (PST)
Stickybomb Launcher and Festive Stickybomb Launcher should all have their own page. Festive Strange Stickybomb Launcher should be added onto the Strange page. Festive variants are reskins. Unless you want to remove the Lugermorph, Maul, Objector etc etc pages while you're at it, I don't see a reason why these shouldn't have their own pages. SS2R 18:07, 18 December 2011 (PST)
fashnek: We've been discussing this since the update dropped. Festive is absolutely not a quality and I want someone to change those update notes that imply it is. I've been complaining about it. Regarding Strange, I feel that Strange-quality variants should not have their own page. However, Festive should not be treated the same way as Strange (a variation on the standard item). Originally I thought each Strange item should have a complete article like the other reskins, but I realize there are many cases already where a discrete item (by defindex) shares an article with other discrete items. I think all the Festive weapons should be considered as independent weapons, but they should be in one article. In other words, there should be:

Under no circumstances should a Strange variant of any weapon (Festive or non-Festive) have its own article. As for the new medals not having an article, we're working on that. – fashnek (talk·c) 18:21, 18 December 2011 (PST)

I don't like the idea of putting them all into one article, because that seems like something we could effectively do with all reskins. Everything about trying to make these weapons not their own unique articles seems awkward to me. We have to put notes on the stock pages on distribution, and patch notes that don't apply, and have backpack images, and 3D images and everything awkwardly placed into the regular stock weapons, when these items aren't stock weapons and share only their stats and base models with the stock weapons. I think if the schema says they're unique and they have enough of a difference to warrant a new article (which they do, different distribution, different appearance, different update histories, different bugs, etc), we really should make new articles for them. It's only 10 weapons. Another thing is with this set up the items are awkwardly thrown about in the page for the update itself, when they would be better off and easier to see if they were listed in a neat table like the other unique weapons added during the update. Balladofwindfishes 18:27, 18 December 2011 (PST)
No, there would be a page separate from the stock weapons that elaborates on any details of the Festive weapons (all ten). It would be formatted such that each item got whatever specific bugs/trivia/updates it needed. I just don't know if these ten weapons justify ten new articles. I can name a lot of cases where we combine a bunch of items into a single article. This stretches that case a bit, but it's still worth considering. At the same time, I anticipate that ten 3D models would be expensive if combined on one page. I would be okay with either solution. I just don't want to see Strange weapons each having an article, and I don't want to see Festive weapons treated like they're just another quality or characteristic of the regular item. – fashnek (talk·c) 18:35, 18 December 2011 (PST)
I agree, stranges don't need a page, they're just stranges. But even so, explaining the festive stranges would be a lot less awkward if that was done on the actual page for the specific festive item. And yea, I was thinking with the 3D models, that's 19 3D images on one page, which is a little extreme. Balladofwindfishes 18:38, 18 December 2011 (PST)
Pictogram minus.png Oppose individual articles for festive weapons. We would be making 10 new pages that would have so very little content apart from "This weapon has Christmas lights that glow and flash", there is little point to going to all of this effort only to make it harder to find information about them. As it stands Festive weapons is a short article really, the only thing I can see being added is 3D images. But to go out of our way just so 3D images can be on their own is not a good enough reason. I agree fully about festive weps being considered as their own independent weapons, but breaking it up into 10 new articles (keep in mind translations now) for basically nothing (or a sense of organisation) is not worth our time seb26 18:38, 18 December 2011 (PST)
What makes them different from a reskin? I think it's harder and more disorganized to have information about the festive items thrown into the stock weapon pages. To me that's akin to talking about the Rune Blade in detail on the Boston Basher article. I just don't like use making the call on what is considered a weapon worthy of an article or not. If the game says they're unique weapons, we treat them no different than any other weapon. Balladofwindfishes 18:43, 18 December 2011 (PST)
We have to make a decision ourselves, we should never follow Valve all the time and even when we should it should not be blindly, we should be using discretion and general agreement to decide what we do. They have proven that they are inconsistent with their things more often than they say they are. I don't mean this rudely because it doesn't really matter too much for normal players or even for them, but small details like capitalization of item names (I was talking about this yesterday) are very important for us because of the kind of site we are built upon. That is why we have to make decisions cos we know what is best structurally. I am saying 10 new articles for the sake of it, is a bad move. As little as I want to start up a debate about reskins again :p, and while I do see festive weapons in a similar way as reskins, I don't see the content about them being so significantly large that each individual weapon would require a separate article. There is simply not enough about each of them to just make it feasible. As it is 'Festive weapons' only lists one bug specific to a weapon, there is no update history and the rest of the content basically applies to every one of them.
The idea of having parts about festive on each weapon article is not too bad a compromise I think. For 3D images we can do the same like the Sandvich does for 'bitten', etc, treat them like alternate skins. If there is more to say about how to obtain a festive version then a section can be created that has that info. Let us not get ahead of ourselves, none of the festive weapons have so much info, let it be placed on the weapon page itself. If somehow the Festive-specific content on say, Bat, becomes so overpowering then we should address it then. It is not a good idea to make 10 new pages when a solution that uses what we already have is so much easier and less work. seb26 19:00, 18 December 2011 (PST)
How about a compromise? Make a page, something like Festive weapons. On that page, have a gallery of 3D images of all the Festive weapons. Make a note on the page how they are also available in Strange quality. Make all the "Festive <Weapon>" redirects link to the Festive weapons page. 404: User Not Found (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2011 (PST)
Oops, seems I didn't notice that link to Festive weapons that already exists. My bad! 404: User Not Found (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2011 (PST)
Ok, I hate to bring a discussion back to life like this, but I still feel that we should at least include 3D images of all the Festive weapons, in some sort of gallery system on the Festive weapons article. Every weapon that is technically a reskin (Wanga Prick, anyone?) has its own article with its own 3D image. We should at least find a way to implement 3D images for all the Festive Weapons, and as well, find a way to create some sort of 3D image gallery. Just my 2 cents. 404: User Not Found (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2011 (PST)

Projectile Movement Speed integration ?

The Projectile movement speed should maybe integrated as a hint into the Damage and function times. The reason i want to integrated it is, that the Manmelter shoots a faster projectile then the flaregun. And if both are the same, then the damage output is higher(slightly) because of the faster movement speed of the projectile. The reloading is not affected by this, but i think it should be mentioned. Also i hope someone can find out how fast the Projectiles movement speed is for the various items. What do you think about my idea??? TheDoctor 13:45, 22 December 2011 (PST)

That shouldn't be too hard to implement, if one were to look into the schema. It's probably listed in there. Balladofwindfishes 11:00, 3 January 2012 (PST)
I don't know where it is listed. Could you tell me where to look for it or just add it into the projectile article? Always wondered about these sci-fi weapons how fast they move. TheDoctor 12:19, 3 January 2012 (PST)

Template:Strange quality table

Hi all, I edited this template, and some of the translation strings are now outdated. Seb mentioned I should pop a comment in here. Rebmcr 17:22, 23 December 2011 (PST)

Everything looks fine to me when I view the template. I don't see any redlinks =\ 404: User Not Found (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2011 (PST)
The notes at the bottom have changed, and need to be re-translated. rebmcr 13:52, 26 December 2011 (PST)
I meant to say that you should post about the new design of the template here so that people can post thoughts / votes before it is published seb26 13:54, 26 December 2011 (PST)
I see. Misunderstood that one. Well, [1] is the old version, and the new one. rebmcr 13:59, 26 December 2011 (PST)
I was quite attached to the old version, but it's glad to see change happening. Next time you go to completely revamp a table or something, follow Seb's advice and do not edit the actual template. Instead, create a copy of it in your namespace, make the appropriate edits, then post here and get peoples opinions on it. If consensus is reached and everyone likes it, then you can change the actual template. If not, no changes are to be made. Understando? Just a friendly tip from 404: User Not Found (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2011 (PST)

Skins Vs Saxton Hale in error

Hello, good afternoon! Pleasure, my name is Marianne (call me Mary) TF2 game since May of last year, I'm addicted to Arena, but recently (yesterday) has a problem (not sure which) and the Skins VS does not appear ... I do not know if anyone has had any such problem (If they'd love it if I had indicated to the right place and shut the increasing discussion), but it turns out that instead of Saxton, vagina, etc. Brutal Sniper ... the word ERROR appears ... were it not so bother (or bizarre) I was leaving anyway, but that happens even when I hit the word does not damage the ... only in some points, so It's impossible to play ... I even thought about deleting it and downloading again, but before doing so wanted to see here if you do not have any other solution

Thanks for the help now. Mary The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheEagle (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 3 January 2012

Best to go to the forums for troubleshooting problems, Wiki talk pages are for discussing the articles. » Cooper Kid (blether) • (contreebs) 10:05, 3 January 2012 (PST)

The Great Steam Gift Pile Article?

It's a bit late now, but should this event have an article like the summer sale and trasure hunt? It had 3 TF2 items related to the event, and it might be nice to have for archival purposes and for a link on the promotion infobox explaining what it is. I'm not sure users in a year or two would know much about it, so I think we'd be better off writing it now while we still know a lot about it and still have resources out there that easily list the achievements. Balladofwindfishes 08:23, 4 January 2012 (PST)

Agree on this one. -- Keisari BottleScreen.png 08:26, 4 January 2012 (PST)
Pictogram plus.png Da. » Cooper Kid (blether) • (contreebs) 10:03, 4 January 2012 (PST)
Pictogram plus.png Agree but what should the article be called? I'm not sure if the event was called "Great Steam Gift Pile", "Steam Great Gift Pile", "Steam Christmas Sale 2011", or whatever. ._. —User Rocket Ship BBQ Awesomepyro.pngRocket Ship BBQ(Speech voice.pngIntel neutral pickedup.png) 15:57, 4 January 2012 (PST)
It was The Great Steam Gift Pile. » Cooper Kid (blether) • (contreebs) 16:09, 4 January 2012 (PST)
I thought that was just the name of the gift pile, not the name of the event... —User Rocket Ship BBQ Awesomepyro.pngRocket Ship BBQ(Speech voice.pngIntel neutral pickedup.png) 16:12, 4 January 2012 (PST)
Pictogram plus.png Agree I agree that it should get its own page, but the question remains what it should be called precisely. The Great Steam Gift Pile? I say we stick with the original name of the event. Warlike 16:15, 4 January 2012 (PST)
Good point Rocket Ship BBQ. The official group just called the event the "Holiday Sale", can anyone remember how it was labeled on the Store page? » Cooper Kid (blether) • (contreebs) 17:39, 4 January 2012 (PST)

TF2 Item Name Comparison Tool

One of the Dutch moderators over at the Steam Translation Server made a little tool that can be used to easily see all the translations for every item currently in-game, both name and description.
It is still a work in progress, but it is already in a functioning state and he thought that some of fella's here on the Wiki might like it. Here is an example page of how it looks like. Have fun! -- Killicon train.png Hefaistus - talk 05:46, 15 January 2012 (PST)

Entity names

It appears that the pages for items don't include entity names, example tf_weapon_robot_arm. Whilst it may not be useful for >95% of visitors, I feel it is still worth documenting, probably in the infobox for each article. Weapons would be prioritised over cosmetics, simply because that is probably more useful to mod/plugin coders, for kill/assist/etc. events. What do you guys think? rebmcr 14:57, 17 January 2012 (PST)

  • Just realised that this would not even require translation. BONUS! rebmcr 14:58, 17 January 2012 (PST)
This information is readily available in the schema and isn't really useful to anybody reading the Wiki. Mod authors have their own documentation on the Sourcemod Wiki/forums and know where to look, and the entity/class names aren't the same as the kill-feed/log names fyi. Again, all available in the schema. In any case, we have a list of weapon entity classes here. i-ghost 15:08, 17 January 2012 (PST)
Should we really leave something out of the official wiki just because it is already on a third-party mod's wiki? Of course it's not essential, but it's extra information about the game, and not exactly detrimental to include. If there's disparity between entity and feed names, is that not even more of a reason to document the differences? rebmcr 18:06, 17 January 2012 (PST)
"Whilst it may not be useful for >95% of visitors" which is why it's not needed. That 5% would know where to find it, despite it not being on the Wiki. Balladofwindfishes 18:09, 17 January 2012 (PST)
At the risk of employing an overused quote: "It's not about why, it's about why not!" rebmcr 03:41, 18 January 2012 (PST)

Team Fortress Wiki SOPA blackout

Certain high-profile websites and other entities are organising a large-scale blackout of their respective websites to protest the SOPA and PIPA legislations. Do you think the Wiki should follow suit? Should it take a softer approach like Google did? Should it be restricted to English pages? When should it happen? How long should it last? — Wind 22:12, 17 January 2012 (PST)

Pictogram plus.png Agree Some things have a level of importance that must be addressed through all possible medians. The wiki, as a route through which a large amount of traffic flows, I believe has a responsibility to inform those who may be unaware of the potential disastrous bills being put through the United States congress. You have my unbridled and full support MogDog66User MogDog66 Service Metal No WhiteSpace.png 22:15, 17 January 2012 (PST)
Pictogram plus.png Agree I agree as well. I don't know how much traffic this Wiki gets, but i think we should close it down in protest. And maybe bring the visitors to another page which says what and why the Wiki is closed down. Supporting. --File:JarlyX Sig.png Swedish Translator 22:18, 17 January 2012 (PST)
I believe Wikipedia is only having a 24 hour blackout, so I think they would be the best example for us to follow. It remains shortish for new players looking for new information, and we follow something in our same category. I think we SHOULD take part, given that video games will be highly effected with playthroughs on YouTube and such. So 24 hours seems fair. As for English pages or all pages. I'm inclined to say all pages based on fairness. But then again, Wikipedia is only doing English pages for whatever reason, so I don't know really on that one. I definitely don't think we should copy Google's approach. I'm actually not a fan of how they are protesting. Blacking out their logo doesn't really make a stand. We need to show we're prepared to close of important services on the internet to show congress we mean business. Just my thoughts! -- Benjamoose Om nom nom! (talk | contribs) 22:19, 17 January 2012 (PST)
I think a site shutdown is not our decision to make, we are not the owners. A notice would be fine but I don't think it's an effective move at all considering our target audience, but that's my opinion. User Moussekateer signature sprite.pngMoussekateer·talk 22:23, 17 January 2012 (PST)
Oh look at that, I posted in such a huff that I forgot to suggest what we actually do if we do a protest. As Benja has stated, Wikipedia's approach (not necessarily them just being a wiki "just like us", but rather that they have executed their protest rather well) would be the guide to follow. A full site shutdown (all languages, more on that later) replaced by a to-the-point message with a clear point (again very similar to Wikipedia's). I see no reason why all languages should not be affected, if this does happen to pass through the United States, it's highly likely that other countries will at least attempt to enact similar reforms, not to mention the fact that the United States is already pressuring other nations to enact SOPA-like bills even before it passes. MogDog66User MogDog66 Service Metal No WhiteSpace.png 22:29, 17 January 2012 (PST)
Pictogram minus.png Oppose While I definitely do not agree to the propositions of SOPA or PIPA, I think a blackout is a too heavy-handed move. It would first tangle up the Wiki into US politics, something which I'm not sure it should mess with, even though these pieces of legislations may affect the Wiki itself. It would also most likely harm readers more than it would educate them, as our audience is very likely to already know about SOPA and PIPA. Additionally, a lot of people still associate the Wiki with Valve and some would understandably assume that this represents Valve's stance on the matter. Whether that is true or not, that's the effect it would have, and I don't know what consequences it would have, nor if Valve would really be okay with this. (And, of course, it also harms our own editors by preventing them from contributing. Kinda goes without saying but still throwing that out there.) tl;dr: Let's not jump on the bandwagon just because others are. While the world should certainly be informed about all of this, I feel it is not our decision to make and the Wiki is not the place to practice US political activism, especially if it gets in the way of the Wiki's goal: being a useful source of information to Team Fortress players. — Wind 22:37, 17 January 2012 (PST)
Pictogram neutral.png Neutral I dunno. I think that anything nearly as extreme as blacking out the wiki for a US law should have the approval of VALVe first, for fear of getting us into hot water. On one hand it raises even more publicity to stop SOPA and PIPA. On the other hand it makes a bold statement that could harm our reputation with VALVe. I feel that while getting the message out to the world is important, it's not worth tarnishing the good name of the Wiki suggesting that VALVe strongly dislikes these laws along with us. Killicon wanga prick.png RED Itsy Bitsy Spyer.png Not Fyahweather C 22:42, 17 January 2012 (PST)
I cannot deny the point made by Wind, Moussekateer and others - it is a solid point that the wiki does in a sense represent Valve and it could be considered to step out of our boundaries to make political statements "for" Valve. And to be perfectly honest, I'm still beside myself on that point, I have come to no conclusion. However I do feel the need to address the "You're preaching to the choir" or "Everyone who visits the wiki knows about SOPA anyway" arguments. As I said, certain situations and occurances deserve and merit a certain amount of recognition and attention due to the gravity and importance of their nature. SOPA and PIPA are undeniably members of this group. Even in the situation where 99% of all TF2-Wikipedians who were to read the SOPA/PIPA notice already knew and were well informed on the matter, that slim 1% chance to educate an unaware patron absolutely and without question ratifies the notice. To address yet another point, a small little banner at the top is almost insulting to the gravity of the situation. It would be like throwing a glass of water onto a burning house, then saying "Eh well hey at least we tried". MogDog66User MogDog66 Service Metal No WhiteSpace.png 22:45, 17 January 2012 (PST)
I would support the sentiment of a blackout but do not think it is right for us to use free hosting space that is not ours for any kind of political action seb26 22:50, 17 January 2012 (PST)
Pictogram plus.png Support While I can understands the concerns of tangling the Wiki with politics as well as the perception that the wiki may be viewed as representative of Valve, I do not think that should immediately prevent the possibility of a blackout. I believe you would be hard pressed to find even 5% of Tf2 players who would agree with and support SOPA/PIPA, and who knows, perhaps even Valve themselves are against it. Rather than giving up on the idea of a blackout, I think it might be better if we tried to contact Valve on the issue and see if they could give us the go-ahead or not. If they would prefer not however, I believe we should respect that choice totally, they are being kind enough to host this website on their servers, doing something they don't like would be rather rude. -Mr. Magoolachub 22:52, 17 January 2012 (PST)
Pictogram minus.png Oppose I'm not necessarily a regular to the Wiki, but I personally do not see any effective benefits coming from a widescale blackout, even if it is only for a day. As mentioned before, the target audience for the Wiki here should already be fairly well-versed on these topics, and assuming you aren't a Congressperson, knowing enough about either pieces of legislation almost guarantees a lack of support for it. In addition (these are already mostly points that have been brought up very well), I feel that it is not up to the editors to make political statements, whether they are perceived to reflect Valve's views or not, without Valve's prior consent. Lastly, the "costs" far outweigh the gains. If someone did in fact learn of SOPA/PIPA from a sort of notice on the Wiki, the chances that they would not have learned of it from, oh I don't know, other sources is incredibly slim. You would then be left with numerous people unable to access the Wiki for its original intentions - increasing and improving resources for the game itself. Glen Tennis 22:54, 17 January 2012 (PST)
Pictogram comment.png NOTE I recommend that the staff email Valve to confirm certain possible political standpoints from Valve. MogDog66User MogDog66 Service Metal No WhiteSpace.png 23:17, 17 January 2012 (PST)
(Also needis PIPA) — Wind 07:39, 18 January 2012 (PST)
Some things that aren't really an issue:
1) Doing this without Valve's permission. - I honestly thought it was a given that of course we'd ASK first. If they say no, then fine. But I never thought doing it without asking would be a good idea.
2) Harming the users. - I doubt 24 hours is going to do much damage. Wikipedia has WAY more information on it than we have, and they are used every day by tons of people for tons of other things. With a notice, I'm pretty sure somehow the TF2 playerbase will manage 24 hours without being able to check the wiki. That parts not a huge deal...
3) Getting tangled in U.S. politics. - I highly doubt anything more than just showing we cared would get us "tangled up". Regardless of who we are, whether we have a popular site that people use or not. It's about making a stand for something that is not only the right thing to do, but WILL affect us. If everyone just sat around twiddling their thumbs expecting things to be rescued for them, the world would be a far worse place than it is now. We have a voice. We have a following. Let's ask Valve about this and show that we care about this subject! That's the point of the protest!. TLDR = It's 24 hours... It shows we care and really doesn't hurt anyone or get us "tangled" in the slightest. -- Benjamoose Om nom nom! (talk | contribs) 23:23, 17 January 2012 (PST)
Pictogram plus.png Agree Can't find a single point in there I don't agree with. The aforementioned points are the same beliefs for me as well. MogDog66User MogDog66 Service Metal No WhiteSpace.png 23:32, 17 January 2012 (PST)
Pictogram plus.png Agree There seems to be a misconception that these bills will only affect US websites. Ladies and Gentlemen that is not the case at all. Please inform yourselves as much as possible for this is certainly not what is going to happen if this bill goes live. Any website that is able to support the cause should give it a go and blackout for a day. I just tested the Wikipedia and what I noticed is that for a couple of seconds I can see the page I am looking for, and then the blackout happens. That gave me enough time to get a screen capture of what I needed. If I indeed couldn't wait 24 hours for the information. I don't think our contributors will be upset/angry that for 1 sole day the wiki will not be available. I mean, if it had been a technical error and we could do nothing we would deal with it. Why can't we use the same stance but for something that has value & worth? Let us be frank and realise that the information here is not so vital that something awful could happen if it was withheld. I agree with Benjamuffin's statement that regardless of how strongly we all may feel, that Valve should be contacted for approval. I personally don't believe that we should have to worry about how it is perceived by those that read the wiki with regards to the impression it may give suggesting that Valve supports the cause, when we don't know if they do. That should be left up to Valve to make such a statement and clarify their stance. We here at the TF2Wiki (the editors/contributors) that have made all this happen have a voice and our concerned should be heard. Many people do not know about these bills and if we can inform just 1 more person, then that is knowledge and power that has been given to one more individual. BiBi 00:52, 18 January 2012 (PST)
("misconception that these bills will only affect US websites": With the DNS provision removed, the bill only affects US websites (unless you meant ACTA?). It does affect non-US visitors visiting US websites, however, so it does affect the Wiki's non-US users, which I think is what you meant to say.) — Wind 07:39, 18 January 2012 (PST)
Pictogram plus.png Agree I agree with the blackout because of the aforementioned points. At first I felt it was unnecessary due to the fact this Wiki is based on a Free to Play game, but honestly the whole SOPA/PIPA situation is very serious and every kind of action that would help if only 1 more person understand the seriousness of these bills must be done. So in that regard I am in favor of a black-out. Warlike 00:56, 18 January 2012 (PST)
Pictogram minus.png Oppose This is in violation of the Steam online conduct rules and by proxy this site's Terms of Use, specifically "You will not: Restrict or inhibit any other user from using and enjoying Steam services, software or other content." In addition, this Wiki is not ours to use as a political vehicle no matter how noble the cause may seem and our target audience is most likely aware of SOPA/PIPA, so there's no need to jump on this bandwagon. i-ghost 03:08, 18 January 2012 (PST)
Pictogram minus.png Oppose i-ghost above, pretty much sums up my viewpoint. rebmcr 03:43, 18 January 2012 (PST)
Pictogram minus.png Oppose As much as i dislike the looks of this, i-ghost is completely right, we have legal issues to go by here, we cannot go by moral. The way things work is that law comes first. RED Überneedle.png - Lexar - talk 03:53, 18 January 2012 (PST)
Pictogram minus.png Oppose c i-ghosts comment. -RJ 04:03, 18 January 2012 (PST)
Pictogram minus.png Oppose Even if we could legally, I'd still say no. SS2R 04:14, 18 January 2012 (PST)
Pictogram minus.png Oppose I don't support political information for only a specific region(USA) in a wiki. TheDoctor 09:49, 18 January 2012 (PST)
Pictogram nope.png Nope.avi Absolutely not. Even if they are some of the worst pieces of legislation ever to disgrace the United States, we cannot take a stand against them. This is the Official Team Fortress Wiki. As such, while we are not technically employed by Valve we do in a sense represent them. If Valve chooses to black out their websites then it wouldn't be a stretch to black out the Wiki either. However, doing it on our own could be considered putting words in their mouth. As far as I know, Valve as a company has been relatively neutral on the subject. They've explicitly stated that they do not support the bills, but have not gone so far as to directly oppose them. If we were still at Wikia (though, thank God we aren't) then it would be a no-brainer that we should put up a notice. But as we are a satellite of teamfortress.com it's simply not our place. The best possible route would be to e-mail Valve and ask permission. If they agree to it - and given their current stance I don't think it's likely - then I say go ahead, but not a moment sooner. -- Alex2539 - (talk | contribs) -- 09:50, 18 January 2012 (PST)
Pictogram minus.png Oppose Even though i don't approve that SOPA project, but like all the people up here said, in particular Mr.I-Ghost, "It is a violation of terms and conducts" so i think we can just sit and wait to see what will happen, and i still think our wiki doesn't need to do such thing, it was a great victory when the TF2 Wiki was made Official. Killicon deflect ball.png _Takamoto_ Stunned.png 10:47, 18 January 2012 (PST)
Pictogram question.png ? I hate that upcoming law, and i want to do my part in protesting against it. But if what I-ghost stated is true I really see a problem for tfwiki participating in it. -- Keisari BottleScreen.png 10:52, 18 January 2012 (PST)
Pictogram minus.png Oppose I already explained the same thing i-ghost did yesterday. While I do support blackouts on other websites, blocking people out compulsively and particularly when we have no clue what Valve thinks about it is doing it all wrong. -- Lagg Backpack Stickybomb Launcher.png 11:19, 18 January 2012 (PST)
Pictogram minus.png Oppose While Valve is against SOPA, this isn't appropriate for this website. Balladofwindfishes 12:33, 18 January 2012 (PST)
Pictogram minus.png Oppose i-ghost put it perfectly. » Cooper Kid (blether) • (contreebs) 12:40, 18 January 2012 (PST)
I don't think that anyone that agrees with the blackout would agree with it happening without Valve's consent. This website is after all theirs. Just saying. BiBi 13:13, 18 January 2012 (PST)
approval2.png
Now can we please stop being silly about this? There are MANY ways to take part in this. We don't even have to black out completely. A softer example would be a torrent site I saw (YES EVEN NON-POPULAR OBSCURE TORRENT SITES ARE DOING THIS. I'm not talking about things like TPB). On their site they just cover the screen in black when you first visit the site. On the blackness it says "This is what the internet looks like censored". Then if you click the blackness, it goes away, and you don't see it again. This coupled with a simple banner at the top of the index page on the wiki with a "click for more information" would be just as fine.
To not take part in this to me is stupid. Regardless of how much of an impact WE have, one voice makes a difference, so why the hell not. *sigh*. -- Benjamoose Om nom nom! (talk | contribs) 18:31, 18 January 2012 (PST)
Sounds to me like that's sealed the deal. Can we not go ahead with it at this point? MogDog66User MogDog66 Service Metal No WhiteSpace.png 18:34, 18 January 2012 (PST)

Team Fortress Wiki SOPA blackout v2

In light of the above messages, here is to another round of votes now that approval has been granted.

The blackout code has been implemented and can be seen here. It is a one-time full-screen announcement that goes away when you click on it.

To clear up some possible misconceptions, some reminders about how these bills will affect the Wiki in practice:

  • Need to police every piece of content, image, or link that is infringing or links to infringing websites
  • Need to remove all possible references to how to circumvent blocks as per the anti-circumvention clause

The bills do not affect non-US websites (unless they reintroduce the DNS blocking clause). They affect US websites only, and all their visitors (from the US or not) are affected by the decisions the website makes. The Wiki being a US-based website, the Wiki is subject to being blocked should such infringing material be present on the Wiki. This includes publicly-available past revisions of articles and images. Now, let us vote again~ — Wind 20:47, 18 January 2012 (PST)

Pictogram minus.png Oppose For the same reasons as last time. a blackout is a heavy-handed and politically-charged move that has no place on the Wiki. In its current implementation, the blackout code is much less harmful than it could be, so the potential harm to visitors/editors would be minimal. Still, I do not wish the Wiki to join the bandwagon (late) and unleash this upon all users. The statement it is trying to convey, which I fully agree with, is of political nature thus has no place on this website. — Wind 20:47, 18 January 2012 (PST)
Pictogram nope.png Nope.avi This is not a political forum, and we are not to assume everyone else wants on the bandwagon a small few here are content to jump on. -- Lagg Backpack Stickybomb Launcher.png 20:52, 18 January 2012 (PST)
Pictogram plus.png Support This entirely concerns the wiki, as well as the welfare of the rest of the internet and I see no reason why a notice should not be enacted here as well. As I've stated, the opposition of these acts is of the utmost importance, and its relevance cannot be denied. I believe the wiki as a median through which many people visit, has a duty to attempt to inform any and all patrons who come to the site. If they are unaware of SOPA/PIPA, they will be informed, if they already are well informed of the Acts then they move on, and if they are annoyed by it, they click the message and it goes away forever. Those who are unaware are informed, those who are informed and are not annoyed by the message are unaffected, those annoyed by the message have it quickly removed from the screen for it never to appear again. Despite it's late timing, I believe it's just as important. MogDog66User MogDog66 Service Metal No WhiteSpace.png 20:54, 18 January 2012 (PST)
Posting on behalf of i-ghost with permission:
Pictogram minus.png Oppose As per my previous comment in the section above, and my comments made in the Staff lounge:
<i-ghost> It's probably better we don't do this in the long-term, so that people know we don't have the capacity to use this wiki to push/oppose whatever view we want. Not sure what Robin was smoking, but he's wrong and given his daily involvement with the site is zero... yeah. Neutrality get.

<i-ghost> You do realise by doing this you set a dangerous precedent and cause to raise serious questions about the wiki to any outsider: namely, where do these guys draw the line.

<i-ghost> Also note: Valve Legal != Valve; Robin could be made to retract his 'permission' (one guy does not speak for whole company and for the entirety of Steam) if asked by Valve Legal/Gabe etc. It's a shaky foundation to launch this on, at best.
i-ghost 21:13, 18 January 2012 (PST)
I think a lot of you are being ridiculous... It's not a huge deal. It's no different than posting a message about supporting breast cancer on a personal blog. The FBI isn't going to come smashing down Valve's door, and Valve probably honestly doesn't give a crap. At this point, I'll be honest. I'm willing to say no to the SOPA protest on the Wiki. I still want it to happen though. But at this point some of the opposing points have become so stupidly over thought and worried about stupid things that it's honestly worth just leaving alone. MOST OF THE INTERNET IS DOING THIS. IT DOESN'T HURT ANYONE! It's just a bit of "fun" (in the sense that it's not getting anyone caught up in anything) and shows support. It does nothing but help and the dramatic way some of you see this is just dumb. I'm out from now. I've made all the points I can. I still support the idea, but clearly some of you are too paranoid and worried about what 5 people may think than making a difference. -- Benjamoose Om nom nom! (talk | contribs) 22:04, 18 January 2012 (PST)
zuqa74.png
To quote what I said on the IRC - "Well what a waste of time we were. We had a chance to be part of something there. Even if it was for an hour, you could say "hey, we stood up against that and won". But we didn't. We just sat around and debated while the rest of the world solved the problem for us." P.S. Beautifully made SOPA screen WindPower. I honestly love that. -- Benjamoose Om nom nom! (talk | contribs) 22:18, 18 January 2012 (PST)