Team Fortress Wiki:Technical requests

From Team Fortress Wiki
Revision as of 18:09, 2 April 2019 by Mikado282 (talk | contribs) (Thanks)

Jump to: navigation, search

Summary of requests: software enhancements

Semantic MediaWiki

Semantic MediaWiki (on is an elaborate but well known, documented and supported extension that will allow us to have a central location for weapon damage values (and other stats). Defining a property and value for weapon base damage, such as [[ammo loaded::6]] for the Scattergun, will allow us to query that value on other pages. This will primarily increase the accuracy of such values and remove the need to update the values on multiple pages when patches hit, and secondarily assist in outside websites in parsing the information contained in the wiki.

In approaching the issue of increasing our data accuracy, this seemed like the best solution rather than using some sort of template/pseudo-namespace or the like to serve as a central space for these values. -- Pilk (talk) 09:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Group Permissions

GroupPermissions will remove reliance on Valve to modify user group permissions. A couple of changes to user group rights are wanted but will require experimentation so allowing us to do it at our leisure would be the best solution. -- Pilk (talk) 10:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

File Size Limit

The current file size limit is making it difficult to get ultra high-res images on the Wiki, which means file quality generally has to be compromised to get them on the Wiki at all. It's currently set at 2 MB; if this could be increased to 5 MB, that would be incredibly helpful. -- En Ex (talk) 05:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


mediawikiwiki:Extension:StructuredDiscussions would be a better, less messy discussion system. Especially because it lets people watchlis specific topic instead of the entire talk page. —CreativeC (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Note that you can either enable it on all pages, on specific talk namespaces or even as an option for users who wants —CreativeC (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Just the other day, Gabrielwoj was complaining about what a pain it is to try to keep up with all of the (English) discussions. M I K A D O 282 oOOOOo oo oo (talk) (Help Wanted!) 00:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Was I? Well, the only thing I mentioned (that I can remember of) is that the discussions doesn't get much attention, and so, a lot of threads of discussions I did were left unanswered. The StructuredDiscussions could perhaps solve the issue, by having a more intuitive design, perhaps more users could join and give their thoughts on any regarding discussions. User Gabrielwoj Signature Icon.png - User Gabrielwoj Signature 1.pngUser Gabrielwoj Signature 2.png - User Gabrielwoj Signature 3.png 17:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
It seemed a solution searching for a problem ( that does not exist, IMO). Given the existing evidence that talk Pages were once much more active ( both here and on WP) I do not think the situation is that the participation barrier is too high. M I K A D O 282 oOOOOo oo oo (talk) (Help Wanted!) 17:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Mikado282 We discussed it on fr.wp and it may be the fact that newcomers are no longer computer-enthusiasts; they comes after the Internet’s democratization and are used to light and user-friendly UI. I really think this the problem -CreativeC (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, I have a different perspective; I became an accomplished technical writer before I got caught in the computer gaming time-suck. As I see it, contributing requires some area of technical competency. I don't say technical competency is required to start, as long as the new editor is committed to learning. I rather see (assume) that there are many more places competing for able editors now; I witnessed the exodus of Overwatch (which freed oxygen for me to Cap, so ... ) M I K A D O 282 oOOOOo oo oo (talk) (Help Wanted!) 00:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I've set this up! It'll only kick on for new talk pages however... might have to put some thought into archiving existing talk pages, thoughts? -RJ 07:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

IMO, existing talk pages are an essential element of late-joiners learning the style and consensus of the wiki. That's how I learned. M I K A D O 282 oOOOOo oo oo (talk) (Help Wanted!) 15:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I really don't like the new Discussions thing, I can't separate my topics in break lines, as seen here. It looks a mess, and it's hard to read. Is there a way to add break lines or other wikimedia's format to it? While it may be more user-intuitive now, it's perhaps now even worse as a reader perspective. User Gabrielwoj Signature Icon.png - User Gabrielwoj Signature 1.pngUser Gabrielwoj Signature 2.png - User Gabrielwoj Signature 3.png 21:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Never mind, it seems that... it fixed itself? Hmm... Now it's looking okay, and properly formatted. User Gabrielwoj Signature Icon.png - User Gabrielwoj Signature 1.pngUser Gabrielwoj Signature 2.png - User Gabrielwoj Signature 3.png 21:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Also, it looked like Defiant Spartan already had a discussion before, but when I clicked it, I couldn't see any new ones. Going to History doesn't show anything either, so I believe that, for some reason, was the reason to why the formatting didn't worked on the first minutes of "posting"? User Gabrielwoj Signature Icon.png - User Gabrielwoj Signature 1.pngUser Gabrielwoj Signature 2.png - User Gabrielwoj Signature 3.png 21:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I am trying out the new Discussions thing, on a cherry User Talk. Where is the pre-view? If there is something the new editors need, it is preview. M I K A D O 282 oOOOOo oo oo (talk) (Help Wanted!) 01:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Hmmmm :>> User talk:Sploop. M I K A D O 282 oOOOOo oo oo (talk) (Help Wanted!) 01:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Hmmmm. The edits seem to take a bit to sink in. M I K A D O 282 oOOOOo oo oo (talk) (Help Wanted!) 02:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @RJ see mediawikiwiki:Extension:StructuredDiscussions#Migrating_existing_pages: The script maintenance/convertNamespaceFromWikitext.php automates this namespace conversion and archiving -CreativeC (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram minus.png - Tried additional comments on User talk:Sploop#Help:Style guide/Quotes (User talk:Sploop#Help:Style guide/Quotes), twice. Not, showing. If I go to >History< of all places, and click on one comment, the comment can be seen, click on the other comment, nothing. Hmmmmm M I K A D O 282 oOOOOo oo oo (talk) (Help Wanted!) 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Automatically converting all talkpages to the new format sounds like a bad idea. Some users, such as myself, would like to keep theirs in the old format. Killicon flaming huntsman.png VasyaTheWizard (talk) • (contributions) 20:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah it's not possible to actually "convert" the existing pages. The conversion described on that extension page is actually a mass-archival, leaving blank talk pages behind for the extension to takeover. What's the call on the extension so far? Are we feeling like we want to keep it around, or roll back? -RJ 10:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I'm for a revert on this. It's just plain confusing imho. Killicon flaming huntsman.png VasyaTheWizard (talk) • (contributions) 16:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't like it. My comments don't show up (at least on my end), the page can't be customized and WelcomeBOT is now useless. — Tark lm(pt-br) 16:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm also for a revert, like Vasya said it's just confusing me. The previous talk page design was fine as it is. So far I have only encountered problems, mainly that the "uses markup" link does not work and leads to an [page], that there is no "Show Preview" button, that upon saving your edit, you have to first refresh the page to see if your links work (which might confuse new users, so basically remove it because it's too confusing for new editors. Also confuses more experienced editors, example: me), and that it basically adds nothing besides looking fancy. I would like it if these problems would've been resolved, then I would not mind it looking fancier. GrampaSwood (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
All in all, it's somewhat more user-friendly and adds a neat little way to 'thank' users for their contributions. However, it seems to have caused some issues, one of them being cases of comments that tend to never show up - including talk page-specific edits in the IRC. It also appears that the WelcomeBOT is trying to create new welcome messages but they don't show up either. +1 for rollback . . Wookipan (talk | contribs) 16:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
The 'thank' button is a completely different extension, it doesn't have anything to do with StructuredDiscussions. Killicon flaming huntsman.png VasyaTheWizard (talk) • (contributions) 16:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Honestly thought that is was part of the extension. And now I just realized the topic below was about the 'thank' feature. In that case, it'd be best to rollback . . Wookipan (talk | contribs) 16:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


mediawikiwiki:Extension:Thanks lef people thank others editions from page history. Great to spread the Wikilove ! —CreativeC (talk) 05:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Also done! A "thank" button now shows up on history pages :) Would be nice if it shows up on recent changes, but it doesn't seem to do that 🤷‍♂️ -RJ 08:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

All those extra clicks that it takes to thank through the history page just adds to the sincerity. M I K A D O 282 oOOOOo oo oo (talk) (Help Wanted!) 18:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)