Team Fortress Wiki:Discussion

create a new section

Reference guidelines...

As some of you undoubtedly know, I'm a bit of an academia nut, and I like my references when I'm not sure if something's correct or not. Sooo, I've written out referencing guidelines and created some templates ({{cite web}}, {{cite article}}, {{cite book}}) that might help such a process. I'm not trying to make a nazi requirement that every postulation must be sourced, but I've often missed references to information about voice actors, release dates, etc. and felt the requirement to search for it online. What say you? ~ lhavelund ^{(talk ▪ contrib)} 23:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Bring the Ban Hammer page?

Could we please bring back the Ban Hammer page? I liked it and it seemed fine not to delete it. Any opposed? --Hobbes348 04:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The Ban Hammer isn't real and does not exist. It's a joke item put in the backpack by Drunken F00l. Moussekateer 04:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I know, was this the reason why the page was deleted? --Hobbes348 04:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Because it doesn't actually exist in the TF2 universe? It only exists in the TF2Items site, which is no way related to the actual TF2 game, or VALVe, or anything that might make it potentially acceptable to have a page related to it? Serg 04:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I get it now--Hobbes348 04:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

{{Allweapons Nav}} and {{HatNav}} must die. Seriously.

They're outgrowing themselves, taking up more than 50% of some pages. I think each class nav is just fine, people can easily get to hat or weapon pages if they need to. Let's focus on smaller navs, because those two templates really give me eyesores. ~ lhavelund ^{(talk ▪ contrib)} 22:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Make them collapsed by default? --Firestorm 22:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I just really don't see the point anymore. They create more confusion than help by presenting the player with so much information in a tiny matrix. ~ lhavelund ^{(talk ▪ contrib)} 22:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

 Support They are pretty much deprecated by the Hats and Weapons pages anyway. -RJ 22:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

 Support Makes sense, the class navs are good GeneShark 22:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

 Support I agree. They're becoming huge. Zoolooman 22:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

 Comment How about replacing the names with smaller, 16x16px thumbnails of the weapons/hats that one could mouse over to see the names? That way it would fill less space and multi-line cells on the table would be replaced with a single line of thumbnails, one after another... Stab ! 23:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

16x16px weapon icons? They'd be impossible to make out. Besides, I don't see the point, when we have Weapons and Hats. ~ lhavelund ^{(talk ▪ contrib)} 00:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose HatNav was a decent amount shorter after my redo before someone decided to fatten it up by making all the rows 40% bigger than they need to be, and I've just made an equally-slim concept of Allweapons Nav. Also, users tend to like navs better then seperate pages or categories. Toomai Glittershine 00:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Concept I is exactly what I was trying to propose in my comment above. Well done. Stab ! 00:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It still doesn't address my other problem with it—the existence of it in the first place. We have Weapons and Hats. I don't see a need for both to appear on each individual article. ~ lhavelund ^{(talk ▪ contrib)} 00:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Pages like that can coexist with related navs. They serve two different purposes: one is a listing of everything with a short overview, while the other is a way to get to any one from any other one. Toomai Glittershine 00:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose While I agree that they take up a lot of space, that can just be fixed by making them collapsed by default. The weapons article is really really unwieldy for smooth navigation, while the weapon nav works great if you're trying to look all over weapons for mechanics questions, loadout ideas, and general curiosities. ~G-Mang (T|C) s 01:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose per above --Piemanmoo 01:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

 Nope While it is huge, it is pretty useful (at least to me). I do agree that they should be compacted though, perhaps something similar to the Hats nav, but this slot distinction thrown in somehow. Also, I love this new "nope" option for comments. <3 — Wind 03:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: This vote is currently at a tie, with 4 in favour and 4 against. I'd like to set the deadline for voting to the 15th of October. A majority is required for the vote to pass. ~ lhavelund ^{(talk ▪ contrib)} 14:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

 Nope They are a convenient way to get to some of the most commonly read (I assume) pages. As G-Mang says, it would be a lot better if they were collapsed by default. They might be able to be reworked a bit to make them more space-efficient, but not removed outright. -- - _{(talk | contribs)} -- 22:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

 Comment I like them, they're quite helpful, but they do take up much space. I vote in favour of keeping them, albeit barely. TheMedik 22:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

 Neutral I hate how they easily take up most of the article now, but I don't think deleting them altogether would be the best solution. Making them smaller like the Hats nav or like Toomai's concepts would be the way to go. (Seriously, I really, really like his concept). Stab ! 22:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose: I'd actually be against having the two be collapsed by default as well, they're rather useful for players who are new to the game. -The Neotank ( | Talk) 22:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

 Nope: Just make them collapsed by defalt. -- OluapPlayer _(t) 22:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose: I vote for the introduction of Glittershine's concept. Neutral on the auto-collapse stance. (That is, if I can vote already on the matters). Neo Player 08:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

 Nope: Either auto-collapse or some kind of freaky frankenNav. It's quite useful when you just want to jump to a page rather than search it. Yes, I'm lazy, and I'm sure a good chunk of you all are too! --Vaught 09:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Mentor program

Sorry to be spamming this page to hell, but I appear to be getting all the good ideas tonight. I figured it might be an idea to introduce a mentors program for new editors to request an experienced editor in helping them with basic editing, checking their edits for them, etc. I'd love to volunteer as a mentor, and I'm sure a ton of others would too. It makes sense with this huge new influx of users we're getting :) ~ lhavelund ^{(talk ▪ contrib)} 22:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer good help pages where we can send new people to, but I'm an asocial nerd... --CruelCow 22:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Noone's forcing anyone to become a mentor. ;) ~ lhavelund ^{(talk ▪ contrib)} 22:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea, but I tend to say CruelCow is right. First let's work on real and useful Help Page (seriously have you seen the Trivia Guide, I don't see the usefulness of it, it barely says anything and we keep redirecting new guys on it, because they all post trivias). Let's start by recreating correct Help pages and then I'll be happy to mentor some new editors (well I think I would be more useful if I was helping new french translators though). Tturbo 22:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I am somewhat on the fence on this. On one hand, it would hopefully cut down on the pointless spam of terrible additions and the continual need for grammatical and spelling corrections. But on the other hand, it honestly isn't that hard to figure out how to use the editor. I'm relatively new, but I've taught myself how to properly link and edit simply by looking at the existing pages and the edit guides. Gentlefood 23:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I think both sides here have good points, but people should be realistic. Our help pages definitely could use work, but it seems like a false dichotomy to me. It's not like either is a full-time job, and if help pages are so important, there's plenty of work done on the wiki that has less merit than a mentor program to divert from. I don't think people's reasoning for currently not editing help articles is because they're busy mentoring people, and realistically, I don't think a program would change that. If someone prefers teaching that way, and wants to take the time, I say go for it.

Obviously, if the mentor program we're talking about here is going to require a lot of foundational work from a lot of members of the wiki, the concept should probably be toned down to a more simple volunteer effort, because everyone already has a lot on their plates. But I didn't get the impression from the post that it's a major project, so I don't see any reason to be concerned. ~G-Mang (T|C) s 23:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

All I'm thinking is to add a simple page, like Team Fortress Wiki:Mentor program which defines what the program is about, Team Fortress Wiki:Mentor program/Request where new users can ask for a mentor, members can say they want to mentor that person, and the new member can add questions about anything and everything Wiki-related to that person's user page without feeling that they're intruding on that person's Wiki busines, or whatever. ~ lhavelund ^{(talk ▪ contrib)} 23:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

 Neutral I am not opposed to it, but people usually have different ideas about what should go on the wiki and what shouldn't. By restricting a user's questioning to one person, inconsistency might kick in. If it's about formatting only, however, is good idea~ — Wind 03:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to post hints and tips direct to users talk pages rather than specifically mentoring an individual. Its usually quite obvious who needs a hint (like use preview) etc--Markd 07:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

To explain a bit better what meant with better help pages: Right now, there is no explanation of, say, how to discuss on talk pages and new users have a hard time finding the rules/help. (At least I did. And yes, this is a shameless plug on my suggestion of the Welcome Template.) Of course, those 2 concepts aren't mutually exclusive. --CruelCow s ^(talk) 15:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Pages for Weapon Archetypes?

I've had this idea floating around for a little while: should we make pages for specific weapon archetypes? By archetypes, I mean the type of weapon they are from the "Level X XXXXXXXX". For example, the Buff Banner and Battalion's Backup are both "Backpack" archetypes, so they'd be put in a page together. The page would list weapons in that archetype, what the weapon does and traits about that type. What do you think?--The preceding unsigned comment was added by AstralLunar (talk) • (contribs)

Seems superfluous and redundant to me. Also, please sign your comments with ~~~~ and place new topics for discussion at the bottom of the page. -- - _{(talk | contribs)} -- 03:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Could easily be solved with just Primary, Secondary, etc. And even then, could be under Weapons. I'm unsure either way. --Vaught 03:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Community Portal Links

I noticed the link to TF2B in the category "team fortress 2" in the navigation bar and was wondering why TF2B was chosen and not Tf2items. Each site has its pros and cons and has the right to exist. My personal opinion is that TF2items offers more functionality as it has trade-matching and a history. On that matter I was wondering how to edit the links section part of the community portal: http://wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/Team_Fortress_Wiki:Community_Portal - please excuse me if this isn't the spot to mention these things (I'm relatively new to the wiki-backstage). MikeRider 03:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This is just the right spot, don't worry. I can't say anything about the sidebar links to TF2B vs. TF2Items, but as for the links on the Community Portal (which is currently in open review), those are stored in this template]. I took the liberty to reformat your comment a bit, to make it easier to read a structured discussion. –lhavelund  ·  ·  22:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)