Talk:Tournament Medal

Merging medal pages

So, based on the amount of medals we've had lately that all use the exact same models (such as the ones added today, which all use the exact same models as the last set of UGC medals), I've been thinking it would be a good idea to merge pages for medals that use the same models, especially considering that most of the page content only differs in season, infobox image, and release dates/update histories. I've come up with two ways to merge them, but I thought it would be a good idea to get some opinions on this before anything gets done. The ways I've thought of are this:

1. Merge all pages for medals with the same models, regardless of tournament type. This would reduce the amount of pages by the largest amount, though it could get confusing for different tournament types.
2. Merge all pages for medals of the same tournament with the same models. So, for instance, the UGC Highlander season 12/13/14 medals would be one page, the UGC 6v6 season 14/15/16 medals would have another page, and UGC 4v4 season 1/2/3 medals would have another page. This would somewhat increase the page amount over the other option, but it would be less confusing as we would split each tournament type into a separate page.

I feel like the second option is the better one, but I'm not sure what we would do about naming pages when there are different models for the same tournament type (which I believe is mainly an issue with the ETF2L/UGC medals). I feel like there would be a few cases where it would be better to simply merge all the pages, such as the RETF2 EE22 medals and maybe the Gamers Assembly medals. Any opinions on any of this would be good. --Omolong (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2015 (PDT)

Or merge all UGC HL (s12/13/14) + 6v6 (s14/15/16) + 4v4 (s1/2/3) in one page and add list of medals. Title: Tournament Medal - UGC 2014 or else (Valve said that UGC can add (use) only ONE MODEL during year (Post from UGC forum (temporarily unavailable)).

HL	6v6	4v4
S14 (9/2014 - 1/2015) S13 (5/2014 - 9/2014) S12 (1/2014 - 5/2014)	S16 (9/2014 - 1/2015) S15 (5/2014 - 9/2014) S14 (1/2014 - 5/2014)	S3 (9/2014 - 1/2015) S2 (5/2014 - 9/2014) S1 (1/2013 - 5/2014)

RADIST 03:03, 19 March 2015 (PDT)

That could work for those medals, but it doesn't really help with the rest of the medals that share the same models. It would just end up being the first option if we merged pages just based on their models. The name idea works well, though, if that or something similar can be applied to all of the pages that need merging. --Omolong (talk) 11:15, 20 March 2015 (PDT)

Seeing as we got another set of medals today (that use the same models as another set of medals already in the game), I'm most likely going to merge a number of medal pages, unless someone has a reasonable opposition to it. For now, I'm considering merging the medals that use the same models and tournament types. So a lot of duplicate 6vs6 and Highlander pages will get merged, along with a few more. I won't start doing this until tomorrow, though, so that people can respond to this if necessary. --Omolong (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2015 (PDT)

I talked to Ashes about this in the IRC channel a couple days ago or so. The way I see it, you have two general options:

1. Continue to make one page for every medal that has an entry as a unique item in the schema. As is standing policy on the Wiki, if it is an individual item, it gets its own page.

2. Make one single page where all the medals redirect, and update that one as new medals are added.

What is important is that these tournament medals are properly documented (there seem to be some blank spaces here and there currently). If you can link each medal back to their tournament page so that the reader can look up the participants and winners, all the better. One possible concern is that making one page for each medal may make it hard for the other languages to keep up, and ends up creating what is effectively a bunch of stub articles. How you address that issue is up to you (please do discuss this some more and arrive at a solution that everybody agrees with), but these medals do deserve to be properly documented. -- LordKelvin 09:14, 3 May 2015 (PDT)