Talk:Defaced Detonator
Bug
Every cosmetic with no equip region works like this, some examples are the Antlers and the Free Mann's Fashion. This is expected behavior. On that note, this item is cannot be unusual as it was never a hat. Cheezcracker (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- It would still count as a bug, bugs are not necessarily unintended consequences, but it being able to be equipped multiple times is a bug as it should be on every other cosmetic that has the same ability.
| s | GrampaSwood
(talk) (contribs) 19:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- What about it is a bug exactly? Even since the earbuds this has just been a thing that you could do and there is no reason you shouldn't be able to. Having no equip region logically, and expectedly, means you can equip it with anything, including itself. If you think the same item is being equipped, that's not what's going on. It is multiple different instances of the same items with unique ids, not the same exact item being equipped multiple times in the same loadout.Cheezcracker (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- As Help:Style guide/Bugs mentions, bugs aren't strictly about malfunctions. The More Gun Marshal's model being a gigantic ERROR because it pointed to the wrong model wasn't technically a bug, because it was just pointing to the wrong model. It was still be counted as a bug.
| s | GrampaSwood
(talk) (contribs) 20:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- As Help:Style guide/Bugs mentions, bugs aren't strictly about malfunctions. The More Gun Marshal's model being a gigantic ERROR because it pointed to the wrong model wasn't technically a bug, because it was just pointing to the wrong model. It was still be counted as a bug.
- Again, how is this exactly a bug? It is expected behavior. If something has no equip region, you expect it to be able to be equipped with anything, and anything includes itself. Even if it was a bug, it wouldn't be a bug with the item itself, but rather with the "None" equip region. Cheezcracker (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Bugs are not exclusive to unexpected behaviour, as I've said twice already.
| s | GrampaSwood
(talk) (contribs) 20:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Bugs are not exclusive to unexpected behaviour, as I've said twice already.
- I doubt this is unintended. The Free Mann's Fashion had Glasses and Beard equip regions before being changed to none, due to each style taking up separate parts of the face, so if you wanted to use just the beard with different glasses or vice versa, you couldn't. The Defaced Detonator's two styles take up different parts of the face, the same applies. It seems intentional that if an item can be equipped with anything, it includes itself. We have no reason to believe valve did not intend this. Cheezcracker (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Items with no equip region being able to be equipped with themselves is almost certainly intentional, or at least known and decidedly not changed, you could argue that this item having no equip region was an accident, but i doubt that as well. If valve finds out this item has no equip region, they will very likely not change that due to what happened with unusual miscs, and it would become known and decidedly not changed, which for all intents and purposes is intentional, and is thus not a bug. Cheezcracker (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Gus Fring reference image?
Hey I know that this is a reference to when Gus Fring in Breaking Bad gets half of his face blown off, but I'm weary about adding a reference image that has realistic gore like that... I don't think the Wiki has any kind of spoiler-filters on it.--ShadowMan44 (talk) 02:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- I would normally advocate having a reference image/video for trivia but this particular case I would say it's probably best to skip it. When I added the trivia to the page initially I thought about a reference image or video but decided against it. First is the gore aspect like you mentioned and second is the reference is a major moment in the show and I don't really want to indirectly completely spoil that for people who haven't watched it yet. I sorta tried to word it in a semi-vague way to the best of my abilites because just saying "It's a reference to when Gus gets half his face blow off and dies" is a pretty major spoiler for the show. So I think it's probably better to not have a reference in this case but that's just my opinion. Mediarch
♥ Talk ♥ My Edits 02:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- The second reason is not a factor. An image here is fine, but perhaps we could find a way to obscure it (i.e., a spoiler-like feature) before people click on it. We should not care about spoilers for other media.
| s | GrampaSwood
(talk) (contribs) 09:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
- The second reason is not a factor. An image here is fine, but perhaps we could find a way to obscure it (i.e., a spoiler-like feature) before people click on it. We should not care about spoilers for other media.
- the first reason is also no factor. Bb is rates 15+ while tf2 is is 17+. Lolimsogreat21 (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
- The argument of not including a gore-y image is much better than a spoiler and, imo, definitely something we can work with.
| s | GrampaSwood
(talk) (contribs) 10:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
- The argument of not including a gore-y image is much better than a spoiler and, imo, definitely something we can work with.
- I don't think we should be having gore. I don't really think it's necessary to include because reference images are meant to sorta compare to the original source material. There's nothing to really gain from this particular image. In the end, what you're left with is basically "yup, that sure looks like a guy with half of his face blown off". I don't see why you need an image for that. There's not much to be gained from that. A reference image is supposed to help provide context but the context isn't needed since everyone sorta knows what a guy with half his face blown off looks like.
- As for the spoiler aspect. Face Off (the particular episode where this reference comes from) is the third highest rated episode of Breaking Bad and is one of highest rated episodes of television period. Currently it's #11 overall for highest rated TV episodes on IMDB with a 9.9/10. Yeah, I know it originally aired in 2011 and yeah, anyone who still cared should've already watched the show by now. It's not exactly the strongest case in the world. The gore angle is obviously the better argument for not including an image. But, there's also no real good reason for the Team Fortress Wiki to be spoiling major Breaking Bad plot points. Breaking Bad is still extremely popular. New people start watching the show all the time. TF2 originally released in 2007 but we still get new players in 2025. A lot of TF2's player base were too young to watch the show when it aired originally. I get that it's a pretty minor thing since it's not really our job to be policing spoilers for an unrelated IP, but I don't think it's necessary to spoil one of the best moments in modern television over something so minor. Mediarch
♥ Talk ♥ My Edits 11:39, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
- As for the spoiler aspect. Face Off (the particular episode where this reference comes from) is the third highest rated episode of Breaking Bad and is one of highest rated episodes of television period. Currently it's #11 overall for highest rated TV episodes on IMDB with a 9.9/10. Yeah, I know it originally aired in 2011 and yeah, anyone who still cared should've already watched the show by now. It's not exactly the strongest case in the world. The gore angle is obviously the better argument for not including an image. But, there's also no real good reason for the Team Fortress Wiki to be spoiling major Breaking Bad plot points. Breaking Bad is still extremely popular. New people start watching the show all the time. TF2 originally released in 2007 but we still get new players in 2025. A lot of TF2's player base were too young to watch the show when it aired originally. I get that it's a pretty minor thing since it's not really our job to be policing spoilers for an unrelated IP, but I don't think it's necessary to spoil one of the best moments in modern television over something so minor. Mediarch
- Again, this is not an argument that's a factor here (and that's more from an authorative view than the usual 'mods are just regular users' view). No matter how popular the show, no matter how popular the IP, no matter how much of a spoiler it is. You can argue the same way that the scene of Hector ringing the bell and exploding, with Gus clearly visible, has been a very popular meme so many people would already know even if they haven't seen the show yet. As for the reason why to include an image, I don't see why not. It's consistent with most other articles that feature a reference and you can make the same argument for most other references too. Catcher's Companion, those sure are the same real-life bird being depicted. Blindin' Bonnet, that sure is a guy with a moustache and a hat like the cosmetic. Bacteria Blocker, that sure is a guy wearing the same real-life outfit as the cosmetic is depicting. Screamin' Eagle, that sure is a guy with the same military hat and a moustache.
- This kind of view is the entire basis of the references, they are made to look like something from another medium. The images are there for a comparison, saying 'that sure looks like the cosmetic item' is literally the point of these images.
| s | GrampaSwood
(talk) (contribs) 11:50, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
- This kind of view is the entire basis of the references, they are made to look like something from another medium. The images are there for a comparison, saying 'that sure looks like the cosmetic item' is literally the point of these images.
- +1 for having some sort of filter in regards to gore, which could also be applicable to other items that references something with grotesque imagery or even sexually explicit material (if applicable). I think there's a clear distinction about TF2's gore and real-looking gore. Personally, I don't like playing with gibs enabled, so I have them disabled, and I'm not sure if that's still the case, but the German version of TF2 does not have gibs either, how would we include this image to the Deutsch page? I know later-items that include blood still have blood on the German version, though, but I don't know if the laws in Germany have changed since then.
-
▪
-
12:46, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
- +1 for having some sort of filter in regards to gore, which could also be applicable to other items that references something with grotesque imagery or even sexually explicit material (if applicable). I think there's a clear distinction about TF2's gore and real-looking gore. Personally, I don't like playing with gibs enabled, so I have them disabled, and I'm not sure if that's still the case, but the German version of TF2 does not have gibs either, how would we include this image to the Deutsch page? I know later-items that include blood still have blood on the German version, though, but I don't know if the laws in Germany have changed since then.
- I think German TF2 had it removed ages ago, but it's not our concern if we should include it on the German article or not.
| s | GrampaSwood
(talk) (contribs) 12:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
- I think German TF2 had it removed ages ago, but it's not our concern if we should include it on the German article or not.
- I think your completely misunderstood the point I was trying to make. If you aren't familiar with major league baseball teams you aren't going to know what the Blue Jays and Cardinals look like. If you aren't familiar with Inglorious Basterds you aren't going to know what Ltnt. Aldo Raine looks like. If you aren't familiar with Peaky Blinders you aren't going to know what Arthur Shelby looks like. You need images to make the connection and to contrast against. The relevant piece of trivia won't really make sense without an image to fill you in. If you aren't familiar with Breaking Bad you *ARE* going to know what someone injured in an explosion looks like. There's nothing really about the design of Defaced Detonator that makes it Gustavo Fring. It's not like it has Gus's tie or there's a style with Gus's glasses or something. It's just the injury itself, which I don't really think you need an image to understand. Mediarch
♥ Talk ♥ My Edits 14:30, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
- I think your completely misunderstood the point I was trying to make. If you aren't familiar with major league baseball teams you aren't going to know what the Blue Jays and Cardinals look like. If you aren't familiar with Inglorious Basterds you aren't going to know what Ltnt. Aldo Raine looks like. If you aren't familiar with Peaky Blinders you aren't going to know what Arthur Shelby looks like. You need images to make the connection and to contrast against. The relevant piece of trivia won't really make sense without an image to fill you in. If you aren't familiar with Breaking Bad you *ARE* going to know what someone injured in an explosion looks like. There's nothing really about the design of Defaced Detonator that makes it Gustavo Fring. It's not like it has Gus's tie or there's a style with Gus's glasses or something. It's just the injury itself, which I don't really think you need an image to understand. Mediarch
I do know the point you're making, but none of these cosmetics particularly need these images because they're just hats that already exist + facial hair and the birds are just that, the real-life birds in a different colour. The only thing you can get from these is that they, indeed, look like the reference. This image would serve the same problem and the argument of 'this shouldn't be on here' is not applicable here. And also, since when does everyone know what someone injured in an explosion looks like, especially not half someone's face burnt off? This is not normal knowledge that the average person knows, I don't know where you got that from. I don't think this discussion should be 'do we need this image' but rather 'how do we show off this image'.
| s | GrampaSwood
(talk) (contribs) 14:47, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
- What if, instead of a reference image in the Gallery, we added a link to a YouTube video (such as this one, at this time frame or earlier)?
- The thumbnail for the video I chose is not gore.
- From the item's visual, the video's thumbnail, and the video itself, the reader can deduce there will be realistic gore (though we could still add a note like "(gore warning)").
- The reference is provided without hosting realistic gore on the wiki.
- – BrazilianNut (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
- I think a scene link (as a reference) with the gore warning is good.
| s | GrampaSwood
(talk) (contribs) 14:53, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
- I think a scene link (as a reference) with the gore warning is good.
- It's essentially elementary school level anatomy. Bones, blood, muscle, skin etc. I'm not saying that everyone spends hours looking at gore but I think basically anyone could visualize what would happen if someone was too close to an explosive when it went off. If you held a grenade up to your face you could picture the result. You don't need an image to understand that. Mediarch
♥ Talk ♥ My Edits 15:53, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
- I think having a warning like "Warning: Gore Content" to be a little unprofessional on our part, even though I advocate for warnings in general. For instance, Wikipedia does not include any sort of warnings in any of their articles or links, and there's a lot of crazy stuff over there. So instead having a clear-cut warning stated like that, I would instead rephrase the Trivia to mention something like: "This item is a reference to a scene from the show Breaking Bad where the character Gus Fring gets injured in a gory explosion.". A reference link can be added below the "Creator Confirmation", which includes a link to the video (we would omit the picture on the article itself). By anyone who has read the trivia beforehand, they know what the video would feature grotesque imagery due to the previous use of the term "gory".
-
▪
-
17:47, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
- I think having a warning like "Warning: Gore Content" to be a little unprofessional on our part, even though I advocate for warnings in general. For instance, Wikipedia does not include any sort of warnings in any of their articles or links, and there's a lot of crazy stuff over there. So instead having a clear-cut warning stated like that, I would instead rephrase the Trivia to mention something like: "This item is a reference to a scene from the show Breaking Bad where the character Gus Fring gets injured in a gory explosion.". A reference link can be added below the "Creator Confirmation", which includes a link to the video (we would omit the picture on the article itself). By anyone who has read the trivia beforehand, they know what the video would feature grotesque imagery due to the previous use of the term "gory".