Help talk:Style guide/Maps

Wordy map articles

I feel the 'Locations' info on map articles are unnecessarily wordy and not helpful to anyone in the slightest. For example, Dustbowl. As a user I'd have a hard time visualising the map from that all of text. I propose cutting them all out and leaving a gallery of pictures of the map instead. Moussekateer 23:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think they're fine. They have approximately the same height as the thumbnail they describe, so it looks fine to me. In Dustbowl's case, however, the Strategy section should be moved to its own page, probably — Wind 01:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think stuff like 'The rocks: This is the rock pile that is on the left side of the map with a large Health pack.' and 'Control point A: Located at the back of the area on a slightly raised platform.' is helpful in anyway. A picture says a thousand words. Moussekateer 01:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Developers in the infobox

Since there is no section for the developers in the infobox, some maps don't include the developers in the submission of the Workshop but only in the loading screen (such as Bonesaw). They appear to have a Valve submission, but that's inaccessible. In the future, if map makers continue to do this, there may be people that have no traceable Steam profile but are mentioned on the loading screen. I think there are 3 options here:

1. Only include those mentioned in the visible Workshop submission.
2. Only include those mentioned in the Workshop submission with a Steam profile link.
3. There is some kind of way to figure out the Steam profile of those listed on the loading screen (that's a reliable way of figuring it out and that doesn't require asking the listed person(s) on the Workshop submission). If so, the method should be written here.

Obviously, 1 is an extreme measure that's not preferable, but it is an option after all.
GrampaSwood (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Text formatting on community strategies

So I looked at the guide and it isn't specific about how formatting should be done there can that be added or is it just personal preference? Zarioo12 (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by formatting? Pretty much every map follows the same formatting.
GrampaSwood (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Like you have the map locations in bold for the general map article does that have to apply to the community strategy article?

Zarioo12 (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Please remember to indent your comments using :.
GrampaSwood (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Usage of control point and capture point in King of the Hill gamemode

So in King of the Hill maps there is a single control point that can be captured by either team and can be taken by the other team and then retaken again by the former team before it was taken the style guide says to not use capture point if it's not on arena mode or the point can be taken by either team so do you use control point or capture point? Zarioo12 (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Recent locations changes

I'm not sure I agree with the change of "Locations should not describe the obvious parts of the location but be useful callouts of the map". I've personally gotten quite a lot of value of simple descriptions of the map locations, as it allows me to locate them easily on the map. It's also something that's useful for connecting it to the map overview image (as I've done before) as well as being useful with the strategy. Both of them should be acceptable, preferably combined.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) 10:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Descriptiosn that help find the locations and help to orient on the map are what I hope to see. I'm not proposing that be avoided. What concerned me were descriptions that were just statements of what could you see just walking through the map (more like a travelog or map booster or salesman), not a listing of important play factors. I wrote the passage when I couldn't sleep, and there is a glaring error; let me take a shot at correction.

M I K A D O 282 ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ (Contact Mikado282 (SM)) | (contribs) (Help Wanted!) 23:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Change to map developer credits

First, let me state that I may be something of an intruder to the Developer(s) listings, I have never participated in that part of the map pages.

However, I was asked to look into correcting the ordering of Developer credits. There are two concerns, one simple to correct, the other needing somewhat more discussion to address:

1. Developer(s) are in many cases listed by the wiki in different order than the developers and Valve intend, causing some confusion and delay. This should be fixed.
2. The Developer(s) listing format does not reflect any actual degree of involvement. This might be nice to fix if not too much trouble.

List order

When a map is accepted, Eric Smith "sends out the original emails telling us a map got in, and any further issues or questions by either side are done via that email thread with him. He occasionally forwards emails to/from other Valve people, but only rarely so."

"Valve asks for a credits list, and they put it in the game in the exact order that is given to them by the mappers, usually [through] the team leader." Eric Smith is the recipient of the credits lists.

However, at some point, perhaps in some discussion I was not privy to, there began a convention of listing Developer(s) in numerical order of their Steam Id code. This method of ordering and any reason for sorting in that order is hidden to the typical user. I am unaware of any usefulness this ordering.

A negative effect of this ordering is that the most involved developers are not listed first, and the least involved are more often than not listed first (earlier content developers tend to have earlier Steam IDs). Users wanting more information about a map will start asking at the top of the Developer(s) list, but those at the top of the list usually know nothing about the map.

The load screen credits are generated from the file Team Fortress 2/tf/resource/tf_english.txt.

The developers wish that we correct our Developer(s) to the order that Valve has accepted and written into the game. I have made easily revertable example corrections to Nucleus VSH and Rotunda.

The wiki's policy should be amended to say that the "Developer(s)" should be listed in the order they appear in the in-game credits.

I will not pretend to know anything about the wiki's rules for listing names differently from what Valve credits do.

Degree of involvement

As it has been communicated to me, and as I have seen in the Workshop pages, there are typically three tiers of involvement of people in the credits lists:

1. The actual map Developers, those that know the most about the map because they made it. These should be at the top of the credits.
2. Bespoke asset creators are those that created a few assets specifically for the map, usually at direct request of the actual map Developers.
3. Prior asset creators are those whose prior assets were used by the actual map Developers (maybe just one texture made years ago). These should be at the bottom of the credits.

Somehow "nuancing" the Developer(s) field might be ideal, but such a change would need more discussion and planning.

M I K A D O 282 ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ (Contact Mikado282 (SM)) | (contribs) (Help Wanted!) 01:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

edited 01:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I think we should list them based on the in-game order, as that's the order the mappers want it in.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) 11:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

For Template:Map infobox/doc, I suggest

Name and optional link to the developer/author of the map. Do not name individual Valve employees.

Name and optional Steam id profile link for the developer/author/contributors of the map in the same order their names appear in the start screen. Do not name individual Valve employees.

But I also suggest a new Help:Style guide/Maps#Developer credits paragraph indented under either Introduction or Content; not just to state that the start screen order should be used, but to also state that the order is set by the developer(s) at Valve's request. I think it would be useful for the policy to also communicate how it is that many if not most of the people listed in credits have only limited involvement in the development. I would also offer links to lists of map credits.

M I K A D O 282 ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ (Contact Mikado282 (SM)) | (contribs) (Help Wanted!) 00:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Looks good, although I would leave out the link to map credits, because we already link to the Workshop page which contains them, no need for a specific link that scrolls slightly down.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) 08:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't going to guarantee that the credits listing on the Workshop page is exactly what ended up submitted to the game. It is certainly not in a single list, but in separate lists. I certainly would use the Workshop statement for degree of involvement, but I would prefer official game content for the name order.

M I K A D O 282 ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ (Contact Mikado282 (SM)) | (contribs) (Help Wanted!) 03:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I have taken a shot at the policy here and the template /doc here. Please, check. Maybe the info box line could be shortened.

M I K A D O 282 ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ (Contact Mikado282 (SM)) | (contribs) (Help Wanted!) 00:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Holiday Map Variants

Holiday map variants should mention what they are a variant of in the introduction. The argument of "it's already mentioned in the infobox," is simply nonsensical because if we remove everything that's already mentioned in the infobox we might as well just remove the whole introduction entirely. Makes no sense. The map name, game mode, setting, community created status, etc etc are all mentioned in the infobox and in the introduction. It's a really bad argument. People read from left to right and usually are going to read the introduction before they read the infobox and I simply don't see the harm in a couple words saying "is the Halloween version of X".

The "already mentioned in infobox" argument is also severely flawed in the sense that it doesn't actually provide a concrete link to original map and you have to deduce that it's a variant via the file name. Couple this with the fact that not every holiday version is named consistently and it could easily be confusing for a lot of people. A lot of new players first time ever playing the game is during holiday events and they might not be familiar with all the map names so it seems silly to expect people to just figure it out based on the infobox alone. Having it stated in direct language in the introduction removes any potential confusion.

Mediarch ♥ Talk ♥ My Edits 11:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The introduction of the map is a standard part of any article (and already standardised throughout the whole Wiki), not just map ones, removing it because some of the info on there is mentioned in the infobox is a false equivalence. This style of not writing "X is a variant of Y" (unless it's a custom map) comes from when {{Map Variant}} was still at the top of the page. Despite people reading up and down, they still frequently missed this. Many maps don't just have a single variant either, but rather a few, so singling out one variant above the others while there are multiple variants would make no sense. There is also quite clearly a "Variants:" section that's in the infobox, which has nothing to do with the filename.

Very often, map descriptions will also not be written at all simply because "It is an X variant of Y" is the only description needed, which makes articles very dull and boring. You could argue that you can just add descriptions, but clearly this hasn't been done for quite a few maps (even ones that aren't a remake), and the fact that no one has bothered to add any makes a lot of new map articles just really uninteresting in my opinion.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 11:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

“

Quoted text. — The introduction of the map is a standard part of any article (and already standardised throughout the whole Wiki)

”

Yes, that's precisely the point I was making. On any article that has an infobox the intro will be restatng information from the infobox. Removing something "because it's in the infobox" seems completely illogical to me. Repeating info from the infobox is a weird reason to ditch it.

“

Quoted text. — There is also quite clearly a "Variants:" section that's in the infobox

”

Just saying Variants Control Point is an extremely poor way to convey the information "This map is a Halloween version of Degroot keep" in my opinion. If you look at an article currently the only way to determine the original map is by clicking control point which is extremely un-clear to me. Without clicking links, the only way to determine the original map is to infer it via the file name of the map. I'm slightly paraphrasing but a wise Grampa once said "requiring a separate wiki page to know what the original map is is exactly the issue". If it said Variants cp_degrootkeep that would be more clear but still I don't see the issue with it also being mentioned in the intro. More clarity isn't a bad thing.

Mediarch ♥ Talk ♥ My Edits 14:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

"Removing something "because it's in the infobox" seems completely illogical to me." The difference here is that this isn't removing something from the article, it's not a standard part of a lot of articles, just like the "added in the X update" is not a part of the article and has been removed from a few articles for not being standard and already being in the infobox as well. I think certain info is important enough to add to the main section, even if it's mentioned in the infobox, but this simply isn't. I do agree we could change the variants section from gamemodes to the map names (preferably map names instead of filenames), though.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 15:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)