Talk:List of Community item owners

Templatification?

Since these lists seem to be getting split-off, would it not make sense to make a generic list template that takes a few inputs like ID/Name/Item/Reason/etc and fills out both community + backpack link for us? Ath 16:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It's already on my task list to do that this weekend; I'm starting right now, actually. :) ~ lhavelund ^{(talk ▪ contrib)} 16:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, brilliant. Ath 16:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a substable table line, or something similar? Want me to take a crack at it? – Smashman _(talk) 16:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I have some ideas; it'll show up on User:Lhavelund/List of Community Weapon owners. Feel free to drop comments and suggestions there, Smash. ~ lhavelund ^{(talk ▪ contrib)} 16:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"Only x (so far)"

I find this to be a useless piece of information. Permission to remove this when I'm templificatifyeraterating the table? ~ lhavelund ^{(talk ▪ contrib)} 16:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

 Agreed, IIRC so did WindPower a while ago in IRC. --CruelCow 16:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"Item" link

Thanks to the ID shift, every "Item" link is now broken. Seeing as Community items are essentially just Green varients of the standard weapons with an extra description and Particle effect, plus taking into consideration that people do change their community item on occasion; I feel that the "Item" column is more trouble than it's worth. Would just a backpack link not suffice in this instance? Ath 15:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

All that needs to be done to fix them all is add 2100000 to every item serial. I was going to do it, but i don't have time right now. I will probably get to it later (unless someone has a better way to do it or we decide to remove it) Natemckn 15:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I am well aware of the ID shift, my point was that it's a large time investment for little gain. Ath 16:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree, its going to be quite a pain to fix all of them. I would have no problem with that column being removedNatemckn 16:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This is what we have bots for. –lhavelund  ·  ·  16:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"Community" Skull

I've gone ahead and removed this entry since I feel it goes against the ethos of the article. With all due respect to the owner, having or having had cancer is in no way a community contribution and should not be listed as such or alongside items that are. To reiterate an old talking point from another discussion, any item is available in any quality; and considering there is no listing of Valve quality items or other "irregular" items, I don't think this item warrents documentation. ~ Ath (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2011 (PST)

Who cares how he got the item, it's a community item, it goes on the list. This is a documentation of community items and the skull is a community item. Balladofwindfishes 17:51, 15 November 2011 (PST)

Not sure what the story behind all of this was, but if someone has a community item, it should be on the list of community items. — Wind 17:53, 15 November 2011 (PST)

Community item, obviously belongs here I feel.. Also, you probably shouldn't just undo an edit and tell someone they must check here first. What you should have done was simply started the talk page, and not remove the edit first. - nixshadow (t|c) 17:59, 15 November 2011 (PST)

i agree. this is a community item. We have an article for community item owners and this is a community item. This is a no-brainer. The skull belongs here.Tele-Viper 18:02, 15 November 2011 (PST)