User talk:GrampaSwood/Workshop Trivia

Clarification

So overall I like the template but just want to clarify something. I'll use Dead Head as an example. Dead Head was originally supposed to be part of a whole Grim Reaper themed set and was called the Grim Guise iirc. So the item was intended to be Grim Reaper but the other item from the set (a hood) wasn't added so they renamed it to Dead Head. So another item was excluded from the set...and it was renamed... so based on the examples it technically doesn't apply and shouldn't be included? Or should it be included because it was intended to be the Grim Reaper? Mediarch ♥ Talk ♥ My Edits 14:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

This trivia would not be included because it falls under "Exclusions of cosmetics from a set". If the hood was part of the cosmetic itself or as a style, but scrapped before being uploaded, then it was valid as it is part of the cosmetic itself and not another cosmetic that Valve simply didn't want to add. It also falls under "item name changes", which are not allowed because Valve used to constantly change item names from the Workshop so it's not particularly interesting.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 14:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

It could be good to have a universal article subject that would apply to all categories (I imagine name changes wouldn't be considered interesting in any context). I feel layout changes for maps could potentially be interesting depending on the implications or amount of those changes, but I recognize those could be subjective.
Kibblekip ^{T | C} 00:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

My issue with layout changes is mostly that in development of a map, there are so many minor and major layout changes that it's likely going to massively clog up the Trivia section. Something that would be more interesting is scrapped "features" on a map, e.g. "originally, the final point was going to explode immediately upon capture" or something. That's a more interesting change in development than "there was going to be an extra flank route at point B".
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 13:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd definitely be more interested in unique features or mechanics of a map that were scrapped or worked considerably differently than in the release version of the map rather than something simple like a flank route or sightlines for certain, though the latter could be acknowledged if it directly ties into the former in some way (e.g. a flank route that involves jumping into a sewer pipe that forcefully pushes you through and out into a flanking position, as the pipe alone would be considered a unique feature/mechanic of the map).
Kibblekip ^{T | C} 20:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)