Team Fortress Wiki:Discussion/Archive 8

Archive 8: March 2011

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Strategy pages overhaul

I've been keeping an eye on and doing active overhauls of 4 of the community strategy pages, but it's kinda hard to do it all by myself. On top of which, lots of them still need changes, especially the map-specific sections, to make them readable. Most of the time, whenever someone adds a tip to these pages they don't bother to format their tips properly, or place repeat tips on them, or something else entirely. Also, several of the pages need overhauls to remove "you"s and the like.

I've been actively watching the Medic, Pyro, Soldier, and Heavy pages, but it's kind of a lot of work to do by myself. Could I ask for some help from other users please? Thanks. --LordKelvin 00:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I second this. The pages have frankly degenerated into bullet point drivel, reading like an informal conversation about vague points concerning the game rather than in depth consideration of strategy. I can help out with proofreading and wheedling out the "you"s where I can but more people need to help out.--Focusknock 00:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm in. Should we begin with the Basic Strategy sections, merging the bullet points into small paragraphs? That's not too big of a job, so if you were after the bigger community pages, I can do that. -- InShane 06:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That being said, do we gradually change each page, one by one, or save them as Word documents and the like and do everything in GIANT MAN chunks? I'm more for gradual changes. -- InShane 06:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The thing with the strategy pages is that, by their nature, you're going to get a ton of subjective opinion. On top of which, as I already mentioned, most people just like to add their own little insight without paying attention to the flow of the entire article (or grammar, but that's easily fixed if not always welcome). I tried to fix that with the Medic, Pyro, Soldier, and Heavy articles, but doing so means that I have to keep an eye on those pages every time someone adds something to it, and adjust it accordingly. And again, the map-specific sections are a bitch to take care of since that's where much of the subjective opinion seems to go.

Bullet points make adding tips and strategies a lot easier, but also make the article itself less cohesive as well as harder to understand overall. Paragraph form is excellent for making an article flow, but also requires extensive editing to ensure that it's cohesive and it's harder to add to, and you need someone to keep a vigil on the article to make sure that any additions that are made do mesh with the rest of the article. Some sections and certain approaches are better done with bullet points (such as listing places where an Engineer can place Sentry nests), while others are best done using paragraph format; the trick is to find a good blend.

What I want to propose is a better sectioning of the Community Strategy section. Instead of an in-depth-and-convoluted version of the Basic Strategy pages, perhaps we could split it in two: have one page where players can add their insights and suggestions in whatever form they want, and then have another user read those over and mesh them into a paragraph-and-bullet format strategy page where attention is kept on article quality. This way, suggestions can be "screened" for grammar, usefulness, and the like before being put into the actual community strategy page, increasing its overall quality.

Another thing that I wanted to propose was an in-depth class match-ups page. I added class-specific strategies to the Pyro page awhile back (pretty much had to build the entire section from the ground up) because I didn't want to make the match-ups page too convoluted, but looking back at it it could probably fill an entire page by itself. Along the same lines as the Basic Strategy pages, perhaps a separate page for community-contributed class-specific strategies could help keep things neat.

Finally, maybe a separate map-specific strategies section could go a long way to reducing the clutter on the pages. As it is, the map-specific sections probably take up half of the community strategy pages, and much of it is too specific to be of help to newer players. If they're split off into their own pages, it could help to (1) reduce clutter, (2) allow us to remove the Map Strategy sections on the map pages by simply redirecting, and (3) make the community strategy pages more focused on getting better as the class rather than getting better on a certain map.

TLDR version:

• Overhaul Community Strategy pages so that it's not all bullet-point crap, convert some to paragraphs so that it's easier to read
• Make a "screening" page where users can add their tips so that they can be added properly to the Community Strategy page
• New Community Class-specific Strategies section for adding advanced tips on how to deal with other classes
• Split "Map-specific Strategies" sections off into their own pages

Yea, nay? --LordKelvin 18:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe you underestimate our good friends in the IRC, who regularly keep an eye on what is altered on the wiki (for english pages anyway). Particularly now they are alerted to the strategies needing work, if they see something repetitive or out of context they will simply alter/remove it. I must admit that some edits will escape this net in place, though, so maybe a screening page is needed. Perhaps the talk page of each strategy should be converted into one?

As for a class-to-class breakdown of strategies, I'm pretty sure we had something like this before; a sort of table with one class in one column and all 9 in the other, which information spread against each matchup. --Focusknock 11:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are class match-up pages, but I would like to propose that those be kept short-and-sweet, like the Basic Strategy pages, while a longer and more in-depth page be created with the same purpose as the Community Strategy pages, so that more advanced stuff can be placed there. In the case of the class-specific strategy section that I put in the Community Pyro strategy page, it consists of roughly 32,000 characters, almost three times bigger than the basic Pyro match-ups page. And similarly, the map-specific section of the same page is roughly 30,000 characters. Those two sections alone take up about half of the article.

At best, splitting the community strategy pages up into (1) getting better as the class itself, (2) learning how to specifically counter other classes, and (3) getting better on specific maps could significantly help for organization purposes; a map-specific strategy section could also reduce the clutter on the map pages themselves, making them more informative rather than subjective (for example, the 2Fort page has to use an entirely new page for suggested strategies).

I'll try to draw up plans for applying these to all of the community strategy pages, but I would like some more feedback before I actually try to implement any changes. --LordKelvin 20:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

 Support I like the idea of a strategy submissions page. I think it will help to screen out the junk and help make the page more readable. Splitting the strategy pages should make locating specific help easier, and make things more manageable. Lustacide 16:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Urgh... I just killed about 50-100 instances of "you" in the Community Pyro strategy article, but there's at least 200 more. I'll try doing more of them tomorrow when I'm not so tired. :\ I'll try to filter through Medic, Soldier and Heavy as well in the meantime. Hopefully we'll have decided if separate pages for map strategies will be worthwhile before I'm done with those pages. --LordKelvin 09:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, after a week or so of fumbling around, I have some stuff to show for my efforts:

• Here is an example of what a map-specific sub-page might look like. In this case, Badwater, I simply took the strategy information already on that page, put it into a general section, cleaned it up, and put in the individual class strategies for Badwater under their own sections. Right now it's largely a copypasta, but I'm hoping that should a page like this be made for each map, every section could be refined and use the proper terminology. At the minimum, it means that you won't have to redefine terms in each section, which the current map-specific sections of each class page does.
• This page is still a huge work in progress, but what I'm hoping to do is to turn the General section into pure paragraphs, and integrate the Compression Blast section into the General section (currently it's a subsection of Flamethrower).

The strongest argument I currently have is for the map-specific sub-pages, for the reasons already listed. At the minimum, it would greatly shorten the length of the community strategy pages, thereby making them easier to read, while simultaneously making the map strategies simpler to understand by giving players examples of how other classes might counter each other all on the same page. --LordKelvin 04:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

inShane here is currently going over all Basic Strategy pages to make them...freakin' basic. I would like to recommend the same, locking the articles and allowing content to be proposed elsewhere. -- InShane 05:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Finished with basic strategy pages. Y'know, I remember glancing at class match-ups a few months back and learning waaay more than when I look at those pages now. Are the match-up pages supposed to be basic or what? If so, I think I'll go any edit everything there, too...Too much useless, situational information -- InShane 08:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know I've started cleaning up mainly the Spy section for a little bit will do more later if I find the time. Mainly changed some grammatical errors and sentences that aren't useful in any way whatsoever or relevant to the point it was trying to make. Goal is to make it flow better than it currently does, as was stated by the diuscussion starter.

Also I am new to discussions! So hello to you all out there, been active for a few months now editing things here and there if and when I have the time for it. Not much but still I like to help out all I can. Warlike 19:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Related Achievements

Can we get some sort of guidelines for what qualifies as a related achievement? For instance, on the Spy-checking article, pretty much every achievement that mentions a spy or any of his equipment is listed. The same is true for a lot of other pages as well. GJ 16:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm the one that added most of those achievements. For something as generic as spy-checking, it can get fairly ambiguous about which achievements are related, so I mainly tried to include only the ones that you would get while spy-checking or that would prevent a spy from accomplishing his objectives.

For most of the other related achievements, I guess it would fall into a case of judgment. For weapons, the obvious rule is that it should be an achievement that requires (or at least can be done with) the use of that weapon, you killing an enemy that is specifically using that weapon, or whatnot. --LordKelvin 20:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

 SupportYou are both right. We need guidelines but the achievements are slightly ambiguous. BUT NOT ALL OF THEM ARE. There is no way that guidelines could be counter-productive so they should be implemented ASAP. I checked the link GJ used (spy checking one) and some really don't need to be there Pierow 06:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Update History for classes

(Moved from Talk:Sniper and Talk:Main Page)

Lets settle this once and for all. Should we have update histories for classes, (Sniper, Heavy, Spy, etc) about things like the model changes or the added voice lines? --Stevoisiak 23:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

 Neutral Would be a quite long section on an already-quite-long page. But it would be consistent with the weapon pages, I guess — Wind 23:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea, but it shouldn't take to much space. Maybe foldin it up like meet the team text(the "transcription command"[it's not named like that but i don't know the name]). NWM 23:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

 Support I believe it would be a good idea, since we could simply collapse it so that it doesn't take up any space, but the problem is: what do you put on it? Do you include all related weapon changes, do you include related videos, what? --LordKelvin 23:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

 Support I would not include any weapon changes. Just changes SPECIFIC to a class. If it only affects a single weapon, don't add it. each one would only have a few changes. Also, supporting my own discussion FTW! --Stevoisiak 23:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

 Neutral In terms of standardisation between articles, I would agree with the Windy One that the content should remain. That being said, is the Update History really relevant to the average reader? Perhaps a dedicated page for the Update History with a prominent link to from the Class page would be a good idea, as it would not only streamline the page but also remove text that may be of no practical use to the reader. If they were interested in seeking the information out however, it would be readily available. In essence, it seems to come down to an issue of whether or not the information is pertinent to the average Wiki user and should be displayed so prominently. Esquilax 00:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

 Support Things that don't fit anywhere else, such as model changes, should go in the class's article. Weapons' changes would simply clutter up the page, and voice responses have their own pages. - LingoSalad _(talk) 00:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

A value section on every item's page

Hey there, my suggestion is to put a 'value' section on every item's page. I mean that for example, on the pages of hats, there will be a section just like trivia, stating the item's value. I know that some people don't like this, but it is VERY helpful for players like me. When in trades, a lot of people search the internet for a items value. If this is available on the Team Fortress Wiki, we will have A LOT of visitors. This can also be handy for people who don't have any clue about prices. For example, I saw someone lately who sold his Vintage Procedure Mask for 2 refined. This is very unfair for the seller. I think that my idea could help lots of people.

Oh, and of course I will be editing the items rarity & value on a regular base. I trade a lot, I know how things work.

Cheers! GibsonGold 15:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a no no unfortunately. Value is subjective. There may be 'average market prices' but the value of items is subjective to every person. This has already been added to the trivia guidelines. —Moussekateer·talk 15:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Ahh yes I get your point, but there are enough people who would like a price that is fair for their items, but unfortunately not all people know these. Yes, prices may be subjective, but there are standards. I think that some people like your point, but a extra section on a page, which tells a approx value, is not a bad idea. In fact, lots of people would like it. For example, while they are trading, they can quickly look up the value so they are not making a bad trade. GibsonGold 15:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Like I said there isn't really a thing such as a 'bad trade'. If someone is happy to trade their hat for another hat then that's the end of that. The wiki is here for factual information not subjective. This would be akin to including on every article that 'this hat is better looking then this hat'. —Moussekateer·talk 16:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

 Nope.avi As already stated, value is highly subjective. Some people don't want to take crafting value into account (e.g., how many people use the Powerjack over the Axtinguisher?), some people simply see a weapon as worthless (Dalokohs Bar and Backburner), some people don't think certain class items are worth it because they don't use them that frequently (how many times do you actually headshot someone as a Spy to justify use of an Ambassador?), the list goes on. If you open up a section on each page for this, then everyone and their dog will try to make it say what they personally think it's worth, and we have more than enough of that on the Community Strategy pages. --LordKelvin 17:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC

 Nope.avi Value tends to greatly vary depending on the trader. --Vyro 05:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

 Nope.avi Subjective value aside (which is a very valid concern), each hat does have a market value, but the market is too flucative for a Wiki to keep it up. It doesn't help that it takes a bit for a item's value to stabilize on the market, nor the fact that there is a slow metal inflation going on, constantly changing the value of items. Ailure 12:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

 Neutral.avi Isn't there any external link with this information? Knowing that a wiki page doesn't fit with the fast changes of the market, at least we could put some link information - maybe a whole article, why not? I mean, it won't state the standard prizes or something like that, but explain the whole hat/metal/whatever selling/buying phenomenon. (Sorry if it's already stated, I'm kinda new around here and just trying to contribute. =) Deveen 13:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

 Nope.avi Nope. I'm not one to follow what other people think an item is worth. Especially when I have people trying to get other people to believe that an item such as a Vintage Lugermorph is worth 3 Earbuds, and that the Vintage Lugermorph is "rare" (It's not. There's thousands of V. Lugers out there). To me, an item is only worth what I think it's worth. I go to trade servers sometimes and advertise, for example, that I am buying a Vintage Lugermorph for 4 refined (which is what it's worth to me). I of course get laughed at, insulted, etc. All I say is "Hey, to me, it isn't worth what you say it's worth. Plus, I don't do trades that involves more than one trade in a row.". In closing, I'm very opposed. This is a bad idea. 404 User Not Found 13:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

 Nope.avi This would take a while to do and of course it would vary a lot. It would also change pretty much every update Team Fortress has (which we all know is heaps). Would be very hard to do in the first place and would be even harder to manage. They might make a different website dedicated to this though. Pierow 19:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Too bad every item's value is "Subjective." Just a Gigolo 19:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Renaming "bugs" section

As pointed out by BalladofWindfishes above, the bugs section of articles is growing to the point where any graphical errors or other problems are being listed, much to the annoyance of some editors. Some of the hostility seems to stem from the fact that these are not 'bugs' in the usual sense of the word; they are minor problems that do not alter gameplay. As such, would it be benefitial to rename the section to a broader title such as 'known issues'?--Focusknock 21:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

 Support I agree. GibsonGold 22:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

 Support Makes sense. Clipping issues are of no interest to me. - LingoSalad _(talk) 23:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

 Con Bugs=Programm/Software error, so if "2 bytes" for example hand(1byte) and weapon(1byte) cross each other it is a bug for me, because they shouldn't get through eacht other, so it's a software/programm error = a bug. NWM 23:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think it would be better to reduce the scope of the bugs section instead of renaming it ('known issues' isn't really that far off from 'bugs' to warrant a change). And as articles are for readers, they shouldn't be set out to satisfy tastes' of editors. That being said I think that clipping errors should be limited in bugs sections, with only major clipping issues to be listed (using discretion & everyone agreeing on it to determine what's worth noting). seb26 [talk] 23:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Seb's idea is better. I've added this to the weapon guidelines to direct people when editing the section. --Focusknock 12:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

 Comment On a similar note, I wish to adrress certain bugs that are not restricted to one specific weapon. These bugs are more class bugs. Would it be preferable to put such bugs on the class pages, instead of having to copy it to every weapon the class owns? An example would be the hose on the flamethrower, which appears attached to the Pyro's hand during a voice command. It occurs for both the flamethrower, backburner and degreaser. --Focusknock 01:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

 SupportIt would leave room for more "known issues" in that section. It is a good idea i think. Pierow 19:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Damage template

It has come to my attention that the ==damage== section on weapons' articles is fairly un-standardized, for that reason and others, I have begun a basic template to replace the damage section on weapons' articles. It uses {{BASEPAGENAME}} to determine what to produce, and can be found here. Does this look good? I know the formatting's a bit sloppy, I (or someone else) need(s) to come up with some sort of standard, or decide to throw it all into some kind of table, if it looks better. Also, if I could be doing this more efficiently, suggestions are appreciated. - LingoSalad _(talk) 23:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I would fully support this, but it seems to still be spitting out errors. Rocket Launcher generates no output at all, while Minigun spits out an expression/operand error. Also, when used on the Flamethrower page it doesn't seem to use bold text as in Scattergun.

Overall, I love the idea since it would make adding new weapon data much easier (put the data into the template, and just put a single line on the weapon page in question), but this would depend on getting the coding right first. --LordKelvin 00:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, a further addendum, maybe this could be used to keep the Weapons page and individual weapons pages consistent. A few times I've noticed that someone updated the damage data for a weapon on its individual page, but left it unchanged on the Weapons page. --LordKelvin 00:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

This is still a work in progress, so it probably won't work all the time on all pages. - LingoSalad _(talk) 01:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

 Support Anything is better than the list/mini tables people have scattered across the weapon pages. --Focusknock 10:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The idea of standardizing Damage sections is a good one, but on the technical side, I think saving damage values inside templates instead of the weapon page itself is unnecessarily complex. I've been working on a parameter-based version of the idea. Here's what I came up with:

Rocket Launcher User:NVis/Damage		Ambassador User:NVis/Damage
		Mad Milk User:NVis/Damage

See here for more test cases. The template is probably still missing required features, but translation switching is implemented, and making additions should be relatively easy. What do you think? — nVis  13:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

 Support This looks awesome! DrAkcel ^{(T | C)} 13:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Man dis is secksy. — Wind 14:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

 Support Iz guud! -- OluapPlayer _(t) 14:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

 Support This is definitely what translators and editors in general needs on every page that have the "Damage" section in it. oh wait , heavy just said "Whats that nVis ? , Damage template them all ?! , good idea , muhahaha" --– Gin_Ginster _(talk) 18:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

My reasoning for supporting the damage values being placed in a template is so that it can be instantly applied to a page without the need to worry about inputting the values themselves; for translators this can make things immensely easier as they can just tell the template what weapon and language it should use, and it'll automatically output the data. With regards to the main Weapons page, it would further help in standardizing everything and making changes from patches easier: when a patch changes the damage values for a weapon, you just have to change the values in one place instead of going to all the individual pages and changing the values, and again, it would make things easier for translators as well.

I like how that table looks, I really do, but I still believe that a single place where the values can be called up is probably a better idea than what exists now. --LordKelvin 17:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Due to the nature of TF2's weapons, constructing a template that includes translation switching for every possible string—not to mention all the data—is impractical to say the least. Regarding patch changes, there have been few updates that affect damage and timing statistics. It just seems to me that a one-template-to-rule-them-all scheme would be more trouble than it's worth. — nVis  18:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

 Support I like LingoSalad's idea, I love dem templates. But it's horrifically complicated because of all the variations in layout and values sadly, and it's not his fault. This template looks good though. —Moussekateer·talk 18:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

 Support It is much better than we have now. — VeKoB 18:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

 Support I'd have to say it looks much better than mine. And it is true that weapon damage rarely changes, and this could easily be used to standardize all the damage sections. - LingoSalad _(talk) 21:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

 Support Go with it, go with it! --Parseus (talk • contrib) 21:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

 Support Looks purdy. GeminiViRiS Talk Contribs 01:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

 Support The template looks very nice. :) "First" and "consecutive" are probably better words too. I think we'd also benefit from standardizing damage ranges at 512u and 1024u instead of arbitrary distances on 2fort, but I guess that's for another discussion. ~G-Mang (T|C) 01:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

 Support Very nice. I also notice that at the moment there are no cons???!!! Could this mean that the majority of people are in favor of this idea??? Pierow 06:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

 Support I'm all for it. And it seems working properly. Great idea. Deveen 20:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

 Support This seems useful to see how to get the full potential out of the weapons. DeagleEagle 23:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

"Same language" return for looking up recent pages

I got to thinking after the above discussion for "random page," is it possible to implement language filters for the recent changes log? Sometimes I like to check the change log to see what happened while I was asleep, but most of the changes are translations for other languages, which makes it hard to keep track. If there's already a function for this, I would appreciate if anyone told me how to enable it. --LordKelvin 18:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You can use your watchlist to keep track of changes for certain pages, you could add all the pages in a certain language to your watchlist (or create another account so you can have a separate watchlist), if you really wanted to.- LingoSalad _(talk) 19:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You can filter the RCs by a specific language like this: Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Fr. This only works for translated content, since English pages don't have a tracking category. — nVis  19:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Adding token blueprints to Weapons pages

Currently ongoing discussion on IRC about this, but it may well be important enough to document here.

Should the token blueprints (weapon token + class token + scrap) be put on all of the Weapons pages? The cons against this are that it's rather redundant since most of the time you're going to get a random weapon rather than the guaranteed result (for instance, in the case of crafting a Pyro melee weapon, there's only a 1 in 5 chance of getting a specific weapon), and it's not much cheaper than the cost of the guaranteed recipe most of the time. On top of which, a lot of them are unnecessary since you can get them through achievements or random drop. What do you all say? --LordKelvin 19:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

 Support My opinion is that, as it is relevant information, it should be done. The box won't take up a whole lot of space anyways, and as nVis said on IRC, we could always just collapse them if it gets too bloated. --LordKelvin 19:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

 Support They're not shown anywhere else inside the wiki so why not.--Focusknock 19:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

 Con The cons are completely legitimate. Why not just add this recipe to the Crafting page? -- En Ex _(talk) 21:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

 Support I think the Wiki should cover everything and store it compact at the pages. People look for a weapon and see the Blueprints, then choose which one they like to use to craft the item. Storing them all together will give more possibilities in a clear view. Dani 21:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

 Neutral Could be done but don't exaggerate it. I like lean articles, but many articles get extensions on the wrong end. I just think that random=lucky crafting recipes are not sooo good to list, still its valid and good. NWM 02:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose What's the difference between this and putting the 3 refined recipe on every hat page? —Moussekateer·talk 02:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

 OpposeYou really shouldn't. It's a token and not a weapon. Miscellaneous maybe? But apart from miscellaneous it should only be in crafting because it is a crafting tool. Pierow 09:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)TC370

 Oppose I think random craft blueprints are just too much. Isn't the reason we have "see crafting" links is so we don't need these random craft blueprints. KillerKooK 03:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose I think of it like this: If I was new to the game and saw that blueprint, I would think that by crafting that blueprint I would be guaranteed to get that weapon. Sure we could say that there is a random chance of getting it, but it is unlike crates where you know the percentage and likelihood of getting it. It seems pointless to have in there. -- No-oneSpecial (talk | contribs) 06:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

 Support While the token crafting recipes may be redundant, they are still valid recipes, and even though they may clutter up the article, it still is a way to craft the weapon, and the wiki should list the information, whether it be an actual {{blueprint}} box or a simple note that says something like "As with all weapons, this weapon can be crafted using the fabricate X blueprint." - LingoSalad _(talk) 17:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

 Support Do it. When we were discussing it on IRC I genuinly wanted to know if the Fragment axe thing could be crafted via tokens. I support the idea of putting every single method of crafting an item on that items page (if space is an issue, collapse the "general" blueprints - eg. 3 refined, tokens). - 17:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

 Notice I've gone ahead and added the token recipes to all of the pages, mainly due to the Shogun update. It hasn't taken up much additional space at all, and below each one is a note warning about the chances of a successful craft. --LordKelvin 03:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I took a quick glance at the Half-Zatoichi page. Seeing how each possible result is listed after the equal sign, I can't possible see why that would be misunderstood. I like your disclaimer about the weapon craft chances. Ailure 12:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Promote community events with the Main Page event template?

What would you guys think about utilising our very public Main Page to promote TF community events? Lasse created the Main Page event template a while back, and it was used to promote the Scream Fortress update; it's not really being used since & it'd be a shame to let it go to waste. I wouldn't mind dealing with maintaining it & talking to community members who want their events promoted; if maintaining it was/is a reason anybody would be against it. - 17:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

 Support - 17:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

 Support-Sure , i like the idea :D --– Gin_Ginster _(talk) 17:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

 Support Can we use it to promote the ETF2L Wiki team events as well? --LordKelvin 18:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose The wiki policy is to only report on things mentioned in a blog post. So that limits the use of the banner straight away. If we start opening it up to any community project, everyone is going to rush to promote their event, and eveyrone is going to try to give valid reasons. This is going to open up a whole kettle of fish involving control and organisation. We can't really say we'll do this when we have yet to sort out other things first, like featured articles and the did you know, which have falled into disrepair.--Focusknock 21:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

That's sort of the reason I suggested the idea: So that community events get more recognition if not picked up by the blog. As for control, we could just put events in a queue - big events being on the main page longer - smaller events having only a day or two; or perhaps list some events simultaneously (the banners done via a table - adding a column is easy). As for only covering blog stuff - we have articles on custom mods, custom maps & community websites that aren't mentioned on the blog; so we already violate that policy. Our job is to document Team Fortress 2 - the community is a big part of the game, and thus we should give it some scope too. - 21:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The only maps and mods I see on the wiki are those that are obviously big enough to be noticed by everyone or have won some sort of contest, but nevertheless I see your point. I still think this opens the floodgates and that the wiki has other things on its plate to deal with.--Focusknock 10:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

 Comment As focusknock has already pointed out, people will be trying to get their event onto this and they will all have valid reasons for doing so. You'll probably need to come up with set criteria that makes an event eligible for inclusion, otherwise though it is an interesting idea and it could help get the word out their about a variety of different things. ^Scatman _John (Talk | Contrib) 21:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

 Support It would be a great way to inform people who don't go t the blog etc. alot. It's an excellent idea Pierow 05:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

 Neutral Things like the featured article and trending topics need more love/maintenance before we add another kind of has-to-be-maintained element to the page — Wind 17:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

 Nope Even with restrictions there will be a big o' mess of people trying to get their thing recognized. Toomai Glittershine 17:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

 Neutral Support Yeah you heard me right in my choice... The thing is, I'm torn, as I would love this as a feature of the site, but at the same time some incredible planning on how we would select decent events, would be needed before this could be added to make sure we can weed out the publicity whores, and such. If we can make this work via only promoting 100% real events (such as perhaps giveaways and competitions) as opposed to events like "My Birthday, COME JOIN MY SERVER!" then I guess we could make it work. Hence my neutralness. The support part was due to me having my own community, I would personally love this feature. -- Benjamoose (talk | contribs) 19:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

 Notice We now have a template for firming out the idea. Poot discussion HEER. --LordKelvin 18:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Information from original trailer

Forgive me if I'm overstepping my bounds here (this my first contribution), but I wonder if some of the information from the original Team Fortress 2 trailer is really appropriate to include in the character bios and would not be more suitable for the characters' "Trivia" sections. An example would be the Heavy's motto, "Shooting good." These mottos, particularly the Heavy's, are clearly from a much earlier stage in the development of these characters' personalities, when the Heavy was evidently a stereotypical "big dumb guy", and are generally inconsistent with the characters as they appear in the final product. The Elusive Hobo 01:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I wonder where they got the Demo personality from. --Japanator 21:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Celebration

So... after checking the 1306 articles to find the missing ones, I finally translated them all. Russian translation progress — 100% . Russians worked well. Others translators need to know what to strive for. And now I propose to celebrate this. — VeKoB 20:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

 Support Good work, guys. Let's celebrate!

— The Wiki Man approves ! 20:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this sums it up quite nicely... Fendermcbender 03:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Russian translators are credit to wiki. :o — Wind 03:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

See, I technically know Russian and thus could have helped, but any contributions that I make would be in completely formal diction and would probably contain multiple instances of Пожальста as I learned over two years... >_> --LordKelvin 04:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep we work alot.Rins (talk | contribs) 14:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Congrats guys (I'm still jealous though) ! Now You'll havve the pleasure of going through all the pages everyday to update them to follow the rythm of english changes (it's a pain in the ass believe me we've been doing it for two months on french -_-). Tturbo _(T/C) 15:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Lol turbo. Anyway thats really good. It will take me forever just to get the korean and chinese ones complete:( . Pierow 19:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

To top

seb and I worked out a nice little helper for long pages, for example for the Weapons page to get to the start of the site fast again when scrolled far down.

|-----------look to the right--------------> [↑ to top]

What do you think? Should we add it? And where?-Dani 06:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

 Support - Add it and put between primary weapons and the class name for each class -Dani 06:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

 Support I honestly do not see any reason not to add it. --LordKelvin 06:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

 Support Sometimes it's funny that good ideas like this take so long to be thought of and introduced to the wiki. -- No-oneSpecial (talk | contribs) 07:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

 Support But this should be reserved for pages that go into great detail and are exceptionally long. I don't want to see it spammed on every page like the class links for Related Achievements, as they ruin the flow of the page. Plus it would look ridiculous on some of the short pages such as Darwin's Danger Shield.--Focusknock 10:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

 Support Focusknock is right. It is a very good idea and should be reserved for pages with 8 or more sections (maybe that amount). Pierow 08:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

2 Weeks passed. No one is complaining. So I´ll add it later that evening. Dani 09:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You guys Took my idea and gave me no credit

A couple months ago i posted a section on this page called "the weapon demontration videos" where i had an idea to make weapon demontrstion videos about the polycount item sets. I was gald to see that you took my advice and created these videos, only... you did not give me any credit. AT ALL. now i understand that maybe someone else may have also come up with this idea, but i want to know who it was and when he came up with it. all i want is clarification. {{subst:void|This template should always be substituted. Please change {{Unsigned}} to {{subst:Unsigned}}}}— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ihasnotomato (talk) • (contribs) 2024-05-24, 22:15 UTC

I'm sorry you feel that way. The wiki is a collaborative project that doesn't put name tags on articles, media, or ideas--only actual edits. Even if you prove that it's somehow a totally original idea from you, it's not like your name will be placed anywhere because of it. More importantly, the weapon demonstration project was well underway when you posted your suggestion, and the idea of including polycount weapons in the demonstration is not novel or even interesting--it's downright obvious. Your contributions are appreciated, but this discussion seems petty and unproductive.

Also, please remember to sign your comments with ~~~~. ~G-Mang (T|C) 07:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, if you're talking about this, you did not come up with the idea. Your post was dated December 26, Wind came up with the idea on November 14. I'm not calling you a liar, but the evidence does not support your argument. --LordKelvin 07:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

OK thats fine i just wanted some clarification :) {{subst:void|This template should always be substituted. Please change {{Unsigned}} to {{subst:Unsigned}}}}— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ihasnotomato (talk) • (contribs) 2024-05-24, 22:15 UTC

Strategy overhaul, Mk. II

Since the last discussion has gotten quite long (mainly my huge walls of text), I thought that a new start would help to keep things better organized. And maybe put a few more breaks here and there.

Over the last couple days, I went ahead and moved all of the map-specific sections of the community class strategy pages into their own pages. Most of them are stubs, but the idea here is that people can add their strategies there instead of the community class strategy pages, which (1) keeps the class strategy pages much cleaner and easier to manage, and (2) lets people look at how other classes play the same map at the same time, and learn from that as well.

There's still a few more things that I'd like to do, however:

• A "Community (insert class here) match-ups" section. This will be like the current match-ups section, but more based around the same concept of the community class strategies, in that everybody can add to it. My prime example here is this section of the Pyro strategy; we can make one such page for each class, and expand those out.
  • To the same end, the existing match-ups section could perhaps be trimmed down or rewritten to become more basic. Much like the basic strategy pages, something to get people started on the class but that they'd still need to expand on later.

• In the same spirit as above, a new "Community (insert class here) Cooperative strategies" section for learning specific tactics for working in pairs with other classes. It'll certainly be limited in reach in certain sections, but right now the current strategies are only generally for playing as the class solo, the Medic and Engineer perhaps being the only exceptions since they're solely team-based classes. These pages could be used for more in-depth stuff, such as a Scout tagging enemies with the Fan O'War for a Bushwacka Sniper to kill, Pyros with the Sharpened Volcano Fragment teaming up with Sun-on-a-Stick Scouts and Axtinguisher Pyros in Medieval Mode, and so on.

• Videos to go with the community strategy pages, rather than simply pictures. What I'm proposing here, however, is different from the full-length guide videos like the ones that EvilDaed made; each video can be embedded into sections of each page and demonstrate specific concepts only, such as Puff and Sting for the Pyro, airshotting for the Soldier, and so on.

• Moving this category. The entire Strategy section needs a major overhaul, but doing this one would probably take the least effort.

So, yeah, lots to chew on. Discuss. --LordKelvin 18:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to the efforts of WindPOOTIS, the fourth point has been taken care of. For the time being, I'm thinking that overhauling the current class strategies section should take priority. Once that's done, we can focus on further refining other sections. --LordKelvin 17:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

 Notice - Here is an example of what I wanted to try with the second point. I want to try to expand something like this for each class. An example of the first point also exists in the same article. Making separate pages for these two could also eliminate the need for redundant information in the pages themselves, since some of the tips and tactics are mentioned twice or even three times in various sections. --LordKelvin 03:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about having a dedicated article for cooperation. Since many cooperation stuff (Sun-on-a-stick, Fan O'War, etc) is weapon-dependent, it would probably fit in the weapon-specific strategy.

On a different note, strategy has been unmaintainable for a while, and we may want to switch to a "queue" model for them, where people would add suggestions to add on the talk page and then someone would only add the worthy ones. This is a bit anti-wiki, however, so I'm not sure about that — Wind 04:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

"General Note"-Template for: Random Weap. crafting

So, first i make some examples and then we can think and talk about it. You can craft almost all items definitely with the correct blueprint. But some can be only with Tokens and you only have a Chance in percentage to get it. On every Article is this "Note" telling the ppl what chance they have and that they only get 1weapon.
My idea is that: The template(if possible) should checks out the results number = (all) . Then comes the first sentence(you can do it much better than me): You only get one weapon out of crafting like this, not all. Second sentence: Your chance of crafting this weapon is 1/(all) percentage. Third sentence: Then the other Weapons or all will be listed with a sentence: Possible Results are: Weap1,Weap2,Weap3, etc. Orders and sentences can fully change. I just want to make it like this now, because there will be many more weapons i guess and every time editing the notes and the Blueprints is not so efficient. Hope someone likes my idea. NWM 12:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

 Comment (clearer). There is the standard template we have now:

Class Token - Scout		Slot Token - Primary		Scrap Metal		Possible Results
	+		+		=

Note: The blueprint simply makes a Scout's primary weapon; there is still a chance of getting the Shortstop instead. There will be approximately a 50% chance of crafting this item.

Makes sense to put there NOTEs for every weapon which will be placed automatically, depending on the page. Currently this is hand written. — VeKoB 17:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I mentioned this in another discussion. Look here for more information. --LordKelvin 17:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Get rid of the Annoying sv_pure 1

Chatlog

enough said, i am not the only one that complains about a sv_pure turning any custom content into something buggy. so tell me there you opinion. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Taina Imatake (talk) • (contribs)

You missed the line from me, allow me to reiterate: <Lagg> We're not doing sv_pure 0 on the server, go somewhere else if you want to use that crap. -- Lagg 19:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose This isn't a community that lives and dies on the population of its game servers. The wiki stands for vanilla, for what actually exists in the game. Keep sv_pure 1/2. — Armisael 19:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

 Nope God no please no the server is fine the way it is Fendermcbender 19:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

 Bad idea for the reasons stated above. — nVis  19:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose I see no problem in the default skins/sound/appearance of the game. Furthermore, all the custom things regularly annoys me because those are generaly used for spam of any sort and cheat. So Whatever happens, on the wiki server I want to keep the sv_pure to 1. Tturbo _(T/C) 19:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

 Support Must have. My Scout female model and sounds doesn't work... >:( TheBombOCat 19:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

 Offtopic Vanilla settings? Why does our server must keep Vanilla Settings? TheBombOCat 20:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Because it's the Official Team Fortress Wiki server; it is an attempt to be a "pure" server that represents TF2, in the same way that the Wiki itself represents TF2. — Wind 20:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

 Nope.avi It's fine the way it is.  –  Ohyeahcrucz[T][C] 19:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

 Support I would say its good if its going to be changed cause ppl with skins (and there are much of em) always have problems like invisible enemys or crashes so do it for the ppl with skins — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nickolai Alaric (talk) • (contribs)

 Support At the risk of alienating everybody, I'm siding with Taina here. What's the harm in players using custom content?? Surely, they're all smart enough not to use cheats, right? -TheInvertedShadow

 Oppose Sorry , but i think its good that way it is, even tough no ones is gonna see yer skin, obvious, and i dont like those custom skins >.<', too twitchy _TaKamoto_ \/ 19:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose As I said before, there's a few reasons against it:

• It allows people to cheat, using load cloak sounds, bright skins, etc.
• If people are cheating using those, we have no way of figuring out if they are using those or not
• Server is trying to stay as vanilla as possible

I know it causes glitches when people have customized models for things that sv_pure 1 enforces, and I don't like that either; however, this is a TF2 bug, not a bug proper to the server. — Wind 19:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

 Support I agree with Taina (For Once), Because I LOVE my skins and I need them >:C --Ash_Ketchum 19:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose As Official Wiki we should have a server that uses Valve's vanilla settings. --Picard ^talk 20:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose There are several other servers where you can use this feature. If this server has sv_pure 0 or not, it's the staff's choice.  –  Epic Eric (T | C) 20:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

 Support Well there needs to be some sort of restrictions for in case of cheating but otherwise in many other games i have found skins to improve the game even fooled me to think gun is more "accurate" or less "recoil'ISH" — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tapani (talk) • (contribs)

 Bad idea Keep it sv_pure 1/2 for all the reasons stated above. sv_pure 0 would destroy the idea of vanilla and would oppose my opinion. (my opinion - all the statements above) {{subst:void|This template should always be substituted. Please change {{Unsigned}} to {{subst:Unsigned}}}}— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hax0r (talk) • (contribs) 2024-05-24, 22:15 UTC

 Disagree If you're having problems with buggy skins, then just uninstall them. Otherwise, we don't need file cheaters messing everything up for everybody on the server. GeminiViRiS Talk · Contribs 21:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

 Support from what I see here, the people who want it to stay vanilla dont have much of an argument except they are being stubborn, mods dont affect to other players, even if they change the cloak sound, because the mod only affects the user, but if it was a server mod then thats different. And for bright skins, you can easily just alter brightness on your monitor. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheCrazyCat (talk) • (contribs)

Exactly: "the mod only affects the user". If the user has a custom, very loud decloak sound, he can hear enemy spies decloak much better than anyone else on the server, because it only affects him. — Wind 21:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose You guys are debating over whether you can use custom crap in the wiki server? Sad, very sad.--Focusknock 21:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

 No The problem with sv_pure 0 is that it does give people advantages over others who do not use custom content. The louder decloaks and textures are only a few of these problems. The philosophy of the wiki, and therefore it's official server is to keep it as close to TF2 as Valve intended as possible. We will not be deviating from this and all active staff/administrators on the server have voted against this. There is little point in continuing this discussion. We apologize for sv_pure causing issues with your install but that is a bug report to make with Valve, not us. -- Lagg 21:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

 Comment I just wanted to point out that you can use a "whitelist" to only block the files that can be used for cheating. It's what I do on my servers, although I play the game 98% vanilla myself.Ailure 猫(talk/contribs) 22:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose I personally use sv_pure 0 on my server and I have had issues with aimbotters in the past. However, the main reason I have sv_pure off is because I use custom weapon models from Mecha's Advanced Weaponiser, and the Equipment Manager plugin for custom player models. I'd set up a whitelist if I could but it's a pain in my butt and I'd rather have someone else do it. To make a long post short, I say keep the official wiki server at sv_pure 1. {{subst:void|This template should always be substituted. Please change {{Unsigned}} to {{subst:Unsigned}}}}— The preceding unsigned comment was added by 404 User Not Found (talk) • (contribs) 2024-05-24, 22:15 UTC

 Nope Server is fine, no need to change. -- OluapPlayer _(t) 03:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose I'd actually rather sv_pure 2. pure 0 allows, nay, invites people who exploit custom content for in-game advantages (read: cheaters) such as modified decloak noises, etc. as mentioned above. -- Netshroud (talk | contribs) 03:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose No need to change. Rins (talk | contribs) 06:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose Well if the server is fine as it is then there will be no need to change DeagleEagle 23:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The preceding discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.