Difference between revisions of "Talk:Idling"

From Team Fortress Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Keep / Delete: new section)
Line 12: Line 12:
 
As long as a controversial subject is maintained to be as unbiased as possible, I think it should be allowed. I wrote the page so many newer players can learn what idling is and not begin to think bad thoughts about other players without knowing the full story. Every other day a thread pops up on the forums about idling and the cheater's lament because nowhere really gives unbiased information about both idling in general and the event surrounding it.
 
As long as a controversial subject is maintained to be as unbiased as possible, I think it should be allowed. I wrote the page so many newer players can learn what idling is and not begin to think bad thoughts about other players without knowing the full story. Every other day a thread pops up on the forums about idling and the cheater's lament because nowhere really gives unbiased information about both idling in general and the event surrounding it.
 
I really wanted to keep it as unbiased as possible, hence why I avoided popular terms like "Halocaust", so any body who just wants to learn can see what happened and why. Sorry if it caused any unrest. [[User:Darthz01|Darthz01]] 23:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 
I really wanted to keep it as unbiased as possible, hence why I avoided popular terms like "Halocaust", so any body who just wants to learn can see what happened and why. Sorry if it caused any unrest. [[User:Darthz01|Darthz01]] 23:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
== Keep / Delete ==
 +
 +
While the subject matter is something we should probably cover, this article is rather poorly written. Opinions? {{n}}[[User:Smashman|<span class="bur">Smashman</span>]]<sub>&nbsp;([[User_talk:Smashman|talk]])</sub> {{bur}} 23:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:09, 13 October 2010

Err...I don't know if this is really apporpriate for a page, as we try to keep controversies out of the wiki. I see you put a lot of hard work into it, so I think the rest of the staff ought to voice whether or not to keep it.--Piemanmoo 22:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Eh, marked for deletion: Not helpful, fuel for controversy, lack of neutral tone, writing style, etc. Sorry. -The Neotank ( | Talk) User The Neotank Signeotank.gif 23:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't like this at all – we're not covering controversies now? I disagree that the page requires a full article, however, I don't see why there cannot be at least a section on Cheater's Lament explaining the controversy. seb26 [talk] 04:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Unless reasonable opposition appears soon, I say we delete this. -The Neotank ( | Talk) User The Neotank Signeotank.gif 22:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

suggestion

"With the onset of the recent Polycount Update, anyone who used SteamStats back before it was patched now received a Cheater's Lament." - this should also indicate that some accounts, that did not receive the first drop, and active only after SteamStats occured, also recieved the Cheater's Lament.Nooch 22:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

However, this piece of information has nothing to do with idling, and everything to do with the Cheater's Lament. File it there, not here. Subtlefuge 23:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

My reasoning

As long as a controversial subject is maintained to be as unbiased as possible, I think it should be allowed. I wrote the page so many newer players can learn what idling is and not begin to think bad thoughts about other players without knowing the full story. Every other day a thread pops up on the forums about idling and the cheater's lament because nowhere really gives unbiased information about both idling in general and the event surrounding it. I really wanted to keep it as unbiased as possible, hence why I avoided popular terms like "Halocaust", so any body who just wants to learn can see what happened and why. Sorry if it caused any unrest. Darthz01 23:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep / Delete

While the subject matter is something we should probably cover, this article is rather poorly written. Opinions?  – Smashman (talk) 23:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)