Team Fortress Wiki:Discussion

create a new section

Protecting class basic tips from tampering

I'm guessing a fair amount of new users make edits to the basic tips on the class pages that have to be undone. Maybe we should make subpages such as [[Class/tips]] that contain the basic tips and protect it with a reason like "Page has official, basic tips that should not be changed in any way". Even just including it as a separate page may turn away wikinoobs. I know List of official tips has been protected in the past for a similar reason, only really unprotected because those tips actually get updated. Toomai Glittershine 19:10, 23 October 2012 (PDT)

A simpler, and less restrictive (to actual editors--i.e. if it ever gets updated) solution would be to add __NOEDITSECTION__ to the section in question; thus it could only be edited from a general page edit. This would defer any casual editor; but can be circumvented by simply editing the entire page. Darkid (|) 19:13, 23 October 2012 (PDT)

Clarification: __NOEDITSECTION__ will remove all section edit links (i.e. [edit]) on the entire page—I'm still for this idea. Darkid (|) 20:00, 23 October 2012 (PDT)

Is it possible to have a page for those tips that are in consideration? This way people could submit tips they have found useful while playing for others to see. Or would that be just too much work? Lud1colo 18:19, 6 March 2013 (PST)

A bit of an old discussion. However, I feel you have missed the point of this section. The tips are not supposed to be edited. They are official! We have community strategy pages for user submissions. Darkid (|) 18:55, 6 March 2013 (PST)

Whoops, didn't look. Sorry. Lud1colo 15:19, 12 March 2013 (PDT)

Well,I only edited SOME stuff like degrootkeep trivia,tux,long way more from wiki cap :/ yunodie 14:33, 13 March 2013 (PDT)

What should we do to Template:Promo nav

It's really pain to edit this template and look that where are items in the promo and that promo item is for which slot (Weapons/Hats/Misc). My opinion are :

• Split this template to 3 pages of templates (Weapons Promo nav, Hats Promo nav and Misc Promo nav)
• Split this template to 3 categories but still on single template (Cause a lot of size larger and ugh! to editors)
• Split this template to 2 pages of templates (Games Promo nav and Events Promo nav)
• Do nothing

I don't think do nothing is the best way. I think we should do somethings before this template grow larger and harder to edit. Hinaomi (talk) • (contributions) 07:11, 27 February 2013 (PST)

Least edited languages

So i got bored today, and i decided to see what languages on the wiki are least edited. So, today is 3rd March, 02:50 PST, and i used 500 changes on 30 days.

Results: Below, but i decided to post only language edits i managed to count.
7.zh-hans, 53 edits
6.no, 48 edits
5.hu, 45 edits
4.tr, 43 edits
3.pt (not pt-br!),41 edits
2.da, 31 edits
Aand number one is ar, with...16 EDITS!

As you can see, we need bigger community for the arabian tf2 wiki.
\theguy299\talk\contribs\ 02:50, 3 March 2013

In pt I only saw User:Lumpy3 as active editor, he said it really huge job due low editor in pt. Hinaomi (talk) • (contributions) 03:46, 3 March 2013 (PST)

A more useful metric is here, and that would put arabic, hungarian, danish, portuguese, and turkish as the most needed languages. However, this entire discussion is rather moot since translations are on a volunteer, not commission, basis. Darkid (|) 05:18, 3 March 2013 (PST)

Competitive Section Rework

Hi all, I'm RJ, an aspiring contributor here.

I'm suggesting that we revamp the competitive section of this wiki. In its current state, it really only explains the the basics of each format, such as the class restrictions and the basic dynamics, when really there is much more to the competitive scene. For example, it doesn't cover common rollouts for maps, it doesn't cover common callout locations, it doesn't cover good Engineer spots for specific maps, and there are many other things that our current section doesn't cover. Also, it doesn't go into depth how someone interested in the format could get into competitive TF2.

I was discussing with Xenak that I would like to help out revamp the Competitive page on this wiki. I had the idea of listing all current weapon bans for each league, a short history on each game type, and general know-how on each game type. Though this might have already been discussed, I suggested that I add some more in-depth information about each league, division, or game type.

I have played in a few seasons of Highlander unofficially in High Gold and Low Platinum divisions, and have played a lot of PUGs and Scrims with some of the best players in the Highlander community--I've come to know them all, and I feel like I have the first hand experience!

I was also thinking of hopefully making the Competitive page more of an encyclopedia for all things competitive--from specific map strategies, to dynamics of specific maps as well. I suggested to link to specific video guides or text guides from Reddit and other sources from higher ranked players with their input on a specific idea.

With this idea of making the encyclopedia-style pages, I also suggest there be competitive version for the specific maps. On the main Competitive page, there could be a link to something along the lines of "Badlands (Competitive)" -- this page could be an in-depth look at the map itself. Include a bit of history of when the map came into the rotation for each league (Badlands may not work in this case, but maps like cp_process and cp_steel would be an example), specific callout locations, and specific strategies. If there are maps that are played in both Highlander and 6v6, there could be a specific section for both types--specific offclassing suggestions, which classes work and which do not.

The only concern here about these competitive versions of these maps would be picking which maps are to have their own page. The simple solution to this is to use the maps that leagues find acceptable. No need to vote on which maps get their own page; if ETF2L has koth_lolcano in it's rotation that season, and teams have strategies for it, then it will get it's own page!

If you think that the Competitive page needs a revamp or reformat, feel free to talk about it here!

RJ 21:02, 6 March 2013 (PST)

Badlands (competitive), etc. If you plan on doing a revamp, look at pages such as Soldier (competitive). Map pages are fair game, but large-scale revamps are going to need community agreement. Try to find a large enough (multiple teams) player basis to reach what looks like a naming convention consensus. Also, {{Weapon Ban List}}. Start looking here. Darkid (|) 21:07, 6 March 2013 (PST)

 Support I agree that the competitive section needs a rework. It really only offers the bare bones of competitive TF2, with little to no mention towards how to get started in competitive, or specific class strategies for specific maps. Improving these areas can possibly help introduce other people to the competitive scene who normally wouldn't bother, as it would provide a defined way to get involved in comp. Many people I've talked to are interested in it but have no idea where to even start, and maybe this new and improved section can serve as both a gateway for them and an vault of knowledge for any questions they might have. As it is right now, it just seems unfinished and unrefined, and hopefully we can change that. Just my 1/50th of a dollar. — Xenak (Talk|Contribs) 21:22, 6 March 2013 (PST)

Thanks for the ideas, you two! I'll see if I can get to work on gathering some consistent information from teams of various leagues and divisions. Maybe I could add a specific note on if specific places are called differently in different leagues? (An example would be that the Flank on Second near Gray Bridge on Badlands is called "Finland" in Europe) RJ 21:32, 6 March 2013 (PST)

Honestly, that'd be one of my later priorities. At this point, I feel that the three of us (hopefully more) should decide what area we should work on (maps, classes, matchups, e.g.) and work on cleanup. Maps is a pretty easy way to go, (which is not bad) but does take a lot of consistent names. One thing to do before you dive in would be to take a page (the badlands page e.g.) and devise a nicely-reading page layout. The current one feels droll to me, and besides you'd need to work in the class strategy. Darkid (|) 03:59, 7 March 2013 (PST)

Classes as Characters Section/Article

Hiya I'm Krubby. I noticed that nowhere on the wiki is there an in-depth description of the classes about them as characters. I was thinking there should be a section on each of their pages or a combined article for all describing their personality, interests, etc. Thanks! Krubby 09:50, 7 March 2013 (PST)

Hi there. I do agree that, for a game that is full of personality, some of the class articles are lacking with respect to describing the class's character. I don't think a whole section or new article is necessary, but rather a few more sentences about their personalities would be nice. —Moussekateer·talk 10:46, 7 March 2013 (PST)

Unpaintable hats in the Paintable hats table.

So I've been adding hats to the Paintable hats table as they come out. I've noticed that there are hats and miscs that are on the table that are unpaintable. So some input is needed. Should we include unpaintable hats on the table or not? Considering there are some already on them. Should we leave them or remove them? Ashes 12:08, 14 March 2013 (PDT)

Just forgot. Template:Paintable items list/All class items

I think we mustn't include a unpaintable hats table. I think we must delete unpaintable hats from the list.--MarcoDoctorwho 10:24, 17 March 2013 (PDT)

I'll split it as soon as I'm done with Update history... Rikka Takanashi (talk) • (contributions) 12:25, 17 March 2013 (PDT)

 Agree I don't see a need to keep all unpaintable hats in those lists -- so go ahead. – Epic Eric (T | C) 12:34, 17 March 2013 (PDT)

 Done Moved all unpaintable to Template:Unpaintable items list‎, took me 8 hours for only this template... Rikka Takanashi (talk) • (contributions) 03:06, 18 March 2013 (PDT)

About the "Marketable" in {{Item infobox‎}}

Hello, recently I have noticed that there's a "Marketable" info in infobox, which can identify the items can be sold or not. However, I think there's many problems with that.
The default setting of the info is "No" , but many genuine items can be sold onto the Market, and the label would still be "No" if no one put another setting inside the individual page. When the promo is over, the items become unique quality and thus cannot be sold. The editors need to do another edit to removed it. Plus, there's many tool items which is labeled "cannot be sold" at this moment. I personally think it is a huge work for every language to label or remove "market = yes" setting manually.
Due to the wrong info sometimes cause, I think either we removed the Market part in the infobox, or the codes inside the infobox should be modified. If we decided to removed it, then the Steam Community Market page can do the record job. I think the information there is already sufficient by displaying the rules of Market and record the items which can be sold with a template. In sum, I don't think the Marketable label is necessary in infobox. Please let me know what's your opinion on this or what shall we do with the template. Thanks.
07:42, 14 March 2013 (PDT)

I agree, I don't think that attribute is necessary. Mostly because I believe Valve intend to allow all items to be sold in the Steam Market in the near future, making this information nearly redundant. The Steam Community Market page should suffice for now until Valves plans are clearer. —Moussekateer·talk 18:37, 14 March 2013 (PDT)

Alright, let's kill dis — Wind 18:46, 14 March 2013 (PDT)

So...we can removed that area now? Or shall we wait for more comments about this? 00:58, 15 March 2013 (PDT)

Well, let's vote!

 Agree Remove it is better, maybe Valve will open to marketable all items soon. Rikka Takanashi (talk) • (contributions) 02:38, 15 March 2013 (PDT)

Don't be overly bureaucratic when you already know the majority supports it. -- Lagg 04:30, 15 March 2013 (PDT)

ded. is good — Wind 12:22, 15 March 2013 (PDT)

 Agree so much, is like a paradox. Example: A Genuine Ham Shank is not tradable yet, but the wiki says is Marketable. Is like a paradox --MarcoDoctorwho 08:34, 17 March 2013 (PDT)

Jumping#Sticky_jumps

Stickybomb Launcher and Sticky Jumper link to that section but it does not exist. I suggest changing the link to Jumping#Basic_sticky_jump. Teyandee 12:25, 23 March 2013 (PDT)

I went ahead and did it. For future reference, you don't need to ask permission to make a change like that - when it's small, and there's clearly a bug, go ahead and fix it. — Armisael (T · C) 12:30, 23 March 2013 (PDT)

Painted images. Specified guidelines/rules?

I'm bringing this up mainly because, Due to some confusion in the IRC. What would we think would be the "average" resolution for painted hats/miscs. Also any other guidelines that could possibly fit in. (unless it differs per hat) If there should be a set or at least a minimum resolution why have we not came up with one? Ashes 13:32, 23 March 2013 (PDT)

TheDoctor suggested it be at least 500 pixels. But, most of the images are under that suggestion. We would have to revamp many of the painted images. --Samuel Enthers 14:01, 23 March 2013 (PDT)