User talk:Ath

RE: Robin & Drunken F00l's Valve Rocket Launchers

Hey, sorry for any inaccuracies. The community would probably want to see those videos as they're very interesting to "normal" players as an inside look on some rarities. It's one thing to describe something and a different animal to actually see it in action. Perhaps a separate page for the Valve Rocket Launcher might be appropriate? -Object404 16:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is not all of the Valve items in existance have the stacked attributes, some don't even have the "Flying Bits" particle attachment; so it could be misleading. Having a page just for Robin's Valve Rocket Launcher doesn't make much sense either. I think it's better left as is for now until a fitting usage arises on an existing page, if someone really wants to see an example they can do a search on YouTube. ~ Ath 16:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey Ath. While it's true that Robin and other Valve members can probably spawn any weapon they want and mod the attributes, as having been seen in public servers outside of beta, the item is now actually a little more like Blizzard's unique items with lore. I know that isn't the point of TF, but with the recent additions of the item system + tradables, the MMORPG-zation of the game is now a bit unavoidable. Anyway, it does add flavor to the game + lore.

As heard in the chat of the public game video below with Robin in, some of the players thought Robin Walker was a myth like Saxton Hale :) -Object404 16:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The information is not encyclopedic, nor is it really relevant to the objective of the Quality page. As Lagg has explained to you, server admins can easily recreate these items and this Wiki is not a compendium of popular culture. Also, please do not clutter my talk page with videos, thanks. ~ Ath 17:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Version 2.2b

Didn't it add the cool Wiki linking too? :D  – Smashman _(talk) 18:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops! I'll add that now. Ath 18:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Kill notice crit

Hey, I'm not sure the MediaWiki software allows background images to be defined like that, however, if you add a class to the div I can edit the main CSS page and define it with the background there. seb26 [talk] 20:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't work either Seb. I tried that.  – Smashman _(talk) 21:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You did it wrong, crit means the style is applied to <crit> tags which don't exist. .crit means anything using the class "crit". seb26 [talk] 21:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I did? Whoops. Thought I did .crit.  – Smashman _(talk) 21:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I've done a little research and the problem behind background-image/etc not working is the result of a "HTML Attribute sanitization" feature; If overridden it should work as intended, but doing so could possibly introduce security issues. Solutions to my mind could be protecting the template from non-authorised editing and setting an exclusion on it, or adding a rule to the Wiki's master stylesheet with the relevant CSS and assigning the killicon-containing span the relevant ID, this would be very hacky though. Probably better to go with my original idea as outline on the template's talk page. Ath 21:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

proper_name

They added it? Nice! See? They do listen.  – Smashman _(talk) 22:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed! I sent an email to Robin about it the other day and he replied. Already got it implemented in TF2B too, so I'm very happy. Ath 22:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

TF2B for iPhone

Yo. After Hideous dropped the bomb on tf2b for Android, I figured the best way to implement it on the iPhone without access to a Mac, some Obj-C skills and the SDK, it might just be easier to do it in something like jQTouch. Thoughts? ~ lhavelund ^{(talk ▪ contrib)} 15:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks promising, I'll have to take a closer look myself as I've not really kept up with mobile devices. I'll point Hideous here and see what he thinks as he's the "phone guy" somewhat. Ath 15:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

He told me he was too lazy to look at it :P. I'm not big on JS myself, but I got an app of some sort done with it, at least. ~ lhavelund ^{(talk ▪ contrib)} 15:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll see if I can "twist his arm" so to speak. My current phone is a Nokia N73 which hardly ever gets used as is, so I've got some catching up to do first. Ath 15:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds gooood. At least he has an iPod to test on. ;) ~ lhavelund ^{(talk ▪ contrib)} 15:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Quality Updates

Hello. You recently rv my edits to the quality section without any explanation. I believe the edits improve the overall quality as well as fix some errors in the descriptions. Is there are reason for your rv's. Thanks. AGlassOfMilk 23:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Your edits were undone as they do not improve the overall wording of the article, and in some cases introduced certain technical inaccuracies. Additionally, you should use Show Preview instead of constantly committing new edits, repeated edits make it hard to follow or amend the article for people who watch the article. Please compress your changes down into single edits where possible. Thanks. ~ Ath (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I sorry that you feel that way. However, can you please point to exactly what in my changes is incorrect? Thanks. AGlassOfMilk 19:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The Quality article is very carefully worded to be as specific as possible and avoid promoting any possible misconceptions, a number of your changes could possibly lead a user to misunderstand the finer technical details. (That may not be explicitly stated) Not only that, but you explicitly ignored the warning comment on not re-adding the note regarding the recent item vintagization, and your wording was generally more bulky for little to no overall improvement.

I don't want to dissuade you from contributing to the Wiki, but I would personally suggest that you choose another article to improve. Thanks. ~ Ath (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I may have been originally, however there are currently problems with it...problems I attempted to fix. It sound like to me your problem is not with the overall edits, but with the vintagization section. Why should that info not be added? I feel it is important to add, since it many users have questions about. Furthermore, the section explaining with items achieved vintage status is clumsy. AGlassOfMilk 03:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As I have stated, your changes to wording did not improve the article and only served to increase wordcount. The recent vintagization should NOT be added as it has no relevance to the article; Quality is a documentation of the traits of a specific Quality, what it is used for, and how/when it was introduced. If you want to debate the validity of the inclusion of that information, then I suggest you take it up with Lagg. Thanks. ~ Ath (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

First, I believe that the current version is sloppy with its wording, and needs to be cleared up. Second, was the Vintagization decision reached by consensus, or is this your personal opinion? Clearly, the basic information about which weapons can be vintage should be included in the quality. I'm not talking about listing all the weapons that can become vintage (there is another section for that). What I suggest is just adding a little information about the second release of vintage weapons. If you believe it shouldn't then should we remove the "Scream Fortress Update"? --AGlassOfMilk 17:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, I think the current version is short and concise; which is exactly what the article needs to and should be. Again, if you wish to debate the vintagization, take it up with Lagg; he'll explain the reasoning to you far better than I. ~ Ath (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Updates - Part 2

You are incorrect about item names reflecting the quality of the item. 75% of item qualities indicate quality simply by their name. This includes Vintage, Genuine, Unusual, Community, Self-Made, and Valve items.

In addition, please include more information when reverting edits in this section. You don't want them to appear as summarily performed. AGlassOfMilk 23:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Uh, no; I am not. Quality is not the only determining factor in a item's name. Two qualities at least have no prefix, future qualities may also bear no prefix; and there is also the propername flag. Quality does however -always- determine coloration. ~ Ath (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

1. You just summarily reverted my edit again. Please stop.

2. The 2 items in question are the base items (normal) and the unique items. Both of these classes are considered base items. The goal of my edit was to state that often the quality of the item is indicated by its name, not to state that color isn't important. All non-base items have their quality indicated by their name, and I feel it is important to indicate that. Furthermore, I am not concerned about what -may- happen in the future...In the future color may not be tied to item qualities at all, just like names -might- not indicate quality. What I am concerned with is stating that the vast majority of item quality types are indicated by their name. --AGlassOfMilk 00:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it is you who must stop AGlassOfMilk. So far all but a few of your edits have been harmful.

I have clearly explained to you why, there is no opinion here; only fact. Quality is only merely a factor in name assembly, to treat it otherwise is volatile and short sighted. As I have said before, the Quality is a very technical article in nature, it's wording is chosen specifically to reflect the functioning of the system itself. While it might seem "bad" to you, the reasoning will make sense to a developer that has worked with said system. ~ Ath (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

All my reverts include an explanation. Failure to include and explanation makes it impossible to constructively collaborate with you. The facts are that the vast majority of item types include the quality in the items title. I would like to include that information. AGlassOfMilk 00:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

My reverts are only done when you introduce an inaccuracy into the article, on at least one occasion when you have actually done something to improve Quality, I took no action. The facts are against you, the technical functioning is more important here than what you may or may not perceive from the end result. ~ Ath (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

What inaccuracy? I know you are trying to speak from the API level, but this isn't what this article is written for. To you quality is a flag in the item's properties. To everyone else reading this wiki it is a name and a color in their backpack. Maybe we should have an article for quality and one for the quality system? AGlassOfMilk 01:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It is -precisely- what the article is written for. Quality is not a weapon or class that can be used in a myriad of ways, it is a system that has a very specific and defined set of conventions and practices. There is far too much dis-information surrounding Quality, a dose of fact is what is vitally needed in this case. It needs to be made very clear that Quality is nothing more than a required flag applied to each and every item; it needs to be made clear that the only thing a Quality confers for certain is the name coloration, everything else is up in the air. Splitting or otherwise duplicating this article otherwise just to accommodate a perception vs technical divide will only serve to confuse players.

I would like to achieve a compromise, but in this case I am 100% certain and I stand by past statements made by both Lagg and Myself. I'm sorry, but I strongly believe that this is the best approach, and I mean that as intended for a general user, not a developer. ~ Ath (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The article was not written as a guide for the API. It was written to explain what quality is to the average user. To you, and Lagg, quality is a flag(obvious based on the work you guys did). However, to everyone else its a color and a title. I really don't see the problem with stating that in 75% of item qualities, title also indicates quality. Maybe we should indicate it in the individual item quality sections? I am not suggesting we split it. What I am suggesting is that we include your information (and laggs) and mine. AGlassOfMilk 17:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not intended to be a guide to the API and never has been, don't be silly. The intent is to be accurate and not to help foster misconceptions. Your proposals would do so. ~ Ath (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

"Vintage Items are identifiable by the term 'Vintage' in the their name". I don't see that has inaccurate. AGlassOfMilk 18:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That sentence, Inaccurate? No. Redundant? Yes. ~ Ath (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

"The intent is to be accurate and not to help foster misconceptions. Your proposals would do so" So what you mean to say is not that I am being inaccurate, but rather redundant? AGlassOfMilk 20:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No, your proposals are effectively both. Just the meaningless and irrelevant example you cited in your last message was especially redundant.

I'm starting to grow tired of endlessly debating this with you; myself and Lagg have explained to you the reasoning multiple times, why these decisions have been made and why your proposals are harmful. As far as I am concerned, this debate is over. ~ Ath (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You explain, then you contradict yourself. Then you get mad when I don't understand. As far as I am -concerned- any attempt to edit the quality page will likely just get summarily reverted. Its your page, and I'll just have to avoid fixing it. AGlassOfMilk 23:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't contradict myself at all, you posed a completely unrelated statement and I answered it. And yes, I will revert harmful edits to Quality. If you have a problem with the design of the article, take it up with Lagg. I'm done here. ~ Ath (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal Of Normal Items Distribution Link In Quality

Why did you remove it? --AGlassOfMilk 01:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Because it is both redundant and useless. ~ Ath (talk) 02:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Not really. All the other sections have an item distribution link. Why not Normal items? Redundant implies it is somewhere else. Where else is this information? --AGlassOfMilk 02:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

That isn't an argument, and because it's utterly useless. There is absolutely no need to document this. ~ Ath (talk) 02:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is. And just because you won't answer my questions and/or justify your opinion in a reasonable way doesn't mean you get to dismiss it. Once again, it isn't useless. It describes the basic quality of items found in the game. It's just as relevant as the Vintage and Genuine tables (and they have links). Furthermore, I think you should welcome links/redirects like this since they move data about item specifics (i.e. which qualities refer to which items) away from the quality page (aka your page). Please try and be reasonable here. --AGlassOfMilk 06:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope. This table makes as much sense as documenting what items make shooty noises, or what items are made of wood. Normal items are not obtainable, and Unique items are essentially default. No user is going to want such information, the lists only exist in the first place for people who want to know what unusual hat combos they can get or what items are avaliable as vintage. ~ Ath (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)