Team Fortress Wiki:Discussion/Archive 36

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

Create a new section

User subpages (drafts/templates/unrelated content,etc...)

Hello, there were several user files deleted in the last months, mostly unused for more than 5 to 10 years. There are also some user subpages that contain all kinds of templates, some being an old copy from the mainspace, something not even related, own content, or simply abandoned/unused for years (also in main categories, like Category:Templates that use translation switching). I think there should be a Policy subpage with this information (see sections below) on the Wiki. Some examples here Mgpt (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I dont want to make enemies here or something, but this userpage... Mgpt (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see much wrong with this if I'm honest. If it's not in mainspace category, there's nothing wrong with it.
GrampaSwood (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

There should be at least a section like Wikipedia has... Unused files get deleted for being unused, the same should apply at least (in my opinion) to old user page templates (like the ones I provided, which are just copies of mainspace or similar) and these cases where the user is using the Wiki to "host" their images and content. Of course this is just my opinion and as I said there should be official notes regarding this. Mgpt (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

A section like this can be created, however, considering that users are essentially allowed to do anything on their user space (such as Mikado hosting images of things he finds relevant to TF2 in real life, or me having a list of Strange weapons I don't own yet) as long as it's not something such as spam, I'm not sure it will be a very big section.
GrampaSwood (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe a "See also" link to the Wikipedia article below User content. Mgpt (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

"Styles" should come before "Painted variants" in articles about cosmetics

I don't think it makes sense to show the painted variants with the different styles of the item first and then show the actual unpainted styles in a later section.
For example: Nine-Pipe_Problem#Painted_variants and Nine-Pipe_Problem#Styles. Tiagoquix (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Its fine in my opinion, doesnt need to be changed . Mgpt (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Old and no longer used account deletion request

Hello. There is this old account of mine that I do not use anymore. Could the TF Wiki staff delete it, please?
The account: User:Perk | User talk:Perk
The Wiki does not state it is not registered, therefore, it is.
Thanks in advance. Tiagoquix (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Here, though it doesn't seem to be possible to delete it entirely. Mgpt (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Tiagoquix (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

It's also required for you to prove the account is yours before it's deleted through e-mail.
GrampaSwood (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot prove it. That account does not have any e-mail linked to it (I know it doesn't because the "forgot password" page tells if a specific username has an e-mail linked to it or not). The only proof I can provide is that I used to have similar usernames to "Perk" before "Tiagoquix": User:Perkzitos and User:P3rkzitos. Tiagoquix (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Since the account has no edits, a generic username, and you cannot prove ownership, we unfortunately cannot process this request. We apologize for the inconvenience. — Tark 17:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

No problem! I appreciate your willingness. Tiagoquix (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Item infoboxes (Closed)

Hello, with help from Tark, I pushed the changes from the sandbox page. (Last edit: {{Item infobox}}). I already started by creating the category for Crafting items which should be completed, and the idea is to use {{Item infobox/item name}}, preventing outdated info and template "creation" in every language page (see example here). Cosmetic items and weapons support is not fully tested yet so please don't create the pages for them. What do you think of this? Thanks. Mgpt (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

You may notice the use of <includeonly> which is because of red links (backpack image/styles/name), they can be avoided with "custom-icon" and "name" but I'm not sure if its ideal. Mgpt (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't oppose to the idea of adding new strings or functions, before I give my proper input, I'd like to see it tested. Yossef • Talk 19:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be working fine for all types, there could be a string missing or two for weapons but they can be placed on dictionary/common strings. Mgpt (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

This idea looks good on paper but doesn't really solve any issues as we can already sync infoboxes (WindBOT does that).

Unfortunately, it is quite unrealistic to create and maintain over 2000 new pages just for a small detail like this. And even if the infobox is updated, the rest of the article may not be.

For something like this to be viable, you would have to address the following issues: 1) How can we make the transition? We can't simply edit all item articles. 2) How do you handle items with prefixes, suffixes, and descriptions that are not present in English? 3) How do you handle certain infobox parameters that require text in other languages? 4) Why is this template needed? — Tark 17:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

As I said earlier on the IRC, this can be done in a progressive way, first the infoboxes are created and then they can be implemented whenever needed or someone updates the page. A good example is the Crafting items category I already completed (these items have basic information compared to weapons or cosmetics), the only thing left to decide is the format of the page. For the prefixes, suffixes and descriptions we can use the lang template like I did on my last edits, and for the rest of the text we can create a section on dictionary/common strings, or simply don't create the infobox, this is also why the weapon infoboxes would be the last, if I'm not wrong its where those texts (like the reload type for weapons) would appear more frequently or at all. This template would be useful because of the backpack links and availability section, and really everything on the infobox, so I see a lot of benefits. Let me know if I missed something Mgpt (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Heya! Apologies, I haven't been around much.

In the long run, it won't make sense for certain pages to have these new infoboxes while others do not. Your suggestions for handling prefixes, suffixes, and non-English descriptions don't make much sense. It's not common for editors to check every lang file, so having individual pages for the infobox that work exactly like they do now will not be helpful (someone still needs to update the page manually).

Also, please don't make any further changes to existing pages. I won't go against the majority, but people need to discuss it first. This is a major change and can't be done by one user alone. — Tark 17:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Sadly nobody else commented so as the author I am closing the topic Mgpt (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Taunt kill image inconsistency

On each class page there is a section for taunt kills which shows images of what taunt kills a class can do. However, on the Taunts page there are also taunt kills, however, these display different images from the class page ones. For example, on Demoman#Taunt_Attack you see File:Demoeyelander.png, but on Taunts#Kill_taunts you see File:Demomaneyelandertauntkill.png. There are other examples of this if you compare class pages to the taunts page. So my question is
A: Should one of these images be removed so there's the same image for both the taunt and class pages, and if the answer is yes for A:
B: Which images should be deleted, the ones on the taunts page or the ones on the class pages?
I personally think one of these images should be removed with the images on the taunts page being deleted.
Andrew360 15:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Last laugh MvM

new cosmetics added due to a charity Aistrrr (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Could you elaborate a bit further?
GrampaSwood (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Elaborated. — 07:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Undocumented changes inconstancy

I just noticed how random it is.
Should it be === Undocumented changes === or == Undocumented changes == ?

Yaroslav (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

== Undocumented changes ==.
GrampaSwood (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Isnt === Undocumented changes === the correct one, like most of the previous patches? Also for cases like the March 1, 2023 Patch. Mgpt (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I assumed it to be a similar case to the References discussion previously, as we agreed on ==. If === is more common we should use that.
GrampaSwood (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Should we archive the 2023 April Fool Discussion?

Maybe some of ideas which was not used in this April Fool Event can be approved by doing some changes. It would also inspire other editors in the future. --BEUFK - Contributions-Talk 04:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Some ideas may be repurposed, but the current discussion must be archived. — Tark 21:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Stats in update history & patch notes consistencies

This is about 2 issues:

1. The consistency of patch notes.

2. Should the stats be listed in the update history?

I believe that it's too much effort to list every single original stat in the update history, and it is also not the purpose of the update history to describe the state every weapon has been in (merely to indicate which updates have changed the weapon).

I also think that the patch notes should essentially be a 1:1 copy of the wording used in the original patch notes, with some minor exceptions i.e. "added x amount of unusual effects" -> "Added [unu effect name] to the game" instead. This has been an unwritten rule for quite a while now, but has been randomly overturned a while ago without any discussion whatsoever, so here's the formal discussion.
GrampaSwood (talk) 10:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

My thoughts are the same as yours: it's too much effort, that's not the Update history's purpose, and patch notes should be as 1:1 as possible. - BrazilianNut (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

For me, the Update History should tell what happened to the items thorough the time span of the game, including stats changes and such to the finest details. Imagine a history book that didn't tell what happen exactly in the past. Yes, it's required a lot of effort, but it's what Update history is.

P.S. History is a chronological record of events, as of the life or development of a people or institution, often including an explanation of or commentary on those events. Rikka Takanashi (talk) • (contributions) 13:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with Gramps, my take is that Update History should document what the official patch notes mentions. As for the stats, I don’t mind adding them in the Update History as long as Valve specifically mentions those changes in their patch notes. Yossef • Talk 14:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

1:1 patch notes and like Yossef said Mgpt (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Patch notes can be freely modified in articles (just like Hinaomi said). This has always been the case and I don't see any reason to change it now.

As for stats, I prefer mimicking Dota's patch notes:

- Increased the damage to XX (from YY) - for the item article

- Updated the weapon damage (YY -> XX) - for any other article mentioning the change

— Tark 21:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Tark, but maybe we should add something to differentiate 1:1 patch notes to edited ones (maybe writing edited ones in italics) · Ashe (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I also agree with Tark. 1:1 patch notes and slightly edited patch notes have co-existed in the past, and the information provided, in terms of weapon stats, will be valid for the time of the patch note. I don't see any harm in providing that information, even if it later becomes outdated; it might be helpful to look up, and it'll always have the header of the date for which those stats were used, after all -- with perhaps, as Ashe said, a divider of sorts, if stats outside of patch notes are used. — 05:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

What to do about broken painted items lists? + other pressing paint issues

I posted this on Tark's page, and was told to bring it here, so here it is; first, a brief rundown of the issues at hand:

• The lists of paintable items: Scout, Soldier, Pyro, Demoman, Heavy, Engineer, Medic, Sniper, Spy, and all-class, are all incredibly out of date, displaying only paintable items from over ten years ago.
• The current MediaWiki version we're on, and perhaps any MediaWiki version, cannot support even this many items in a single template. You can see that right now: if you go to the All Classes list, the template does not load, because it's broken the limit of template include sizes.

So it's clear that these lists need a major revamp; and we probably won't even be able to do it through a template anymore, especially if we add all the items that have since been paintable after 2011. It would certainly be too much for a single template to handle, with the infrastructure we're using at the moment.

Tark mentioned that he would probably be able to update the lists with his PhoneWave bot, once we've figured out what to do, and that's a fine solution -- there will certainly be more paintable items to come. The larger problem at hand is: what are we going to do to fix the lists to begin with, considering that updating our existing templates is almost definitely out of the equation?

We may also have to consider updating the unpaintable items list, for consistency's sake, if templates are to be discarded; and, while we're at it, this may be a nice starting point for another list featuring Gabrielwoj's new unused paint variant images, as a separate thing from items which are completely and totally unpaintable. — 02:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I personally don't see how the lists are useful to anyone. If someone looks how a cosmetic will look like, they will search for that cosmetic's article, not the list. Imo that list should be replaced with categories for each class (currently there is only 1 cat that groups all paintable cosmetics) · Ashe (talk) 03:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

One of the idea is splitting to each years so it won't overload the single template, but the question is "how many people care about this template". Because like Ashe said, if I want to see how the item look with paint, I go to individual pages. Rikka Takanashi (talk) • (contributions) 05:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with Hinaomi on this one, if we wanna keep these templates at all I'd suggest doing it similar to Item timeline where we split it up into each year. If we don't want to keep them, I suggest redirecting to Category:Paintable items and Category:Unpaintable items instead (and perhaps making a separate category such as Category:Items with unused paintability for all the items with unused painted variants).
GrampaSwood (talk) 08:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I personally am in favour of ditching templates entirely, when it comes to listing the items. Paintabilty templates by year are a fine solution, but they would need to be manually up-kept, in the same way that the item timelines are -- and those timelines themselves are in a current state of incompleteness. No one tends add to medals to them, even though they are a significant part of what gets added to the game in this stage in its life. That's only tangentially related, however; my point is, that with the idea of manual upkeep, comes the potential reality of neglect. That's why we're here in the first place, in regards to this paintability list discussion.

I say, we link to the categories, and as suggested, start a new category for items whose textures are set up for paint, but have the option disabled. We'll most likely have the existing {{Painted variants unused}} template automatically add the category to pages going forward, that seems like the simplest way to move ahead with this. Then, we could link to the categories in the Paint Can article the same way we link to the paintability lists now, through something like this, for the sake of example. The article would have the tool demonstration video, this template change, and then straight to the existing Colors template, ditching the unpaintable table entirely; though we'd have to come up with an icon for unused paintability. — 13:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

+1 for ThatHatGuy proposal above Mgpt (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

A page for the canceled Team Fortress II Quake 2 mod?

I just created the TeamFortress Software page in preparation for creating a page about the canceled Team Fortress II Quake 2 mod/Half-Life add-on, but I was told to open a discussion here before creating any new pages.
Ginger Jesus (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems like this would be better fit to add as a mention on Team Fortress 2#Development rather than its own page.
GrampaSwood (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Unknown patch notes

Continuation from Talk:Wiki Cap#Unknown patch note.
GrampaSwood (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

To start with, I would say that Yossef's proposed format is not bad; it is both effective and consistent.

I would wonder though, that by the simple virtue of being untraceable to any known patch, the change is also [undocumented], to be pedantic.

If you were to have a policy, it could simply define the format, and then just say that the default position is at the bottom, barring any defensible position at a later date higher in the list. But you know me, I'll take a highly-qualified best guess bordering on observation most any day. I mean, always putting it at the bottom is also a guess. As far as problems go ...

M I K A D O 282 ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ (Contact Mikado282 (SM)) | (contribs) (Help Wanted!) 18:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  It seems that we reached a consensus, that being Unknown Patches should be at the bottom. As for the name: I mentioned that I personally prefer the name that Gramps proposed, being Changes made in unknown patches, but I wouldn't oppose the other name that BrazilianNut proposed, which is Unknown Patches. Yossef • Talk 09:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Create a page?

I have looked for how to create a page everywhere and I can’t find how. Can someone help me? Or is there a help discussion.0Bytes0O (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

If you want to create a page, create it on your sandbox first, then it will be reviewed and if it gets approved it will be moved.
GrampaSwood (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Tournament medal pages

Hi, the current way the medals are displayed doesnt seem ideal to me, especially for tournaments with lot of medals like PASS Time Federation, UGC 6vs6, RSP, etc, take a look at the Competitive Nav template to see more examples.

I made this table and it could be a good replacement as it lists every medal and and only one section would be needed instead of "Medal designs/List of medals". There are also some tournament medals with descriptions (+ donor medals/operation medals) (Australian Hightower Highjinx, Rally Whale, etc) and the table would need some changes to show the descriptions... Mgpt (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Closed Mgpt (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks good, however, a separate table that supports descriptions would be good.
GrampaSwood (talk) 09:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm the one that did the format design for how these operate, and I largely worked with what was available at the time; as far as these new pitches go:

Descriptions are an absolute must. They aren't all just "Season X" or "Cup X", and being able to support medals reissued with different description strings is the entire reason they're even listed more than once on the tournament pages now. I'd like it if these tables could have a divider line, and be able to list several descriptions per one medal design. That would cut down on a lot of clutter over time.

Most recent community medals wouldn't work in this new table format presently, because of the custom paint splats a lot of them have these days. In-game and on the articles for most community MVM tours, paint splats are displayed for each custom color override, which these tables do not support at the moment.

— 01:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Paintable items with styles and a lot of taken space

A suggestion. Every paintable cosmetic with styles adds a lot of extra space just to diplay images of painted variants. Can they all me merged into tabs like it was done here for example? Even with only 2 styles, like here, this saves space. Plus it's easier to compare changes between styles. Denied (Talk) 13:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks good,  Support.
GrampaSwood (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

+1 Mgpt (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

 Support Yessss sir. - ▪ - 02:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Medal designs section (closed)

While the table idea would "fix" (just an example, more on User:Mgpt/sandbox history) all of these width and space problems, the discussion didn't end up well, now I think we need a solution for this. Is there a way to "fix" the space between the backpack templates? It just doesn't fit the page, the descriptions take a lot of space too. Other pages are fine, like Beginnings 5. Mgpt (talk) 03:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Request to revert talk page to regular wikitext

Hello. Please, could a TF Wiki staff member revert this talk page to the regular wikitext?
Thanks in advance.
Tiagoquix (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Team_Fortress_Wiki:Technical_requests#Taking requests for converting talk pages back to regular 'ol wikitext. — Tark 17:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know.
Tiagoquix (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Article titles for custom content

I'd like to propose a small change regarding the names of articles for custom content, and I encourage y'all to provide feedback for the upcoming community topics notability guidelines if you haven't already.

Currently, some articles (e.g., mission articles) and articles with the same name (e.g., Firewatch and Firewatch (map)) mention the "type" within the "article suffix". I suggest that if the article pertains to a custom map or any other custom content, it should specify "custom thing" in the suffix instead of just "thing".

For example, "Firewatch (map)" → "Firewatch (custom map)", "Aerial Stupidity (mission)" → "Aerial Stupidity (custom mission)", etc.

Thanks. — Tark 15:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

 Support
GrampaSwood (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

 Me II M I K A D O 282 ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ (Contact Mikado282 (SM)) | (contribs) (Help Wanted!) 01:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done. — Tark 22:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Use the item link template consistently?

I'm wonder if every English-written pages should also use the {{item link}}, including any other stuff? That's convenient for our translator to a certain degree. --BEUFK - Contributions-Talk 14:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Although it may be convenient, templates do have a longer loading time. It's best to use only when necessary.
GrampaSwood (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

They should be used whenever possible (alongside {{item description}}). — Tark 15:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Backpack icons in 'Bugs' section inconsistency

This needs some clarification as sometimes it's very well documented and sometimes it's deleted for being not notable. Personally I'm against removing them as technically it is a bug (more a visual glitch) that the reader should be aware of, and maybe even the creator of said cosmetic, as they might not be aware of it themself and maybe they'll fix it someday. Denied (Talk) 07:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The fire overlay is only really noticeable upon close inspection, while there being 2 completely different item icons may actually confuse a player because they'll be looking for one but only seeing the other.
GrampaSwood (talk) 09:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The fire overlay is not really that notable considering there's multiple official Valve artworks on update pages that also includes them. Also, "fire overlay" is a term that is mostly known for those who have used the model viewer in the past, it's not something that most readers would catch up, and even if they would click on the backpack icon to view it entirely, they might not actually know what a fire overlay, considering it's actually hard to see. It's not something that really affects who is looking for a specific icon in their backpacks, as mentioned before, they are hard to see, especially in their non-_large.vtf versions. Other backpack icons of items that show differently (Fancy Dress Uniform having the epaulettes painted in white, Heavy Tourism having the icon from an earlier version of the cosmetic, etc.), are more notable, because they differ from the actual look in the game. The Fast Learner one is perhaps the only instance in-game where the non-_large version differs from the _large version. It may not be as big of a deal compared to other backpack icon bugs, but it still is an inconsistency in the game itself. - ▪ - 12:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Someone couldn't keep watching incorrect icons so they fixed them all. Then Valve responded.. poor guy.

So, should we include all incorrect icons in 'Bugs' section, including stuff like outdated textures/model, items that have some paint applied, are semi transparent due to wrong alpha layer value, and less noticable but still visible fire overly, or exlude fire overlay issue? Denied (Talk) 14:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Big inconsistenties ones are fine (e.g. inconsistent between icons or big inconsistenties between icon and model), but if it's something very small I would leave them out.
GrampaSwood (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Collector's quality in update history

Weapons that received Collector's quality have this addition documented in their update history, but cosmetics don't. Should this be added to their update history too? Denied (Talk) 10:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes.
GrampaSwood (talk) 10:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

One more thing. Sometimes Collector's quality is labeled in patch notes as undocumented change and sometimes not. Which one is correct? Here is the patch. Denied (Talk) 13:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Depends on if it's noted in the patch notes or not.
GrampaSwood (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

All patch notes refer to the same patch from November 12, 2013. All it says is '"Added 'Collector's" item quality. "Collector's" items are created by completing special Chemistry Sets.' Doesn't specify what items. I don't know how to interpret it. Denied (Talk) 13:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Then it's documented.
GrampaSwood (talk) 14:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I've stumbled into some problems. Some cosmetics were added after November 12 2013 patch and some, like Argyle Ace for example, exists in Collector's quality but last added documented Chemistry Set dates back to april, before the item was even added to the game. Perhaps Chemistry Sets were still dropping while the item was added? I need some help from other editors with this so I won't mess up something. Denied (Talk) 08:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Collector sets were found via item drops for all items that could be found in the item drop system until they (sets) were discontinued; and additionally the 2013 festive weapons could also have their sets unboxed as a rare bonus item from the corresponding crates. Any item added to the drop system while sets were still dropping would have had the potential for a set to drop on day one, it'd just be rarer for them since there was less time for the already stupid rare cosmetic set to drop to someone. (This is my best guess to how they operated since none of this info was shared publicly afaik). Adding this info to items added after the November 12 patch would be akin to putting "The Argyle Ace was added to the game in unique quality", imo it's not needed. Jh34ghu43gu (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Artist-provided content

Moby Francke has been generous, sharing copies of his power point presentation with various people. An instance of this was discussed on #tfwiki-staff IRC last Friday (June 30).

The main question was whether it was permitted to use the images an artist provides to private persons on this Wiki.

I believe the conclusion was that Moby Franke had not granted effective Creative Commons release (See Team Fortress Wiki:Licensing images) .

Valve content is fair game, but I can't say with complete confidence what in the Franke power point is Valve's and what is not. Many of the images are already on the Wiki, but at smaller size and quality, mostly taken from Valve's official Team Fortress artwork gallery. Note that CC license can be granted to lower resolution images while withheld on high resolution originals.

Moreover, not all images in the power point are Moby Franke's work. This is paricularly clear with examples of Jeff Ballinger's work. Freely giving someone a copy of the power point can not free the license of any other creator's work in the shared material.

It is also clear with the two Jack Delano photographs of Mikado282. These are from 1940-1945 and so any copyright for Jack Delano has not expired yet in the US. But if these were made under Federal employment, they might be free; they might even be available through the US Library of Congress.

However, if an artist's TF works are legitimately hosted in a gallery or repository on some website, then I say that the link to those hostings can be added to the "other site" list in the artist's NPP.

★M★I★K★A★D★O★1776!★ 🎇🎆🎆🎆🎆🎇 🎇🎇 🎇🎇  (Contact Mikado282 (SM)) | (contribs) (Help Wanted!) 19:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe that, because Valve has released these images themselves in a lower quality, they are owned by Valve themselves and thus are fine for us to use.
GrampaSwood (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I haven't had time to check everything myself, but why not ask the source directly? I assume the third-party content/inspiration is off-limits, but everything else should fall under fair use.

That said, we do have an issue of not being able to *link* this PDF at all (we can't rehost it, it was shared through a random Discord server not a "showcase website" etc.). The material here is very interesting, but I'm not sure how we could document it. — Tark 14:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe it was already asked (in this specific case), but not sure if a reply was received yet, I'll give it a try myself. As for hosting it, I think the best thing is to convert the files from the .pdf to separate .png files and create a gallery until we find a way to host the .pdf.
GrampaSwood (talk) 09:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Unofficial voice actor voice lines

With the inclusion of the VSH gamemode, several new voice lines were added that are not voiced by the actual voice actors. Should these be on a separate page (i.e. "Versus Saxton Hale audio responses") or should these just be included on the audio responses page with a note saying it's not the official voice actor?
GrampaSwood (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Add them behind the VS_Saxton_Hale_Mode, I suppose.--BEUFK - Contributions-Talk 10:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

No, it’s unnecessarily segregating the lines spoken by one character. We do not have a Mann vs. Machine responses page consisting of nine classes’ worth of voicelines separate from their class response pages.

People would expect to see the Scout’s VS Saxton Hale responses on the Scout responses page; likewise having a title text on the Scout responses TOC for the heading “VS Saxton Hale responses” redirecting to “See: VS Saxton Hale Mode#Responses#Scout” would be overcomplicating having all the Scout responses on one page. There can be a small hatnote about McGuinn under the heading. 12:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The difference between the MvM responses and these is that these are not the actual voice actors.
GrampaSwood (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I think these should be added in their respective class pages, and separate like how it's on Soldier, so, for example: "The Soldier was[1] voiced by the late Rick May. He was voiced by May and Nolan North in Expiration Date, and additional lines were voiced by insert_community_VA_here for the VS Saxton Hale Mode. - ▪ - 14:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe we all agree that these additions are... something, but they are part of the game now and we shouldn't be trying to hide them away. This is a wiki.

Please move class responses to their respective pages and Saxton/Narrator lines to Versus Saxton Hale responses. — Tark 21:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll start transcribing these and uploading them later today, most likely. — 15:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Done. — 05:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

In regards to Vs. Saxton Hale gamemode:

So, the VS Saxton Hale mode is finally an official mode in the game. However, there are several points I would like to make regarding to existing articles and what should be done with them:

• Although I don't know all of them, it seems some weapons for the Mercenaries had some stats changed. For instance, it seems that hitting the Sandman ball on Hale's head will now stun him, instead of just applying a slow effect. Should this be added to the weapons pages, like how the Spy-cicle mentions a difference on Medieval mode? The Concheror and Cozy Camper also has additional info regarding to being used in Mann vs. Machine.
  • However, I think the way this gamemode works is that the entire "code" is inside the map file, meaning that it's possible that stats MAY change depending on maps. I'm not 100% sure about this, though. If all current 4 maps have the same stats, however, it may be a bit too repetitive to include weapon changes for every page.
• As with the discussion above, there's several new voice lines for every mercenary, courtesy of community-Voice Actors. I still stand with my suggestion in adding an extra info in the Class' page mentioning "additional lines were recorded by VA for the VS Saxton Hale game mode", as I think it's the best approach.
• Lore-wise, should the "story" behind VS Saxton Hale be considered Canon or Non-Canon? (Gray Mann and Saxton Hale interaction, for instance). Unless there's confirmation by Valve, I think it should be considered Non-Canon.
• When doing Rock, Paper, Scissors against Hale, if a Mercenary wins, it will instantly kill Hale. While this may sound obvious as it's what happens with other opposing-team classes during normal game modes, I think it's unique enough that a boss with an absurd amount of health still follows the same principle.
  • If so, should this information be added to the main Rock, Paper, Scissors page?

I might add more items later in future replies. - ▪ - 17:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, some special taunts have different animations while playing as Saxton. Some are slight modifications of existing animations, while others seem to be more unique. I don't know if there should be an extra image for "Saxton Hale" on the Class gallery for such taunts, and if Hale himself should be featured in Taunt Video Demonstrations. Some special taunts, however, are "bugged" as it does not play any animations but the props still appear. I think any future special taunts added after the VSH game mode will be broken due to this. Considering Hale uses Heavy as a "base", it's possible some of Heavy's special taunts were changed, I'd have to check, however. But I have seen Schadenfreude taunt being different than Heavy's variation. - ▪ - 16:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, while I don't have video proof right now, the information on VS Saxton Hale mode that "No voice lines are present for identifying Saxton Hale as a disguised Spy; attempting to identify Hale as one will instead provoke the generic response." is not exactly only for Hale, but for all Heavies. If I were to guess, using the "Spy!" voice commands while targeting Heavies were disabled completely considering Saxton himself uses "Heavy" as a base, it was basically the reason why Pyrovision items were disabled considering they were causing Heavy voices to play instead. - ▪ - 16:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

re: weapons, I think it's fine to include them on the pages once we actually see what's gonna happen with these maps. If there's the possibiliy that it'll stay as a custom gamemode (meaning any map can have different weapon changes), I think it's best we note these changes on a separate page entirely (or simply in a table) that the individual weapon pages can refer to.

re: voice lines, I think we've solved that and it's been added to the general page.

re: Lore, community-made lore (unless officially acknowledged by Valve) is never seen as canon. This is why the NPCs have a separate section, as this kind of stuff could easily clash with official lore.

re: RPS, I'd say add it. The original VSH gamemode took a chunk of his health IIRC and not an instakill. Considering backstabs are also changed, this is good to mention on the VSH page (but not the RPS page).

re: Animations, it's best to keep this on the VSH page instead of a separate page because Hale is not a class you can choose like the others.

re: Heavy model base, feel free to add any findings of RED Heavy's animations/voice lines (including the Spy bug) to the Bugs section on VSH (with proof, of course).
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Holiday-sized updates and us

Hi all!

With the release of the very exciting summer-situated full-on holiday-sized™ summer update, I'd like to propose that we separate the Summer, Halloween, and Smissmas updates into their own category called seasonal updates. Here's a draft: Template:Major_Updates_Nav/Sandbox (in addition to revising the nav, we will also need to rework the Patches article and create new icons for these updates).

Currently, these updates are not classified as major updates, so we classify them as "content packs" (which contradicts our own definition), but I strongly believe that the term "content pack" is outdated and no longer accurately reflects the nature of these updates. By creating a separate category, we can avoid mislabeling them and provide a more precise representation of their content.

Please leave your feedback and   or   below before Jul 30. — Tark 15:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think it should be an additional category (e.g. "Major Seasonal update" or "Major Holiday update"), I think the nav changes are good regardless.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

What about seasonal updates that were also major updates? I feel as if classifying them as seasonal updates only somewhat "belittles" them. - BrazilianNut (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'm in support of the idea, but as others have said, I think we should find some way to discuss major updates that were also released in a seasonal timeframe. Updates like Tough Break and the Mecha Update, which added sizeable gameplay-expanding content (new contract-based campaign/new Engineer robot) should still be listed as a major update in some capacity, rather than being taken out of that category solely because they released in December, and served as that year's holiday update slot. If a choice is to be made, I would rather specifically those two be in the major updates category. — 23:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

They will be listed under the "seasonal" category in the nav, but they'll remain listed as major (or not) on their respective pages (Scream Fortress XIV would be titled "major seasonal update" and Smissmas 2022 would be simply titled "seasonal update" for example).

I'd love to rant (more) about how bad our definition of "major update" is, but that's out of the scope of this topic. — Tark 00:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  I do agree with the idea of the seasonal updates section as the recent Scream Fortress and Smissmas updates are a bit less than "major" in my opinion. However, Valve themselves are calling this Summer update a "Major Update" and Smissmas and Scream Fortress a "Small update", which is interesting. Does this mean that Summer 2023 is a "major update" while Smissmas and Scream Fortress are just "seasonal updates"?
Andrew360 00:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ So, where do we stand on this? It's probably been enough time since July 30th to make a decision on the matter. — 06:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

"Seems like most, if not all, votes are in favour. So I say it's approved.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

All right, I can push the template a little later, after I wake up. I took another look at Tark's proposed table, and I would argue that the Fall Event 2013 should also be listed as a seasonal update, and not under the content packs category. It falls in line with most of the summer updates, which were also just cosmetic cases, and it of course, has an actual season in its name. — 14:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think that until proven otherwise, Valve's strategy (and I've seen Youtubers say this too for example) is this seasonal-based rollout, that's influenced both by low staff for TF2 and how more modern shooters operate these days (e.g. "season passes"). That's the reality, similar to how TF2 absorbed item grades from CSGO. So until we get a mythical Heavy Update or whatever, by now we should adapt to TF2's de facto style. I don't see Valve doing "content packs" (as more promotional-focused updates) again soon, but who knows, we'll get to that bridge when we come to it.-- Akolyth (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I can't receive email from others

So far, there have been 2 users attempting to send me emails via the In-Wiki Email system. Though I can read their titles in the Alert function. But I can't read it's context in my mailbox.
I have inspected the Spamming Filter, and there is no letter here.--BEUFK - Contributions-Talk 13:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah it's been broken randomly for a while now, not sure if we can fix it.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Template for unobtainable content?

The Frontline Field Recorder, Triclops, Black Rose, Tuxxy, and many other items are no longer obtainable, for many reasons ranging from a shut-down or simply forgotten promotion, to glitches. Should there be a template for this to tack on top of the page to clearly signal to readers there's no way to normally get these items (outside of trading at best)? It would be easier too than having to manually type the disclaimer every time in a subtle part of the page. And IF said item does become available again, by some miracle, template can just be plucked out like nothing. I know it's a bold idea, and perhaps "loud" on the page, but I'd enjoy making it and see it as equal as templates clarifying beta content and the like.- Akolyth (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so, something like the Frontline Field Recorder shouldn't be on the list as it's a bug not a feature. The Tuxxy is still obtainable, but I think promotions are generally understood to end at some point. Perhaps this page suits your need?
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps that user meant that the Saxxy is an "unobtainable" thing, given that they don't seem too eager to run the Saxxies again. I understand where Swood's coming from, in that promotions generally do have an expiry date; but I think what the original topic was getting at is, some items are permanently unobtainable, even outside of trading, because of external circumstances. As mentioned, the Black Rose is a good example: you can't get the item, because its associated video game has shut down. They're all semi-unusual states of affairs, but I still don't think they're notable enough to warrant a template, however. We've already got the expired availability-core string, and I think that fits. "Unobtainable," as far as the availability-core is concerned, means "was never obtainable." — 06:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

True, but I'd still say the Saxxy could return at any moment. At most I'd say a category like Category:Unobtainable items could be added to some pages, but more people need to agree with that before doing it.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

ThatHatGuy, first of all I am so sorry I made a typo you misinterpreted, I meant the Tux, not Saxxy haha; my brain must have blended the 2 as Tuxxy. Although I definitely agree with those points. As for Swood's proposal, I guess at least a category would be cool, although I believe still something more distinctive would be of interest. Unobtainable items, that whole sphere of defunct things, is interesting to many groups from traders (ironically) to people who watch YouTube channels like DefunctLand. There's a certain enticing mystery to lost things just as with Beta stuff. It's precious. I just think this category should have an easy way to see what's applicable beyond the string. (Edit: I just realized many Limited items may fall under this, but not all Limited items are unobtainable and vice versa)-- Akolyth (talk) 06:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I think a category is the best way to go, as some of the items that may be counted as unobtainable (e.g. Saxxy or Spycrab plushie) may be seen as unobtainable by a regular player, whereas the Wiki classifies them as still obtainable due to codes still being around and working. A list of items that are truly unobtainable (Black Rose, SMNC items, etc.) would likely be a very small list and not really be worth it. I'd also struggle to find an actual place for this list.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds nice. I welcome the category! I think Unobtainable is the best term already in use, for lack of a better one too. I never made a category before, up to you if you want to start it, I'll add.-- Akolyth (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I think if you gather a list on a userpage somewhere first, we can see which ones are actually unobtainable and which ones might be technically still obtainable.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation proposal

Since we are replacing disambiguations with {{item link}} slowly instead of regular links to make the work easier for translators, I propose we change how items and taunts are displayed on disambiguation pages entirely. It will automatically add the {{item icon}} template as well as {{item link}} template. This means it requires no additional translating (for both new and existing pages), and simply requires the replacement of "item link" with the template I made for this (alternate template here). This template has an additional parameter for the size of the icon, which can be changed to be the same for every disambiguation page, but also be changed on a per-item basis.

I think this would add value, because some users might have to load 4-5 pages to see the cosmetic they want to see, but with this change it would simply just be on the page itself.
I've created an example here, this is a copy paste from Instrument and can be compared to that. It may increase the length of pages (can be adjusted with the icon size, of course) but I think it would be worth it. I've also made a page with non-items and items mixed together (update: now features icons too). I don't think this is gonna be an overnight change if people agree, but I think it will be a beneficial one. Please leave your  or  below.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks a bit cluttered, but the idea here is good. "Guitar Smash" in the example seems a bit out of place, but if we could standardize the images somehow, I think it would look much better.

Could we also consider translating the text? (not reeeeeally necessary as these disamb pages are translated on an "as-needed" basis, but if we're already upgrading them...) — Tark 21:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I thought about something similar, as most of them are mostly filled with "a [cosmetic/taunt/etc.] for [class]". Only issue would be that some languages can't standardise this text. I tried to standardise the intro of a cosmetic only to realise the article changes (de/het) in Dutch so that would need to be more dynamic. I've added an alternative based on the comment to those pages, using [name] [image] instead of [image] [name].
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  I like this idea. I'm trying to see how can we blend the taunt Guitar Smash with the other taunts, since it does not have an official taunt icon... perhaps instead of using an item icon, why not using the image from the infobox? Since they follow a format of "Taunt XXX.png", perhaps it'd be easier to change the template. Yossef • Talk 05:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Currently, the image on there is the infobox image. The item icon for it simply redirects to it. It's used in several different places, so changing that would be a no-no imo. I think we can omit taunt kills from having an image entirely, but we can also use the kill icon instead. Not sure how the template would work, however, I suppose an image-override parameter could be made.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  So long as we can achieve visual consistency for the icons, then I'm pretty much in favor, and perhaps change the icon size just a tad. I think it's rather extravagant to put in the effort of auto-translating the text, given that it wouldn't necessarily be an easy task, and simply because there is so little text to translate anyway. — Wookipan (talk | contribs) 19:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'm a tad late to this discussion, but I'm definitely in favor of this too. I really like the visual part of the item icons, to help people understand what they might have been looking for. Especially if you've seen something in-game, and are now looking for what it's called, I think it'll be a big help; though I absolutely prefer the one with the images to the left of the text, after the bullet point, in regards to your example page. — 11:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  I go in for this idea, and I believe that the item icon should be put to the left of the item. In addition to that, I think it would be more consistent if there is an icon before the name of each category. --祝编安/Best Regards
||| BEUFK the nonsense - contrib. - have a talk 12:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Seems like most people are in favour of [image] [text] (I also asked some people in a TF2-related Discord, which also favoured [image] [text]), now the question is for icon size and what to use for non-item entries. The default is 48px as of right now, but that can be changed using a parameter (the default is also independent of the Icon item template, so the default can be changed here too). As for non-item images, I simply propose we have an icon-override argument where any suitable image can be selected. I've updated the template and added an example of non-item images here, icons are obviously just ones I quickly gathered and not meant to actually be the ones used for these. Feel free to edit these icons to better fitting ones or edit the size of the icons if you deem it necessary.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) 11:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I think 48px is a tad too small, I tested it out with 64px, and I think it looked a little better. It spaced out the lines more noticeably, but I think the key here is utilizing the icons to the best that they can be. For reference, a backpack icon is displayed at 90px, and item icons are usually displayed at 100px, when showcased on tables. Not that we should necessarily aim for parity with that when we're focusing on a bullet point list, but I think we can get away with larger than 48px. — 14:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Change to map developer credits

Please, see Help talk:Style guide/Maps#Change to map developer credits

M I K A D O 282 ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ (Contact Mikado282 (SM)) | (contribs) (Help Wanted!) 01:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Question about Web Archive links

In an article, when adding a web.archive.org link to replace dead links, is it necessary to add (archive) after the text?
Tiagoquix (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Not necessarily, I usually do this if it's a non-image link.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Should custom "Item icons" still be a thing on the Wiki?

"Item icons" refers to the angled images for cosmetic items, weapons, and action items. Angled Item icons are also known as "Shugo style", due to one of the earliest creators with this angle was made by someone called "Shugo". Item icons differ from backpack icons as they were made to be angled and consistent, while backpack icons are "all over the place" with no consistency whatsoever. However... the angled images aren't actually "official" content, they are hand-made in the model viewer. I'd like to point out a couple things and discuss if angled Item icons should really still be a thing on the Wiki or not. I will be listing pros and cons, and a lengthier discussion at the end.

"Unchanged" Item icons / Backpack icons (Example):

•  They are official content.
•  They are easier to look for on cosmetic tables, as people looking for Wiki information may see the item in-game with the default icon instead and try to find the item in question based on the icon.
•  There's no need to constantly make angled Item icons as there will always be new cosmetics added to the game. The "Shugo style" project is basically an indefinite project because of it.
•  They are all over the place with no consistency whatsoever, and look off in cosmetic tables on "class" pages.
  •  Inconsistencies can include: Being on the BLU team instead of RED, using an earlier texture instead of the one in the actual model, have fire overlay problems, and so on.
•  Strategy pages and crafting sections wouldn't look as pretty with the default icons, due to their lack of consistency.
  
  

Angled Item icons / Shugo Style icons (Example compared to the same item from above's example:

•  They look consistent and look nice with most of them having the same angle.;
•  They look exceptionally nice on "Crafting" sections, as well the cosmetic tables for "class" pages. (See: Basic Scout strategy and Black Box#Crafting).
•  It's a never-ending project in making them considering new items will always be added in Major Updates / Content Packs.
•  Some items are difficult to make "Angled" variants if they have way too many "elements" in different parts of the player model. See File:Item icon Gaiter Guards.png for a good example.
  •  It's hard to see what the item is actually about in the cosmetics page due to being very far away. Older items have some custom model placements, like File:Item icon Honcho's Headgear.png, but doing that for certain items would provide too much work.
•  They can be confusing for new players as they might be looking for the standard default backpack icon on the cosmetic tables, and instead they look at completely non-official icons made in a different style.
  
  

Reasons why Item icons should probably be turned back to default:

• Default icons are official content, while Angled / Shugo style ones aren't;
• There won't be a huge workload for every update to make these icons, and some items are simply too difficult to keep within the same angled style.
• Non-official backpack icons can feel "weird" seeing for players trying to find an item based on their backpack icon.

Other suggestions:

• Perhaps new file names could be made so we have "separate" files for these angled icons to use in certain instances. Item icons should be the default Backpack icons but in 512x384 instead of 512x512. For example, these angled icons does indeed look really nice on Strategy Pages, as well the "Crafting" section of pages, so perhaps a new file name like "File:Angled icon Black Box.png". Using default backpack icons on these would look incredibly off and not pretty.
  

Please let me know what you guys think below. For me personally, I do think that these icons do look off since this is an OFFICIAL Wiki, and these icons are not official. Sure, not everything on the Wiki itself is official as it comes directly from the game (HLMV renders and Painted Variants are made by Wiki contributors), however, I think this case is different. HLMV renders and Painted Variants still do, in fact, use the default Valve models and textures from the player model and item being shown. Therefore, I think all Item icons should be reverted to their default Backpack counterparts.

Yes, I was the person who have made nearly every single Item icon in an Angled style (ThatHatGuy has also made several for Tournament Medals). I simply decided to continue the work that was already "left" by older Wiki contributions that used to upload the TF2B iconset here. The project on TF2B stopped around the Scream Fortress 2013 update due to its abundance of items that got added. Back then, there weren't too many policies set in stone on the Wiki (it was the era where HLMV renders had unofficial textures, such as the "TF2TIP" one), so I think there should be a discussion in regards to this, and, it's okay if all of these Item icons I have made do get reverted (and I mean ALL of them). They shouldn't be deleted, though, simply reverted to their backpack icon state, or, moved to the "Angled" idea to be used in some sections of the Wiki, but perhaps only for Weapons (and cosmetics that can be received from crafting). Some items, however, already had this Angled Style uploaded on their "Item icon" files as I made them as soon as the update dropped, so the backpack icon in 512x384 would be needed to be uploaded instead of just reverting. - ▪ - 00:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I like the Shugo icon style the way we have it now; both for its consistency -- especially with Swood's new disambiguation page proposal using item icons to show people what the contents of the page refer to, and the fact that they are different from backpack icons. It always felt like a strange thing to me, to have to upload a second version of the backpack icon file just because its dimensions had to be different.

I'd also like to put forward that some backpack icons aren't representative of what the item looks like in-game. Most of the custom painted community medals that get added in lately have backpack icons that are painted incorrectly, and don't show how the painted medal actually looks when players wear it in-game, the way that Shugo style item icons do, since they're direct shots from the model viewer. (Though as the person who does all of those icons, I'm probably biased.) — 10:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

 Disagree. Personally, I like having the backpack and item icon be different. Some backpack icons can look a bit awkward (the example you showed is perfect, there's a cut-off Engineer that looks really bad imo. The icon looks really good in comparison). Soon, with the new way we're gonna do disambiguations, these consistent icons will greatly help in making it look good. I'm not sure what the issue is with not being "official", because they are still the models used in-game and they still look the same. It's fine if there are custom angles as long as we also offer the backpack icons somewhere. Plenty of stuff has to be made with every new item anyways (Infobox renders, painted variants, gallery renders, etc.) so these item icons aren't that much of an issue imo.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) 11:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. Well, one of the things I wanted to ask about all of this is because I thought about revamping the Item icons I have done sometime (when? I don't know), and I did not want to continue do all of them without a proper discussion regarding them. I'd like to add "$nocull" materials to the classes .vmts, so the area of the collar doesn't look "empty" (can be see on the same example I gave). This was a thing already in older Shugo icons that I completely didn't notice. We also use "$nocull" in painted variants, with some rare exceptions (Fancy Dress Uniform).

And, I'd also like to do them in a higher quality (majority of them I made by taking a shot from HLMV, then resizing it down, newer ones I did differently by having a semi-transparent Rainmeter skin of "safe zones" with the proper dimensions where I should zoom out), proper size (the Scattergun and Australium Scatergun icons are not in the same size), and some better icons for some items (File:Item icon Smokey Sombrero.png is a good example, it should show the other side due to the bullets, and the whole icon just look off).

Some icons I may approach differently. The Digit Divulger, for instance, probably doesn't need to show the entirety of Scout's body, and can probably be done similar to how I revamped the Falconer one a couple years later. I think icons like the Honcho's Headgear will be a lot more difficult to do, though, as I have limited knowledge on Blender.

Lastly, for items that attach to player models, they are made using the "Gray Mannequin Bodygroups" files. These are unofficial player models that let you disable specific parts of the model. I'm mostly sure these are also used in some backpack icons that are in the game right now. This comes with a caveat however, as there's a history of model recompilation on player models always not looking the same as the vanilla models. Due to the nature of these icons being small, and these differences being hard to notice, it shouldn't matter very much, though. I just wanted to point out one last "unofficial" thing. - ▪ - 15:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that we should be in the mindset of presenting things as clearly and as cleanly as possible; regardless of whether or not that involves having to modify things a little. We already do things like remove jigglebones from cosmetics, or use special character models that remove whole parts of their body, to get clean shots for painted variants, and as mentioned, we're about to make good use out of the rotation of the Shugo icons for a nice visual cohesion in disambiguation pages.

I agree with Swood that item icons are definitely allowed to be styled differently, so long as the backpack icons are preserved somewhere as well; and we already do that in the loadout infobox panels. I think that your proposed additions to item icons are perfectly all right, especially considering some official assets do indeed already use the mannequin models; so much so that it's a standard feature in TFMV.

In short, so long as we can present something as neatly as we can, and try to represent the item to the best of our ability, I personally see no qualms with having to modify things to get there; it's a larger thing than item icons themselves -- it's a process that we already do, in pursuit of consistency and a nice visual style in presentation, which I think benefits us. — 23:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

 Disagree Echoing pretty much everything GrampaSwood said. I'm also not sure how the icons being a never-ending project is a problem worth specifically calling out as a major reason for removing them—isn't this entire wiki a never-ending project? Making an icon for an item doesn't take that much more time than, say, putting together a gallery of painted item images does.

Regarding revamping icons, I've actually been working on redoing all of the old Shugo icons from scratch as a side project recently, since I wanted to fill in holes in item icons but lost the original source files I used to make the icons back in 2012/2013. Among other things, I'm fixing issues such as newer variants of weapons (like the aforementioned Scattergun and Australium Scattergun) having inconsistent lighting/scaling from their base versions. It should, hopefully, take care of outstanding concerns regarding consistency within the Shugo iconset. If there's anything else I should be aware of regarding uploading this set of redone icons to the Wiki, please let me know. -- Rea - (Talk) 08:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Community MVM Perpetual Content Creator Medals

I've been handling the articles for community Mann vs. Machine campaigns for a while now, and up to a point, each campaign had an individual medal for content creators, only used in that single campaign; so I included it in the list of medals featured in it. Lately, both community groups have instead restricted themselves to a single medal for content creators, given out for every operation their group presents going forward.

So here's my query: should we continue to list the perpetually distributed content creation medals in the medal designs, painted variants and style sections of the articles for campaigns where they're distributed? Or, should we merely say "content creators for this campaign were given this medal" in a campaign article's Rewards section, and leave it at that? The affected articles would be:

Auspicious Automaton Assembler's Accolade

• Operation Binary Blackout
• Operation Peculiar Pandemonium
• Operation Anniversary Annihilation
• Operation Last Laugh
• Operation Voltaic Violence

Potato of Labor

• Operation Galvanized Gauntlet

To reiterate, if voted to be removed from the campaign's featured medals, we would still mention that the medals were given out during these campaigns, but the change would direct users to that medal's specific article, should they wish to learn more about it. — 11:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

If they end up being the same every time, I think we should link to the individual pages rather than have the variants, styles, etc. repeatedly there.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) 11:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking, yeah. I was already considering cutting them from campaign pages, because they're not technically a reward for those specific campaigns, in the same way that all the other medals listed in the pages are, and that content creator medals used to be. I've created a before and after showcase, to show how it would look for the Potato of Labor. Note that the page for the medal is still mentioned and linked to; I think that this way looks cleaner, myself, and focuses more on medals specifically awarded for interacting with their respective campaigns. — 12:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

 Support in removing the medal images in favor of redirecting to medal pages
I agree that the medal images should be removed from the campaign pages and instead have a redirect to a medal page like you said. It would make the pages less cluttered and it would overall look cleaner.
Andrew360 23:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  Support. - BrazilianNut (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  A little late to the party, but I agree. Yossef • Talk 05:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Valve Employee user page protection request

Hey, could someone protect User:Greuben so that only staff members can edit the page? Thanks in advance.
Tiagoquix (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Done, apologies for the delay.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

History of an item template

So a proposed idea was to create a section (or part of the infobox) on a weapon's page that shows the iterations the weapon went through. Something like this this (proof of concept, not a final design or anything yet). However, there are a few issues with this:

• What do we document?
  • Do we document only changes found in the stats (for example, the Sandman has had changes made to the stun of its ball that affected the way it worked, but they weren't noted in the stats) or do we note everything and put the non-visual stats in a "Hidden stats" section at the bottom? If we're going for visual stats only, do we count wording changes or do we count entirely new stats only?
  • An issue with this is that it would essentially just be the Update history, except in a fancier outfit, or it would leave out some major changes that only be a history of the visual stats that were represented.
• Where does it go?
  • An option would be under the current Update history section, or perhaps in the infobox.

Before we start on formatting or anything, I think the first issue has to be addressed, as my support for this idea depends on the outcome of this. A positive of this would be that the visual representation of the weapon's whole stats may be easier to understand than talking about stat changes from the first iteration, as they might not know the first iteration.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary. In your words: "it would essentially just be the Update history, except in a fancier outfit". - BrazilianNut (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

While I'm collecting the opinions from our Chinese players, I would like to state my thought first. (So far 3 players have replied me, all of them say "yes")

Generally it's not a bad idea. As far as I know, some of viewers get puzzled to find out the previous attributes in the "Update History". It's better to put all these attributes which should be kept in infobox in an individual section named "Previous attributes" or something else.

Regarding whether we should record hidden attributes, my answer is "yes". Hidden attributes sometimes are critical to an item, but they may be discovered until players figure them out in a battle. If wiki can take the responsibility to write them down, then more users will get the opportunity to unearth the mechanisms behind these items.--祝编安/Best Regards
||| BEUFK the nonsense - contrib. - have a talk 07:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with BrazilianNut, I don't think it is necessary since we have the Update History already. If there is an update or change that hasn't been documented or that is unknown, we can always put them in the "Undocumented Changes" category at the end. Yossef • Talk 05:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Meet the Heavy redone irl

Recently Shork uploaded Meet the Heavy irl with the voice actor doing it, I think this should be a trivia point in Meet the Heavy.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

 Congrats Shork for producing that vid, he nailed it. But I personally don't think it should be added as a trivia, since in the end of the day it was made and produced by a community TF2 Youtuber, and not Valve themselves. Plus by adding Shork's channel, it can come as some sort of "advertisement". Yossef • Talk 05:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I wish to add it in some form. To put it into Trivia dimminishes it some what. This isn't just a redo, it is a live tribute to the beloved voice actor, and, as Rick May and this video reminds us, we are running out of time for such tributes. I have no worry about it as any form of advertisement; Wikipedia is not concerned in the slightest that their Tom Jones is an advertisement of Team Fortress 2. I am not concerned that Trivia and citations hold advertisements for hundreds of actors, authors, films, games, etc. So what if it is not a Valve production -- we have examples of "apperances in other media". Sorry, I'm noding off, I just ask you to concider how Wikipedia does not have Trivia sections, yet they give us models for mentioning this sort of thing.

• Published Non-Valve recordings of voice actors voicing their TF2 characters is notable!
• Ditto the video of Dennis Bateman recieving a Spy figure is notable for being touching and for him voicing the Spy.
• Ditto the video of the voice actor playing TF2 for the first time is notable because they perform their characters.

M I K A D O 282 ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ (contact)(Help Wanted!) 12 days until SF 2023 03:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC) 02:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with the other videos of voice actors doing TF2-related stuff is notable for any pages. The Meet the Heavy video is a Valve-created video that was then remade in real life by the voice actor, but the voice actors doing anything related to TF2 is a stretch imo.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) 12:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

 Support Wikipedia has many examples of appearances in other media, tributes, legacy, etc, as alternatives to Trivia.

M I K A D O 282 ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ (contact)(Help Wanted!) 02:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we have to copy what Wikipedia does, referencing every notable video that they VA's have been in would essentially just be an advertisement to Shork's channel as he is the one that uploads most of these videos. I think Meet the Heavy is notable because it recreates something official, but including every interaction just turns it into an advertisement for his channel/videos.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 11:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

 Yes: As a trivia where the IRL-made video is linked through a reference.

 No: As an embedded video right below the official one or somewhere else on the page.

 Info: I think this is noteworthy enough just like we have the Search for Sandvich entry on the community fads page. It's somewhat similar considering it's the voice actors playing their roles. However, if the IRL made video ends up being made "alone" without the outro via the voice actor's Youtube channel (if it exists, or other social media websites that Gary is in), or even on ShorK's channel, then I'd replace the link with it whenever it becomes available (if available). - ▪ - 14:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Previous attributes in Update history

I'll preface this by saying that whatever the outcome of this discussion is, is gonna be final on this. So the proposal here is different from the one above, as it involved the Update history section specifically and having the original stats of the weapon when it came out. Examples of this exist currently only on Pretty Boy's Pocket Pistol and Soda Popper (as far as I could find). These were added at least a year ago and no effort has been made to apply this to other weapons. So far the only guideline that has been mentioned for this is that the stats have to be "drastically different" (referring to the Soda Popper's stats, which has adjusted the Hype mechanic and can do random critical hits, otherwise it's identical to the launch version).

Personally, due to the lack of effort put into adding this to other pages and the completely arbitrary "drastically different" requirement, we should remove this from the remaining pages. It also doesn't make much sense to add it only for the release version and not any other version (which may have been equally different from the current version). Please leave your vote below and in roughly a month I'll see what the votes are and make the decision based on that (also remember to put your vote into the other idea).
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I could do for every single weapons if consistency and effort are what you need. It might take some time to finish all of the weapon pages but if that can stop the revert war, I will do it, like right now. Asuka Ninomiya (talk) • (contributions) 07:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  In the ideal world, it would've been nice to keep track on every attribute change that every weapon had throughout the years. But sadly, due to lack of manpower and (maybe?) information, I don't think it is possible to record every single change that every single weapon had since release. Therefore, I suggest in removing them as Gramps mentioned. Yossef • Talk 11:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Too much effort for, in my opinion, too little return. - BrazilianNut (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Then don't forget to change from "Update history" to just "Patch note". (as it will no longer reflected the history of the item, but rather the patch note of the item itself) And maybe remove Undocumented changes also, since it's not possible to record every single changes on every single weapon since release. Asuka Ninomiya (talk) • (contributions) 17:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it's unreasonable to respond like this, the Update history still is about the update history of an item. Not including the original stats doesn't mean that suddenly the entire Update history's function is useless, there is already a similar proposal above which performs the exact function you're looking for. It would be a much better use if there was a vote on that proposal to see if people even want this. As for the whole thing about undocumented patch notes, I don't exactly see your point here. You said in the IRC that we might as well remove undocumented changes, but it's completely unrelated to this. If for the past 10+ years, Undocumented changes were never put on the Update history and then someone wanted to add them, but only did so on 5 pages before abandoning the project I would've said the same and tried to come up with a better solution.

Besides this, old attributes aren't changes made to the actual weapon, unlike undocumented changes. Any intentional changes to weapons are documented and if the changes aren't then they should. Noting the release stats of a weapon is not the same as this.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, whatever. If my statement after your discussion means nothing, then let just create the work out of the issue that never been an issue for years, I don't see any more reason to argue anymore since I'm the minority here. Asuka Ninomiya (talk) • (contributions) 02:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I can understand the interest some people might have in the original stats, but I do not see our usefulness charter being served by putting it into Update history. I very exceedingly rarely look into Update history, and if I am trying to figure out stats at a particular time, the format is not at all helpful.

If I wanted to see the past stats I would rather see them in a table.

Please, keep the Update history a curated listing of patch changes relevant to the page's topic clipped from update pages.

There is at least one Mod devoted to original stats, suggesting this might be a "better on Other Website thing".

M I K A D O 282 ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ (contact)(Help Wanted!) 12:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't see much reason to include the old weapon stats on a new section (and I mean all stats, not just "drastic" changes). Most players just want to know about what a weapon currently does, and, if someone wants to make, let's say, a video on the "history of weapons in TF2 and their old stats", they can just use the "View History" function on the top of the page. Sure it won't be as straightforward as they'd have to check and find individually, but it's something that I don't see much use outside a couple people who creates videos or perhaps Steam guides.

What I do suggest is adding missing patch notes (if any are missing) regarding ANY weapon change on the "Update history" (even small ones). If any player / reader is interested, then they can just check that section (this also applies to people who wishes to make videos about old stats, too). Having a section just about what were the weapon stats feel a bit unnecessary because there's not much use for it, people can't use those old stats anymore unless it's modded in some way like VScript or a sourcemod thing. However, visual changes to weapons can probably be still added to the gallery as they are more "visual". Things like different backpack icons, models, and such. Although people could just check older file revisions for those as well, it's a small and nifty part of the gallery section showcasing how it used to LOOK like, and not a section on how it used to WORK like. - ▪ - 14:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Re second paragraph: Model changes (or other small changes) should also be included in the patch notes, if you find any of these that aren't on the pages, feel free to add them. I think the different backpack icons/models is not necessary to have in the Gallery, unless it is a drastic change in model entirely (i.e. changing the backpack icon to be angled slightly differently is not enough, but the Rocket/Sticky Jumper changes are). I would prefer having these images linked on the appropriate patch note, for example:
July 7, 2016 Patch (Meet Your Match Update)

• Updated model/materials and sound.
  Or something like that, perhaps an "(old model)" after it with the link on it? Perfect use of {{Pl}} too.
  | s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 15:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I was thinking about only drastic changes to backpack icons, models and textures. Some items include the old variants on the Gallery section (see Carouser's Capotain), while majority of other items that got updated don't. There has been cases of backpack icon changes that just changed the gamma / brightness very slightly, so yeah, these aren't needed to highlight. I don't think that linking the old version of an item / backpack icon on a "Updated" patch note makes much sense, though. I will think about it. - ▪ - 15:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

OK. If the few who want to get the past stats, they can figure it out from the information that is alread on the wiki, with some effort, that is tollerable.

M I K A D O 282 ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ (contact)(Help Wanted!) 02:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Should we add VSH changes to weapons to their articles?

Should we include attribute and stat changes weapons have in Versus Saxton Hale to their articles, such as the Force-A-Nature's increased knockback at close range and the Demoman's shields acting similarly to the Razorback? I feel like this information should be easier to find than being exclusively in a subsection of the game mode's article (even if it's for an extra game mode that currently only has four maps). - BrazilianNut (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so, currently the gamemode relies on the maps itself to contain these balance changes so they could change per-map at any time (for example, if new maps are added). Perhaps a line of text explaining "this weapon has modified stats in VSH" would suffice?
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 14:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)