Team Fortress Wiki:Discussion

create a new section

Patch link template

I just want to submit a template. It could be used for easy creating link to patch and update articles instead of entering big amount of text. Template should be renamed to Template:Patch or Template:PatchLink for convenience. For examle: {{patch|4|20|2011}}.

• {{User:Aperture AI/Template:PatchLink|4|20|2011}} = User:Aperture AI/Template:PatchLink
• {{User:Aperture AI/Template:PatchLink|9|30|2010|Mann-Conomy Update}} = User:Aperture AI/Template:PatchLink

Features:

• Translation switching.
• Update link (ex: "Mann-Conomy Update").

Vote now for its active use on Wiki! - Grand-O-Rand  · (Talk) 10:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

There already is one, created by EpicEric: Template:patch info.  –  Ohyeahcrucz[T][C] 17:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

EpicEric's template generate links from update page to patch page. My template could be used in "Update history" paragraph instead of entering [[October 25, 2007 Patch]] or [[February 24, 2009 Patch]] ([[Scout Update]]). - Grand-O-Rand  · (Talk) 11:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I see now. I don't find it really useful so  Disagree.  –  Ohyeahcrucz [T][C] 21:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You're just offended that I had undo your edit. Ok, you can be disagree. It's not so important for me. - Grand-O-Rand  · (Talk) 16:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I did that because I was told to do that. And that template you are talking about is still bad.  –  Ohyeahcrucz [T][C] 16:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I think, you can do it better than me. I will see it with pleasure. - Grand-O-Rand  · (Talk) 16:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I won't because it's unneeded.  –  Ohyeahcrucz [T][C] 16:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose It's like building an escalator that goes up 5-steps. Looks convenient, but a bit superfluous and strenuous on the power grid (or, in this case, on the server.) 21:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of All Class Hats and Misc from Class Pages

Hey guys I just wanted to raise something that's bugged me for a little bit. Is it really required for us to have every All Class hat and Every All class misc listed on the class pages? To me, it seems to create a bit more clutter on the page than needed. While yes, that class may very well be able to wear those hats, the title of 'All class' hat implies that the hat can be worn by all classes, and so not really specific enough to be shown on that classes page. It is not information that is directly related to the class, it is information that effects all classes. If that hat was only worn by 8 of the 9 classes, I could understand that being listed because it would be important to show and specify that a certain class does not get that hat. But if EVERY class gets it, it's not as important. We already have links to the Hats page above the class specific hats anyway. So I propose we remove the 'All Class' hat's and misc tables from the class pages. ---- No-oneSpecial (talk | contribs) 14:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it hurts anyone being there, but I see your point. Just a Gigolo 03:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support Before i get hatred yelled at me let me explain my decision to support. Every page on this wiki has content in it that is pretty much exclusive to whatever the main reason for the page is (e.g. the main reason for exclusive information on the lugermorph is in the lugermorph page is because the page is about the lugermorph and not about anything else). There is no point giving general information that is pretty much relevant to everything in many pages, there should be 1-2 pages with the content and at maximum 4-5 if lucky. Content should be exclusive to the page it mainly references down to. Having too much general information will cause the wiki to be quite loose and over time leading to completely irrelevant information and eventually get extremely cluttered. - Lexar - talk 08:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support Yeah, I can see where you're coming from. Eventually, if the pages all have the same content on them then we might as well have only a couple pages to the wiki. I support this. — Xenak 03:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Weapons page: Switching to organization by loadout slot instead of class

I've never wholly understood the switch over from slot division to class division, and apparently others did not as well, to the point where I took some heat just over a month ago from fellow translators for switching the then-out-of-date layout on the JA Wiki's page to the current one. Had I known about the motion to change it over the first time (which appears to have been swiftly carried out on the page's discussion) I would have certainly opposed it, and I know others who would have done the same.

In case you are undecided, I have provided this nice and colorful bulleted list of the potential advantages and disadvantages of such a change.

 Would provide a nice 'master list' of weaponry by slot occupied, still sub-ordered by class in each section (as per the old layout.)

 The individual listings of Primary/Secondary/Melee (and PDA 1+2 i/a) for each class will still be available on the classes' pages.

 Linking to loadout slots in other pages (e.g. Melee, PDA2, Primary, etc.) will be much more concise and easier to handle, both directly and via redirect.

 Redirects associated with each loadout slot will also be slightly friendlier, proceeding to the specific table, rather than just dumping the user off at the Weapons page.

 The info that can be gleamed from each individual class page would now not be viewable simultaneously.

So...yeah. How bout it?
Gerk 01:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

 Support I guess I'll kick things off here. Now with 140% more* siggy distraction. 21:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

 Support I think it would be better than it is now.  –  Ohyeahcrucz [T][C] 21:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

 Support Dah This will work _Takamoto_ 16:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Valve-made hats category

I was recently curious as to whether or not Prince Tavish's Crown was a community-made hat or not due to it being tossed into Portal 2, and a bit of research told me that it was actually either a Valve creation or its creator is unknown (I'm assuming the first). This got me very curious--I've found that there's a category for community-made items which has been pretty interesting to read, because I thought it was 100% community items with only a few reskins like the GRUs and the holiday/promotional items as exceptions. But it turns out there were plenty of hats Valve made themselves (such as the aformentioned Crown.) For this reason, I think it could be handy to have a list of hats that were designed by Valve to easier understand what's their work and what's the community's. This category would obviously include all the hats from before the March 18, 2010 update. Is this a good idea? Opinions?? Evang7 03:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah we should make it the category.Support+. THE3STOOGES 03:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

 Neutral We already know which hats are made from the community, i think the other ones should be obviously made from valve, i dunno :S, but, yeah the idea sounds a bit interesting tho (: _Takamoto_ 04:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course, we can assume that all the hats that aren't in the community items category are obviously by Valve. I'm suggesting this more because I think it'd be a lot more convenient to have a list of what ISN'T community work. Most people assume every model that gets put in these days is community work aside from reskins and promo items, I know I did! Evang7 04:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

 Support We've got categories for days. We've got categories for community-made hats, we've got categories for paintable hats, we've got categories for jiggleboned hats. We're like Discount Category Warehouse up in this mug. So I personally support the addition of such a category for posterity's sake. If I'm not mistaken, we can have item infobox template rigged up to to even add the category in automatically. (so long as it's only for the hats/misc items...) 11:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

 Support This discussion is a little old, but yes, I agree, we need this. Balladofwindfishes 23:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done Category:Valve-made items. —Moussekateer·talk 01:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Weapon Templates on Class pages

So, I have a suggestion. There's a lot of text on the class pages. I'm talking about weapons. The idea is to move it into the appropriate template. Look at this.
It should be looks like {{Scout class weapon table}}.

Result :
1) Convenience.
2) History is based only on appropriate templates.
3) Simple editing (without other things).
4) Browsers may not have problems editing class pages. - Extra

For example - hat template. I think you got it. — VeKoB 16:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support Heck yes, i agree, its so boring to write those weapon stats, and they change a lot because of those beta weapons testing, so dooooo it _Takamoto_ 16:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support Do want. It's way more organizated and better to edit.  –  Ohyeahcrucz [T][C] 16:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support I agree, it would make things a lot better organized. Just a Gigolo 05:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support Nice idea, I agree!

— The Wiki Man approves ! 05:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support Nice idea, I also agree! godlike11219 13:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Translation strings

We need a solid policy on item names and strings. We obviously use those from tf_*.txt, but what about unreleased strings? If they are not in the game files but are on STS, should we use them, knowing that most translators don't have access to them and that they might change between that time and the time they are officially released, or just use the English name until it goes official? — Wind 22:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we should use the English name, because if we use the STS ones and they keep changing until it goes official, it'll save us a lot of time if we just the english names. _Takamoto_ 23:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we should only get them from tf_*.txt, since we don't know if the ones in STS will ever get at least in the game files and they could be changed like Takamoto said.  –  Ohyeahcrucz [T][C] 23:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm rather split on this. I don't know very much about how STS works myself, so I'm unsure as to how long it would take between something being translated on STS and it hitting the actual localization files. Just from reading the site, I believe that allowing it can't hurt all that much, since it would likely mean less work for the translators once the files actually are localized (change a few things here and there instead of all the English names), but the problem comes from the fact that we're the "official" TF2 wiki, which complicates things. -- LordKelvin 23:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

How would you solve the "not-all-translators-cannot-access-STS" problem? D: — Wind 23:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no way to allow all translators to access the STS :/  –  Ohyeahcrucz [T][C] 23:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I think they're best left untouched until the translation arrives. Sure, it may look awkward (especially on pages like the JA/KO ones) but it avoids confusion both here and down the line, in addition to conflicts amongst editors over the "proper" translation...I've seen more than enough of those here and that was with official names already in place. 23:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

As translators that work in a group setting it is far easier to work from one solid documented file which is found in-game i.e. tf_*.txt than strings which may or may not be released by Valve eventually. Regardless of how quickly STS can translate strings, I personally feel that if it is not in the game, then we should wait until it is. I have been made aware of an instance when someone went ahead and changed the English name of a hat because a friend of his in STS gave him the string, only to find that when Valve officially released the localization files the name of said hat had changed.

If we don't have one solid source which is available to all we can run into discrepencies such as

• Not knowing if they are made up names of items done by the translator (what the translator would deem to be a correct translation of said words)
• Not being informed as a group that one individual is going around changing names of things and all other translators in the group keeping to that convention since this one person has an insider friend in STS whom gives them the translated text.

Many of our Moderators (specially localized mods) are members of STS and to date I've not seen one of them going "Ok, here are the translations for the 6 new hats that got added to the game in every language." Why? I assume because they know the probability of change is possible until Valve "ok" every string in every language. Thus making that process a waste of time and effort on their behalf.

Sometimes believe it or not communication between translators of the same language is rather poor or lacking, so having that vital source which keep us all at least on the same page without the above worries is extremely helpful. BiBi 23:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I also think we should use the English names if items don't have a name in the tf_*.txt yet. It's already a pain enough when they change the translations in the tf_*.txt files (which has happened several times already for several hats and weapons on the Dutch side), I'd rather not end up with 5 different names spread out over the Wiki because the names kept changing in the STS. Hefaistus - talk 11:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to get everyone that hasn't responded to this talk to please take a moment. A decision needs to be made so we can pass it and make it the norm across the board. Thank you. BiBi 10:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I really think that this isn't something that should be forced onto everyone working on all languages. All of the rules we have on translation so far as just about formatting and page layouts; for everything else, translators themselves working in a group decide how pages should be written. This idea is overstretching too far in my opinion. It's totally fine for a group of German translators to decide to use only tf_german names but why should the same control be taken out of, say the Finnish translators' hands?

TL;DR we can't speak all these languages do we shouldn't be deciding what is in their articles. Leave that up to individual groups. seb26 04:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support Does sound like a good middle ground — Wind 04:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Seb, I am not too sure if you see the underlying problem. All names given in English to items, hats, classes etc by Valve are the names we use. We don't randomly allow people to change officially given names to what they please do we? For instance, if someone wanted to call the "Demoman" the "StickyBombGuy", I am sure you will agree that this will not do. Valve has given it a name.

What I want to see is the same system to be implemented by all for languages. We should not be put in a position were we give items random names we please. I was told that only official Valve names were to be used and I don't see why this shouldn't be the case for foreign translations. Also, if a name has not been officially changed by Valve (say they have been slow at supplying us with the localizations) then keeping the names in English will let us all know that this in fact is the case and avoid random editors/contributors making up their own names. It is creating disputes and a great way to avoid this would be "Use the names in the localization files, if there are no names as of yet for said items/things in said language, then please leave them in English until they are translated by Valve."

I don't feel that Seb's comment sounds like middle ground. The system in place now is what he has suggested, thus not solving the problem. The basis of this whole conversation is to fix the current system instead so we can keep everyone on the same page. I am seeing how people are getting upset and problems arising due to all this. Translators that have seen these problems please come forward and voice your opinion. BiBi 01:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing that there is an issue, I am simply of the opinion that restrictions cannot and should not be applied across the board. This is not out of laziness but simply common sense; if one cannot speak a specific language, one should not be involved in deciding what words to use, how to structure sentences, and so on. The problem needs to be solved by translators talking to each other and reaching a consensus. The 'system' in place now is the best a system can be, with flexibility given to translators of a specific language to actually translate pages according to their own agreed guidelines. If the case is that certain people aren't using the right names, others need to remind them to. They need to post on their talk page and tell them why they're doing it wrong. A blanket rule shouldn't be a solution for bad communication.

No sitewide-rules like this have been put in place so far, and I don't think we should start adding new ones now. Each individual language needs to have their own rules, as no one here is qualified to make rules for them unless they can speak the language. seb26 06:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that we should have rules that say how to structure sentences, etc. However in-game items (which is what I am talking about) have been officially translated. This and only this is what I am proposing we adhere to. Each language has a localization file which mirrors the in-game text used for everything in the game. I am only concerned about us using these official strings for in-game stuff in the articles written in any language. If we didn't everything in any language would be written as each language wanted and NOT in the way that Valve has actually named it. This in turn make the wiki (at least the translated sections) not really follow the 1 basic rule, "Use the names given by Valve for, achievements, hats, weapons, items, classes, etc."

Sentence structures and how things are explained so articles make sense in each language is not my concern so much. I am sure that each language group here goes out of their way to make sure that all articles read well and not sound like they have been put through a translation website. So in order to better support us, why not just help us by saying, "ok continue as you are doing by making the articles read well across the board in all languages and supporting also the English language articles when you see an error, and should any of you be unsure as to what name has been given to an in-game item, please verify the tf_language.txt to get the name, if the item has not yet been translated, leave the English name as a place holder until Valve gets back to us with the updated localization files."

Granted that there are things that are not translated by Valve nor will they ever be. There are words or phrases that are used by the original English article creators which sometimes can be tricky when trying to convey their message. This mostly happens when we try to find a word or phrase to best explain what the article is trying to say. These and these alone are pretty much the exception to the rule where I would suggest that each language needs to come to a consensus on how they will tackle those words/phrases to make sure that the article is translated well and thus not loosing the original message the creator intended. Please check the Spanish Translator's Page to see how we deal with such situations.

Sorry about the length of my messages :( BiBi 15:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I was saying that we shouldn't have content rules in general, and I used the sentence thing as an example. Kinda of tired of arguing this now, but I will reiterate my point; there should be no restrictions anywhere on any guideline page that says all translators of all languages should translate a page one way or another (i.e. using a certain set of names). I've kept saying that it's perfectly fine for Spanish translators to agree together that they should only use tf_spanish translations, but I'm arguing strongly against any rules that are forced upon all languages. seb26 07:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Logo on the home page

On the main page, it says "Welcome to the (newline) Official Team Fortress Wiki (newline) the official resource for the Team Fortress series". It's plain black text and kind of looks bad. We obviously can't put the same logo as the top left one, because then there would be two identical logos almost side by side on the main page. Thus, I asked Lexar if he could come up with some fancy designs for such an image, and he delivered some quite impressive work:

• Option 1: Team Fortress 2 banner + image of all classes
• Option 3: Team Fortress 2 banner + image of all classes + orange logo behind
• Option 4: Same, but with gray wiki logo
• Option 6: Team Fortress 2 banner + image of heavy
• Option 7: Team Fortress 2 banner + orange logo
• Option 8: Team Fortress 2 banner + gray logo
• Option 10: Team Fortress 2 banner + silhouette image of all classes
• (Missing options were simply rescaled versions of other options)

Some images contain some rough edges, and the orange logo doesn't look quite right, but this vote is only about design (layout), not about how technically good the image is. Once a design has been selected, we should make another, higher-quality iteration of it. So ladies and mentlegen, please vote on your favorite design, or for keeping with the text version — Wind 01:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

My vote is for option 4. Just a Gigolo 01:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I like Option 8. Clean, simple, and not too cluttered. maggosh 01:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I vote for Option 7.  –  Ohyeahcrucz [T][C] 01:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I vote for option 8. 7 one is too orange >.<' _Takamoto_ 01:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support Option 8 for me~ (dammit wtf did the numbers change) — Wind 01:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support I'm obviously a traditionalist, because Option 1 looks good to me, however it is a little "busy" for a logo. That being said, 7 (or perhaps 8) seem to be simple enough and should have enough impact to work. --- Esquilax ( | ) 01:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support I personally like 8 since it also keeps continuity with the side logo we have on the Wiki already. Wonderful looking designs. Good work Lexar. BiBi 01:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support 8 gets the approval of a 3rd year new media major Balladofwindfishes 01:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support Peer pressure compels me to vote option 8. Well, that and the fact it's pretty decent and meshes with the corner logo. Though some "previews" could be in order...like, would seeing two of those gray logos so close look okay? I'm also leaning slightly toward the silhouettes (i.e. Option 10) (if all or at least some of the weird 'gunk' can be cleaned up above the figures) but also would also want to see how it looks "live." 02:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

After giving this some more thought (and creating some crude mock-ups in Photoshop Paint) I'm going to lean toward Option 10 now; it's simplistic (again, if some of that weird noise atop the silhouettes could be cleared out) and doesn't look weird like it does when you have two similarly colored, sized, and oriented logos so close to each other. 08:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Gerk, i tell you what, seeing as this image was only made for a base idea and not final, if it gets chosen i will spend more time cleaning it up. The main issue was in fireworks i was using a transparent canvas, which made it harder to see that gunk that i now see viewing it through a browser. i will polish it up definitely IF it is chosen. oh btw in regards to voting, out of all of them my personal fave was 4. - Lexar - talk 10:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey now! I wasn't trying to be inflammatory with my remarks and if they came off as such, I apologize. It's not that big of a deal, and it actually looks kinda neat stylistically, where it's sort of "radiating" around the bonesaw and Pyro's head/flamethrower and such...It's just, that little column above the Soldier's head that really juts out. Either way, as others have said, excellent work on your stuff. (starting to possibly lean toward option 1 now as well, haha...I'm bad at this.) 22:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry it came off as me being nasty to you, i actually was only trying to inform you of the situation. As a matter of fact i love a bit of criticism, as it helps me improve my work. my apologies go to you, i wasn't trying to be nasty. - Lexar - talk 06:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support Mighty 8. Dis is good! DrAkcel ^{(T | C)} 05:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support Gonna go with 8, but I do like 10 too. 10's nice and looks more different from the top left logo, which is the goal, but 8 is the most aesthetically pleasing. Evang7 05:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support 8 is very good (also 4). I think it would be very nice. — VeKoB 05:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

hmmm maybe something liek this ? http://img31.imageshack.us/i/63255789.png/ Rins (talk | contribs) 10:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support #1 and #3, the ones with the classes in the bg. #8 seems kinda bland and would look bad next to the top-left logo as it's just repeating the same elements basically but in different places seb26 10:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll be honest seb that my favourites were 1,3 & 4 but then I thought that maybe there was too much going on taking into consideration how small the area is where that image would be placed. Also the fact that right below where the image would be are images of all the classes, I feel it may give the feeling of it been a bit too crowded with busy. This is why I went for the simplistic (keeping to the theme on the left) logo. However if I could be proven wrong, maybe a fake montage of how the logos would look if placed in the front page, I think I could make a more educated choice. BiBi 12:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah it may look too crowded actually. I just think that option 8 & whatnot looks like quite lazy, and there hasn't been anything done to distinguish it from the other logo. If you compare the two it's really just an enlarged version with the TF2 emblem moved to the back. It'll look very bland and boring on the Main Page, I think the classes together as a group adds at least some variety `seb26 12:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This is true, but I think this shuffling is enough to make it distinguishable from the corner logo. Otherwise, can you think of another design? o: — Wind 16:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm or maybe this? http://img233.imageshack.us/i/tfffffff.png/ Rins (talk | contribs) 05:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

(For those in countries that Imageshack decided to ban, click here for mirrored image) — Wind 06:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support Best one so far. I change my vote to that.  –  Ohyeahcrucz [T][C] 06:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support I agree with Ohyeahcrucz.  –  Epic Eric (T | C) 19:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support Option 4 seems the best. —GeminiViRiS Talk · Contribs 06:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support I like option 4. — KillerKooK (Talk) 00:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support I like minimalism, so i vote for #8, but #10 also looks good. Real alien 19:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support I like 4, 8 and 10. all are good. Picking one, #8 is where its atK-Mac (Talk | Contrib) 01:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I've taken a jab at this myself from scratch. I'm being pooshed by Wind to post these... GOD DAMNIT WIND I'M DOING IT NOW >:C

• Moose's effort - With 3D shadow effect.
• Moose's effort - Without 3D Shadow effect.
• Preview of Moose's effort on the homepage (3D effect version).

-- Benjamoose (talk | contribs) 02:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pooshing these :3 What I'd vote for, now, is this with the regular "Team Fortress 2" style rather than the custom texture. That is to say, keep the layout, keep the text, keep the "Wiki" circle (with the ninja-logo in it), and keep the silhouettes, but replacing the "Team Fortress 2" by the regular style — Wind 19:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support I vote 8. Go with the idea of "Keep it simple stupid". Plus, if we make the logo look so larger than life and have heaps going on, then the rest of the front page is going to look bland by comparison. ---- No-oneSpecial (talk | contribs) 04:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Merging the 3 Beta Pocket Rocket Launcher pages

Should we merge Beta Pocket Rocket Launcher, Beta Pocket Rocket Launcher 2 and Beta Pocket Rocket Launcher 3? It would be better for organization, in my opinion.  –  Ohyeahcrucz [T][C] 01:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support For the sake of information, my opinion is that they should be documented as separate weapons, but putting them all on the same page means that we won't have to worry about adding or removing a huge number of pages every time Valve wants to test something. -- LordKelvin 02:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

 Heck yeah In my opinion splitting Beta weapon splits is just a way of multiplying small pages, when a simple Beta Equalizer with oe section for each split if far easier to track ! Tturbo _(T/C) 02:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

So should we move the Beta Equalizer pages too, if we merge the Beta Launchers?  –  Ohyeahcrucz [T][C] 02:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

 Gotta move that gear up As Tturbo said, they'll be easier to track and more organized _Takamoto_ 02:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support I don't see a point in 3 articles for the same item with just different stats Balladofwindfishes 21:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

 Neutral -- OluapPlayer _(t) 21:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

 Unsure I don't know... They are beta items, so they really don't need time to give them names. Also, how would we do the backpack loadouts if they have different stats? I dont OPPOSE this per-say, I'm just not sure how that would work. If you can find a way for that to work, I'll change my vote. --Stevoisiak 21:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

 Comment We'd just put them in a table, showing the differences.  –  Ohyeahcrucz [T][C] 23:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

 Neutral Somehow, I just can't see that layout looking appealing. Prove me wrong. Make a sketch-up in your userpage as to how this would work.

See my Sandbox. It could be improved.  –  Ohyeahcrucz [T][C] 23:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I think he meant the Item infobox template.  –  Epic Eric (T | C) 23:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That's how the page would be if we merged them, it could be improved though.  –  Ohyeahcrucz [T][C] 23:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose Well, they are different items after all, right? If we just approved extra pages for Propaganda Winner hats, I think we should have extra pages for these too. Besides, merging three weapons in one page would (probably) kill the layout.  –  Epic Eric (T | C) 23:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support Could get very messy otherwise. —Moussekateer·talk 00:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support Your sandbox page looks good. -- Pilk _(talk) 01:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support My support has nothing to do with peer pressure, it just is better that way. Just_a_Gigolo - talk 02:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

 100% Support I love this idea. This makes it much easier to compare the weapon differences. Your sandbox page looks great, clean and not cluttered. Great work ohyeahcrucz. BiBi 10:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

 Yes, this will make changes to the individual weapons easier to track and reduces clutter, as the weapons are going to be subject to constant change. Should have been this way from the start. {{subst:void|This template should always be substituted. Please change {{Unsigned}} to {{subst:Unsigned}}}}— The preceding unsigned comment was added by i-ghost (talk) • (contribs) 2024-11-07, 12:26 UTC

 Neutral -- Vi3trice _(talk) 19:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

 Neutral I am not a participant in the Beta, so I am not really in a position to comment. Ohyeahcrucz kept heckling me to provide an opinion though, hence this (useless) Talk Page addition :). --- Esquilax ( | ) 01:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

 Neutral If this is implemented, then the other beta weapon pages need to follow suit. -- En Ex _(talk) 07:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand, but I think only the Equalizer has split pages, and I'm working on that too.  –  Ohyeahcrucz [T][C] 07:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

There are the Natascha variants as well.  –  Epic Eric (T | C) 00:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Give me the links to the separate articles and I'll merge them too.  –  Ohyeahcrucz [T][C] 00:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, they don't exist, but you'd have to create it as well, following this pattern.  –  Epic Eric (T | C) 00:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

 Yes It seems like the work might be a little bit futile since they're going to get removed when one is chosen to be put in the game, but laying them all out like that would make them easier to compare and it sets a precedent for future split weapons. En Ex is right though, it would need to be done to the other split weapons as well. The one change I would make would be to add a general infobox for them. Just take the one from one of the pages and remove the "loadout = yes" line and everything after it. -- - _{(talk | contribs)} -- 07:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I did one for the Equalizer as well. See User:Ohyeahcrucz/Sandbox/Equalizer.  –  Ohyeahcrucz [T][C] 21:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

 Neutral If there is a god, hell yeah, i can only say this: information should be visible and reliable. Seperate Pages for seperate variations of one weapon could confuse ppl. I prefer one site where all are listed but seperated with titles. If this wasn't helpful, eat a sandvich. godlike11219 23:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

 Neutral While at first I did not approve this idea, I've taken another look and think this could work. I believe the pages Ohyeahcrucz created look good, but again, they wouldn't match the "1 article for each item" discussion we had before (involving Propaganda hats).  –  Epic Eric (T | C) 23:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This is different. The propaganda hats were different items with different models and stuff. The Equalizers and Pocket Rockets are the same items with changed stats and exist in beta only, and that's why I think they should be merged.  –  Ohyeahcrucz [T][C] 23:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Right. So the Companion Cube Pin and Ressurection Associate Pin pages should be merged because they have the same model? I don't think so.  –  Epic Eric (T | C) 23:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You don't understand. The items should be merged because they are the same, only with stat changes, and they haven't been added to the game yet. Also because they will probably be scrapped.  –  Ohyeahcrucz [T][C] 00:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

So what about leaving them separate until they are scrapped and/or one of makes it to the official game?  –  Epic Eric (T | C) 00:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

No, if users want information about the items, it would be easier to see all them at the same time.  –  Ohyeahcrucz [T][C] 00:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm with OhYeahCrucz on this one. In the case of Beta variants, I think that they should be considered, for all intents and purposes, one single item. In the end, only one of these will exist; the only reason there are three is that it's the only way to test three variants of a weapon simultaneously. Placing them all on one page just makes the comparison between them simpler and that's what we're meant to do with the variants: compare them. -- - _{(talk | contribs)} -- 00:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done  –  Epic Eric (T | C) 01:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Patchless Updates

Something we were discussing in IRC. Now that items.txt can be remotely edited by Valve, items are inevitably going to be updated without a formal patch to link to. This came up when the two new promo items were recently made paintable without any sort of update. I feel that, as a reference, the Wiki needs to note these changes, but we need to come up with some sort of organization for it. Right now, I merely copied the Iron Curtain update history for the two promo hats, but it seems worded oddly. Maybe there's a better way to represent patchless updates? Any ideas? Balladofwindfishes 23:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

 Comment Maybe adding some template on the update history, eg.:

[Patchless]

 –  Epic Eric (T | C) 23:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

How about [Undocumented] ?  –  Ohyeahcrucz [T][C] 23:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose This is for patches added, and since this kind of update doesn't include patches, it wouldn't be appropriate to use that template.  –  Epic Eric (T | C) 23:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

They are still undocumented changes.  –  Ohyeahcrucz [T][C] 23:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[Patchless] [Undocumented]

There. Happy?  –  Epic Eric (T | C) 23:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose Too much for displaying a patch note.  –  Ohyeahcrucz [T][C] 23:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

We can't compress every little thing in our way. We have to be detailed whenever we can.  –  Epic Eric (T | C) 23:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

We can do both on this matter. Whenever there is a change like that, simply put the [Undocumented] there.  –  Ohyeahcrucz [T][C] 23:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That's confusing and implies there was a patch with an undocumented change. We need a way to show a difference between a "real" patch and a server side change Balladofwindfishes 23:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

 Agree As stated above.  –  Epic Eric (T | C) 23:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

They are still undocumented changes  –  Ohyeahcrucz [T][C] 23:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

To a patch that was never documented... nothing about the patch was documented. What you're asking for would imply to readers that there was a patch with notes that had an undocumented change in it. Balladofwindfishes 23:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It should be undocumented. Also I don't see how it would be confusing, since it wouldn't be linking to a patch note.  –  Ohyeahcrucz [T][C] 00:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Too many colons here. silliness x each colon = how silly this is. Nixshadow 00:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, Why do people need to really know that there was no real patch? I say go undocumented. - Nixshadow 00:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It's confusing because if we just go with undocumented, it implies there was a patch, when there wasn't Balladofwindfishes 00:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. And users may not notice such and search for all the (non-existant) patch infos on that day by mistake. We have to detail everything possible, as long as it follows the guidelines.  –  Epic Eric (T | C) 00:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Ohyeahcrucz, we agree it's undocumented, but we should also mention that no patch was added. That's what we're discussing.  –  Epic Eric (T | C) 00:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Identifying them by "items_game.txt Update" is simple enough for people to understand. Perhaps we should have somewhere (like on the armory page) explaining what it is just to clear things up. -- Pilk _(talk) 01:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think "items_game.txt update" would be correct, since updates don't apply to items_game.txt anymore.  –  Ohyeahcrucz [T][C] 01:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

How does May 3, 2011 [Server-Side Update] look? Balladofwindfishes 01:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, actually good. But "Server-Side" is kinda confusing. Maybe [Item Server Update]?  –  Ohyeahcrucz [T][C] 01:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me, added Balladofwindfishes 01:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to interceed here, but the most accurate technical term would be "Schema Update" as per API + Ingame terminology. ~ Ath (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this one Ath suggested is better.  –  Epic Eric (T | C) 18:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Look at your Chuckleheads down there!

I've been wondering if we should include Painted and Styled Hats. So for example, we have Painted Variant Thumbnails of Pyromancer's Mask. I was wondering if we should include variants for all the styles that can be used on it as well as the default style. Too hard? You'll start working on it? Too lazy? What's your opinion? Lancer anti-tank Rocket 18:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

They're there already, under the painted variants.  –  Ohyeahcrucz [T][C] 21:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Painted Variants: Include the original coloring in the table, next to Team Spirit?

Often the hat's original color will be very similar to a painted variant. Usually Team Spirit. It would take lots of new images so it may not be worth it, but having the images close to compare would show the subtle differences.--Archdeco 20:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Team coloured hats have images of their default team skins in the infobox. Is that really too far to compare them? -- Pilk _(talk) 21:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I think he meant more for hats without team colors. Like the drill sarg's hat painted brown. I know in the past we've said that users can just use the backpack icon, but generally that's really small, at a different angle, and outright not a good image at all. I really want images of neutral colored hats in the info box. A nice, direct show of the hat, to make it easy to compare with the painted variants, rather than relying on the small, poor quality of the backpack icons Balladofwindfishes 00:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Separate Pages for Comics?

Some users were having an interesting discussion about the Meet the Director page and, unfortunately, the original poster decided to archive it. After thinking some time, I've brainstormed and thought: we could have separate pages for each comic, listing each one of them in details based on the current Meet the Director article.  –  Epic Eric (T | C) 01:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

 SupportThat would be a good idea. That way they don't have to delete the Meet The Director page. Just a Gigolo - (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support. But if there are some comics that only have enough info for a paragraph or so, they should just remain on the Comics page. seb26 01:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support I think all comics, save the Mac comic, are probably important enough to get a page. And since that leaves the Mac comic on its own... it gets a page on its own :P Balladofwindfishes 01:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support If the comic could provide enough information, such as history and background information based on the game, would be good to split it up. - Nixshadow 01:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support All canon comics that have enough information should have a separate page. In my opinion, non-canon comics should be in the Comics page.  –  Ohyeahcrucz [T][C] 05:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support Yesh! We would be able to add more details about the canon if they have their own pages _Takamoto_ 06:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support While I don't think we have seperate pages for each page of the comic, I think there should be a page dedicated to one comic, with the image to the left and a description of details of that page to the right. You could also add info about things a user may miss eg. on the last page of the Meet the Director comic, you can see a preview of the new medigun. ---- No-oneSpecial (talk | contribs) 04:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support Working my way through them. Done the WAR! Comic, Loose Canon and edited Meet the Director. I'm just putting off doing the little comics. ---- No-oneSpecial (talk | contribs) 04:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Paint, Styles, Etc. Overhaul

There's two things I want to discuss here.

First, with the advent of Styles, the pages for the hats with different paintable styles are starting to get a bit bloated. I want to propose that those tables be made auto-hidden, and can be opened up to see what they look like. This way, the whole page won't just be pictures upon pictures of painted variants (look at Troublemaker's Tossle Cap for an example).

Second, all of the painted styles are only for the RED team hats thus far, except for the Team Spirit ones that include the BLU variant. If we can make the paint tables collapsed on load, then this should give us the room to make tables for styles for BLU variants, where applicable. -- LordKelvin 08:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support Yep, i agree with that, it needs Moar BLU! _Takamoto_ 08:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with this idea at all, think it'd be a bit fair to those on terrible net too HyenaDip 08:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree about collapsing some of the tables but we don't really need BLU variants. Not only does it not add much, but it would mean double the workload for the people taking the painted variants screenshots but also someone having to take roughly 2000 images for the current hats. —Moussekateer·talk 03:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Kill Icon Creators

I find it kind of odd we mention on hat pages who was the creator of the description, and the creators of items, but we neglect to mention who made the kill icon of a weapon. It shouldn't be too difficult to figure out, given that we basically know everyone who contributed them (it's not a big list). Around 50% of them were made by Neo Dement. Hyena-Dip has a dozen or so, and we can pretty easily fill in the blanks with the others by doing some searching around the web. It just seems like info we should mention, and give some credit to the creators of the icons Balladofwindfishes 00:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support It would make sense to give them credit. Just a Gigolo - (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support I guess that would be okay. Maybe mention them in the trivia section? real_alien (T/C) 11:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

How about the first section of the weapons description? Like we do for the hat descriptions. Because otherwise that'll be a whole bunch of trivia. Balladofwindfishes 12:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support I think it's a good idea to show who made what, though would it be better to put it on all the weapon pages, or just the Kill icon page? - nixshadow • t|c 21:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support I think putting them on Kill icons is a good idea. - LingoSalad _(talk) 01:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

We already added most to the items. There's only a small list of icons I'm waiting on someone from Valve to get back to me on Balladofwindfishes 01:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

class link template on Gallery section

i know its not a big deal, but i think it looks like way better then just " [ [ Pyro ] ] "

• 

  Pyro

• 

   Pyro

what do you guys think? should we change it ? _Takamoto_ 04:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose I'm going to have to say... nay. It looks good the way it is. Real alien 07:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

 NeutralSure it won't harm, but I find it a bit redundant since you already have a pic of the class.--Kid Of The Century 10:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose No point really and would look untidy in the gallery in my opinion. - Lexar - talk 10:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose Not required. – Smashman _(talk) 10:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose I see no point in doing this.  –  Ohyeahcrucz [T][C] 00:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

 Neutral It'd be alright i guess if you did, but how many people really look for those things? The first time looked at the images, I didn't see the difference for a while. :/ Pierow 23:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Question for the Admins.

Why have pages for the 3 new Scout items (possibly for a Witcher promo) been added? I seem to remember finding the Saxxy Award statue's weapon model, and asking if a page should be made for it and was basically told "no, it's speculation". Seems to me that the Saxxy Award weapon is in the same boat as these 3 new items.

1. All 3 new items have obviously had info about them added to items_game.txt. So has the Saxxy Award weapon.
2. All 3 new items have their models/materials in the GCF. So does the Saxxy Award.
3. All 3 new items have not been released, and what we know about them is just speculation. A page for the Saxxy Award weapon was denied as it was "speculation".

What gives, guys? This must be the second or third time I've had admins deem something as "speculation" and not worthy of a page, then later that day a page is made for something else that doesn't exist, based on pure speculation. 404 User Not Found 03:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The saxxy award exists in the game files because the model is used in the main menu. Whether it ends up as a weapon or not is speculation. The hats/weapons added today are added as unused content and we do not speculate about their origins. —Moussekateer·talk 03:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Good point, but if it were because it appears on the menu (and just that), it would not have been placed in models/weapons/c_models. I believe it would have probably ended up in a different folder. 404 User Not Found 03:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, I think it's almost certain it will end up as a weapon but it's one of those things where we can't say for sure it will be a weapon yet. —Moussekateer·talk 03:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Good luck backstabbin' someone with it! [UGS 2nd]Lancer @nti-tank Rocket 08:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

All class misc items don't have images for all classes

All class hats have a gallery in them that shows how each class wears the items. How come we don't have galleries like that for all-class misc items? Balladofwindfishes 17:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Because no one got around to uploading pics for them.  –  Ohyeahcrucz [T][C] 17:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Some misc items do. Spacehem pin and companion cube for example. -- Babygirl 21:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but some =/= all , someone should probably make the rest. I would if I knew how. - nixshadow • t|c 22:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll fire up my favorite template and add it to every misc item :) Balladofwindfishes 22:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Deleting User Accounts

Is it possible to delete my user account here?

-Stretch97'

Not sure, maybe one of the admins can do it? real_alien (T/C) 11:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty sure it says somewhere that you can't delete a user account on the discussion page or something like that. Whats the point in deleting your account anyway? Pierow 00:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

BLU Team images part deux

This was agreed on 3 months ago. I was going to add the Improveimage template on every single class page, but I realize that it would be kind of ridiculous and would look worse on the pages than the lack of BLU team images. So I wish for this to serve as a reminder that we need some sort of BLU team image for each class, because right now it's really difficult to see team colors on the classes, which is something we do very easily on hat and weapon pages Balladofwindfishes 21:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support. I think it would be better if we had BLU team images for classes, however I don't know how pages would look like with BLU images.  –  Ohyeahcrucz [T][C] 01:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

 Heck yes I agree, the class pages really should have the BLU team, just because BLU team always get their ass kicked on Meet the Team videos, it doesnt mean that they cant have their own images here, poor BLU team :C _Takamoto_ 01:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Environmental hazards merge

I was working on the page for trains, and noticed a little bit of a fad with other environmental hazard pages... They're all a bit on the light side. Meanwhile, we have this big environmental death page, which gets all the same information on the pages out in about a paragraph each. Would it be okay if I worked on moving Saw blades, Trains, Water, Pumpkin bombs, and maybe Ghost in to the environmental death page to expand it? Or do you guys feel like short, individual pages are necessary for things like Water and Ghost? Maybe an individual page for Halloween hazards, containing Pumpkin Bombs, Ghost, and Horseless Headless Horsemann? SilverHammer 23:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I would leave it the way it is. real_alien (T/C) 17:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose the page is fine to me. THE3STOOGES 00:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose I don't think it's needed to merge those pages.  –  Ohyeahcrucz [T][C] 00:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

New demonstration project

Lets start new demonstration project. We already have a YouTube channel and awesome logo :3. The purpose of this work is demonstrate a lot of in game features such as trading system, crafting system, styles, replays etc. (P.S.: I'll create the project page myself :D) - Nero123 (talk | contribution)

 Support I approve of this endeavor~ The intro is quite nicer than the weapon demonstration project, too. Some additional restrictions need to be made on the specs (have an empty backpack, or shove all the rest on the last pages, so that it doesn't interfere) and some additional review work is to be done as well (for example, the crafting video shows the same Flare gun being dropped twice), and then it would be nice. However, two channels isn't good; ideally, these videos should be posted to the Official Wiki channel when done :3 — Wind 21:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support I approve, because it would be good to people who don't know much about these stuff. And I agree with Wind.  –  Ohyeahcrucz [T][C] 21:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support Some of the videos are glitchy (check your Crafting video) but the mai idea is good DrAkcel ^{(T | C)} 06:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support Nice. --  _{( |)} 06:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

 Support Do it. real_alien (T/C) 06:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Making hat articles more like weapon articles

Okay, so this is going to require a moderate amount of work to actually implement, but hang with me. User:Balladofwindfishes/sandbox, there is my idea for what the hat pages should look like. In the infobox should be a nice, high res image of the default appearance of the item, whether it have team colors or not. No class image there. On weapon articles, we don't show the class holding a weapon and then never show the item alone anywhere on the page, why do we do it on hat pages? This is also a very much requested feature, nice quality images of hats not being worn by the class. Instead, like the weapon articles, we put the class wearing the hat down at the bottom in a gallery.

Pros:

- Allows for high quality images of just the hat unpainted, something that has been requested often and always shot down for, what I :feel, are somewhat weak reasons.

- Makes everything more uniform with the weapon pages

- Allows users to quickly compare the colors of the hat with the painted varieties without having to fumble around and look closer at the class wearing image

- Removes the need to "pick a class" to wear all class hats. This way no class is favored for these images.

Cons:

- Requires a lot of images!

- Requires some slight changes to the infobox coding

Now before you're quick to shoot this idea down, think about it.

Balladofwindfishes 14:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that the only real problem in all that is the lack of screenshots of hats without the class wearing them. It'd be perfectly fine if someone wants to upload these pics and add them to the gallery section, but the other ideas don't really make sense (class favouritism?). If it ain't broke don't fix it - the hat pages are pretty fine the way they are, the only thing wrong I see is pages with multiple paint styles taking up a huge space - seb26 05:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

They are broke. They look nothing like the other pages on the site. The class wearing the hat goes in the gallery on all class hats, but then not on regular hats. And then on team colored hats we have images of them in the infobox, but then non-colored we have nothing. It's everywhere and tries to be different things for different hats when we could just have one solid style for all of them that works for all of them. Balladofwindfishes 15:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Broken means that the pages can't be viewed or read easily, or if the layout is so confusing that it's hard to read the information - the hats pages honestly have none of these issues. The problems you keep talking about are just minor inconsistencies in image placement, this doesn't call for a whole page layout revamp. Not all pages are going to look the same with so many varying topics, we shouldn't be going out of our way to make unrelated things 'consistent' for the sake of it. TL;DR hats pages not broken - if there is demand for HQ pics of non-team-colored hats then images can be uploaded and added to the gallery. seb26 06:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That's still inconsistent because team colored hq pics are in the infbox. If we just put hq default texture images in the infobox, that would be all that would be needed to make me happy. Balladofwindfishes 12:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The display of hidden item attributes

I noticed that Mistah Phoenix added the hidden attribute crit mod disabled hidden to the item infobox of the Backburner. Should:

• We remove it and simply note this in the article, leaving the infobox a carbon copy of what is seen in-game?
• Set a precedent and add every other hidden attribute to every other weapon, including the ones that don't make 'sense' to the average player? lunchbox adds minicrits comes to mind.
• Ditto above, but only the ones that make 'sense'? For instance, the Huntsman and Flare Gun's hidden primary/secondary max ammo penalties.

I also noticed some talk on Talk:Backburner about a hidden attribute flag for the infobox, but I can't seem to find it in the documentation for the template. Perhaps this could be implemented if it is decided to show these hidden attributes?

I appreciate your input. i-ghost 14:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need to put it there. That box is reserved for the exact description the game gives for the item. Stuff like "no crits" should be mentioned in the article Balladofwindfishes 15:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Third one is not an option because it would spark the debate of "what makes sense", which we shouldn't really get into. As for the other two, I'd go for #1. The little item box in the sidebar is meant to look like the in-game thing, it has the same colors and fonts and background and everything. So, just note it in the article somewhere — Wind 22:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

wiki cap voting?

When do we vote for who gets the wiki cap because i wanna vote? THE3STOOGES 23:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Only mods / admins / bureaucrats are allowed to vote. Since their discussions are logged into an IRC, you can see the staff in action if you want to. However, you cannot interfere with the process with your votes. Saw-ry.  –  Epic Eric (T | C) 23:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

BOB SAGET. THE3STOOGES 23:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I nominate SilverHammer for a Wiki Cap! Mr. Snrub 04:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Mr. Snrub! I'm touched... but surely, there are those more deserving than I! SilverHammer 04:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Promo_nav template variant

Thoughts?

Besides, I'm afraid we're running out of group/lists. Is 20 the max limit or am I mistaken?--Kid Of The Century 14:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)