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)

Are you referring to referencing external resources? TF2Wiki could probably emulate Wikipedia by using footnotes? Misterslin 01:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

 Support I agree but please don't overdo it, I've seen lots and lots of stupid references around here that aren't interesting to read nor required. Strobe 17:03, 15 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)

It'll be nice since this is one of the only common joke weaponsDARREN 23:07, 13 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)

So... tie broken then? -- - _{(talk | contribs)} -- 09:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the vote "deadline" is supposed to signify, but unless we've adopted some specific policy I'm unaware of, polling is not a substitute for discussion, and cannot be used to actually determine consensus. ~G-Mang (T|C) s 09:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

How about trying the above suggestions and see how they work out? Like the auto collapse or the slim version and see what gets the best approval. -- Neo Player 09:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

 Nope: I personally like those navs myself. They're useful for quickly hopping from page to page, and since they're at the bottom I don't have to worry about it cluttering any information on the page that I'm already looking at. --LordKelvin 17:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose I think these nav's are fantastic and allow a user to quickly find the data they are searching for rather than sifting through pages. If you can find a way to collapse it by default then by all means do so, however do not delete them. Misterslin 01:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose I've found these navs very useful for quick transitions to other hat/weapon pages. I really want them to stay. FlotsamX 01:28, 12 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)

 Oppose We don't need official babysitters. -- Pilk _(talk) 10:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose You really don't need this. Isn't this what the IRC channel is for? Asking random questions that you need help with? I think the time of the mentors is better put to use elsewhere. Also, as a TF2 mentor I personally find myself repeatedly answering specific questions and I think TF2Wiki Mentors will encounter the same problem. However, you have a tool that I don't: you can just create a page to answer these questions (like a FAQ). Misterslin 01:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose Any editor who reads the guidelines and familiarizes himself with wiki style and formatting will do fine. If he is unwilling to do this, then why is he even bothering himself with trying to edit? FlotsamX 01:31, 12 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)

Do we need an Arabic section of the wiki?

"Languages supported officially by the game are supported here. There are a few exceptions, however: Czech and Portuguese (Brazil) are supported by the Steam Translation Server, however, do not yet have TF2 localization files. Arabic has neither, however, will remain supported."

If Arabic has neither Steam Translation Server support, or sound/text support in TF2, this means that:

• The amount of Arabic TF2 players who solely speak Arabic is very low, as Team Fortress 2 is geared towards the officially-supported languages.
• The amount of people who are able to translate the English wiki into Arabic are not easily found.

And as a result, the Arabic wiki is one of the wikis most desperately in need of content. It is missing basic essential articles, such as class pages and weapons.

In any other situation I would suggest finding more contributors, but in Arabic's case I wonder if it's worth it. Who would the Arabic wiki be made for, the one (yes, only one contributor) person who is actively translating it?

• I don't think there is enough Arabic only speakers playing TF2 so that we need a wiki for it. DARREN 23:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Your insight would be appreciated. FlotsamX 23:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think it is worth keeping up an Arabic section of this website. However, if that person is willing to put the time into doing so then let him do it. Then again, he's probably just doing it to rack up edits and since nobody else here speaks Arabic there is nobody to verify whether or not he is writing legitimate things...Misterslin 15:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to sound like a jerk, but the facts are that we might not need it, we don't have the resources to put it together properly, and we have no way of ensuring quality info. Whether this lone user is making stuff up or legitimately contributing, all translators should have a working understanding of English. That means that even if we shut down the Arabic pages, he should still be able to contribute in a meaningful way. ::Scurve :: 23:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I also dont think we need an Arabic wiki. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thespy (talk) • (contribs) 19:59, 11 November 2010

Please sign your comments with a series of four tildes. ::Scurve :: 23:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

 Keep Hello guys, I'm Alsoodani, the translator for the Arabic section. Traditionally, most game companies do not have official game translation for Arabic. The market for Arabic speaking countries is diverse. Many do not have access to offer official products from outside. Many of you are asking What is the point of having an Arabic section if no one uses it? On the contrary, there are many Arabic users on the internet who play Valve games including Team Fortress 2! I have visited my home country Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, the UAE, Syria, and Lebanon. They all have sparse, but growing gaming communities! As for what got me to do this: I am currently living in a dorm with Arabic exchange students helping them out and generally translating for them (I double major in Arabic and Nueroscience) who don't speak a lick of good English. What got me started on this project was that they happen to play Steam games as well (mainly Counter-Strike, but they do play TF2) and the amount of information available online for Arabic-speaking gamers is very, very limited (if you don't count broken Google Translations). As a wiki contributer and as a student working on his Arabic Major I feel it is my duty to help out. I repeat, This effort is not being wasted.

For a general (very general) sample on the number of forums discussing Team Fortress 2 Check out this Google Search filtering only Arabic pages shown discussing Team Fortress 2: Google Link Once the front page and the major articles are established, instead of our Arabic-speaking Team Fortress 2 brethren cluelessly playing the game, they will have information at the Official Team Fortress 2 wiki! For those debating about my credentials or the accuracy of the actual Arabic, I am currently partially majoring in Arabic and am a senior in college. For those wondering if there will be more contributes, I have only started this project for a month. There will be more translators. For those, who think I am doing this for petty reasons such as "wracking up edits", I say to you: I translate whole pages one by one and there is currently approx. 1000 pages of English. That would mean if I translated everything, it would only be a mere apporx. 1000 edits. That is not a substantial amount to "wrack up" anything. It would be foolish to do so.

I feel that it is strange that I must defend a top spoken language in the world that is even spoken more than most of the supported languages over on the Team Fortress 2 wiki! I ask those that voted for removal to reconsider. I can understand a needed removal if it was some obscure language and that there are no users from that language, but this is not true. Simply put, Arabic translations are needed and their will be more translators past the infancy of this project. I feel it is my duty to inform those who are voting to remove the Arabic section on how this will affect the Arabic gaming community. Alsoodani 00:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

 Agree I must agree with Alsoodani. His effort seem genuine and I'd say there's a big overlap in Arabic people who play TF2 and doesn't understand very well English. — Neo_Player ^{(t ▪ c)} 00:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

 Agree Alsodaani has completely changed the way I looked at this. I'm also in favour of keeping it. :) –lhavelund  ·  ·  03:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

 Agree I agree with Alsodaani and I think the language should be kept. Stab ! 04:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

 Agree Conditionally First of all, I will admit that I have been completely burned for my earlier comment . Second of all, I'd like to go back on my previous statement, not because of his excellent rhetoric but because he has excellent rhetoric. The argument here is well-written and apparently the author is a student of the language. We should definitely let things keep going for now. However, while the author's evidence for the preponderance of Arabic gamers is compelling, I think it is still telling that Alsodaani is the ONLY Arabic translator we have (or so I'm told.) That itself says to me--no matter how dedicated and talented Alsodaani might be--that the Arabic pages aren't frequented enough. In summary, I totally get where Alsodaani's coming from (and I apologize; it's nothing personal, I'm suspicious of everyone on the internet,) but I would like to see more Arabic translators in the future. Can we put up some kind of HEAVY WANT YOU propaganda posters on the front page to make visitors more aware of our specific needs? Not just Arabic translators but other endeavors in the future. ::Scurve :: 05:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Random Page gives mostly non-English pages

I was an editor of tf2wiki.net and decided to come here, and was about to use the "Random Page" button to start editing, but unfortunately it seems the page includes all non-English pages and as such, being that English is only one language, I was not able after several tries to actually get a random English page. Not that I wish to undermine our non-English-speaking contributors and readers - in actuality, since it's a random language, the Random Page button is useless to anybody who isn't omni-lingual. Piggie 20:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

We're looking at working that out just now, but unfortunately, we're not in a situation where we can control that right now. –lhavelund  ·  ·  20:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a little workaround: Hit the random page. If you land on a foreign page, there's a little link under the title that will take you to the english version. --CruelCow ^(talk) 01:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Custom maps guideline

We currently have several custom maps pages marked for deletion, but not really a guideline when a custom map deserves a page. Possible criteria suggested in IRC:

Quality

Popularity

Has it got a chance of ever getting featured on the blog/becoming official?

IMHO only popularity is halfway measurable and should be used. Thoughts? --CruelCow ^(talk) 03:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

My two factors: quality and notability. Popularity isn't as relevant. If it is a quality map, it should have an article. If it is a custom map of importance to the community (e.g., one run in league play) where a wiki page would help users familiarize themselves with it, it should have an article. A map being popular does not make it good. -- Nineaxis 03:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

We all know everyone's favorite example of this, eh? -The Neotank ( | Talk) 03:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that we sometimes forget that TF2 is meant to be fun. Some maps arent 'competitive quality' but they're fun, and they're popular because of that. I don't think we should be saying to users 'hey this map is fun and all, but it doesn't fit in with the TF2 aesthetics so you don't need to know about it'. Would 2fort deserve its own article if it wasn't an official map? Moussekateer 03:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Popuarity should never be the sole determining factor towards the notability of a map. Some of the most popular custom maps in TF2 are mario_kart, cp_orange_x3, and achievement_idle: all of which have had pages on this wiki in the past, all of which were deleted. Instead, it should be determined by:

• The aesthetics of the map. Any map that has aesthetics that clash with TF2's basic maps shouldn't be considered, unless under exceptional circumstances. This means no mario_kart, no developer textures.
• The gameplay of the map. Maps considered for an article should promote standard TF2 gameplay, with standard TF2 gamemodes. This means no DM maps, no sniper maps, no idle maps, no achievement maps, no trade maps, and no orange maps.
• Professionalism. "Does this map have a chance of becoming a community map" is a good question to go by when judging a map's professionalism. Is it used by professional gaming leagues? Has it won awards for its quality?

These are only my opinions, but they seem like good guidelines to me. Leave your comments on this. FlotsamX 03:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds nice, but I really think that some level of popularity should be in it. Most of the artpass maps would pass your rules, but we don't want a page for each of those right? --CruelCow ^(talk) 04:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't get why maps which, while played a ton, but happen not to fit in with TF2's art style, shouldn't be included. They're maps the community plays, maps which are deemed popular and awesome by the player base. I see no reason why we shouldn't have a map for MARIO_KART or achievement_idle; a ton of servers run these, and they're obviously influential somehow. Popularity should be a major deciding factor if they're worth documenting or not, in my humble opinion. –lhavelund  ·  ·  16:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Additionally every map that gets featured in a major comp league (like etf2l.org) should definitely get included. --CruelCow ^(talk) 04:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Adding to the achievement_idle / mariocart discussion, i'm starting to wonder if we should have articles for them? They are popular maps, and it's our collective job, as the wiki, to be the central resource of information regarding TF2 - which would include documenting the most-played maps regardless of their quality. -RJ 17:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Quality is a subjective value, but the main rules of mapmaking apply; does the map adheres to the TF2 art style, does it not have too many class-dominated areas (ie. open spaces for sniping, short corridors for explosive spam) and has it any obvious gameplay issues such as open drops through the map or clipping problems.

For popularity, criteria could include the amount of servers that run the map, positive/negative reviews of it, and of course whether it has appeared on the TF2 blog. I do not think appearing on the TF2 blog is a must for most maps; the developers will rarely get round to noting a popular map, and should they take a liking to it they will probably make it official themselves during the next update. An issue here concerns controversial maps such as Achievement_idle, Mariokart or duelling maps. They clearly go against the grain of TF2 maps, so should the wiki introduce readers to them and potentially open them up to idling or other unbalanced forms of gameplay? Whilst popular, many players would denounce them and they are generally only run by specialised servers (more often than not are flagged up for being over 24 max players). Their appearence on the blog is even less likely a possibility. Therefore, applying the criteria, they should not be added to the wiki. Overall, the purpose of these guidelines is to instruct users whether they should add a page for an unofficial map. Considering these criteria, there is no doubt in my mind there will be any problems, except in the areas of controversial maps as mentioned above.--Focusknock s 21:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason to put maps up simply because they are high quality if people have never even heard of it. -- Pilk _(talk) 19:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that gameplay, quality and notability are all good things to look at when considering a map's place on the Wiki, but I don't think there is any simple standard or a set of rules we can write that would just blanket all of the possible additions. For each rule, there is always a map that the rule forbids that would actually be worth including, or a map that is allowed by the rule but should be left out. Examples might be Convoy and achievement_idle. Convoy doesn't follow the TF2 visual style but it still has its own page because it plays well and has a fairly popular map. Achievement_idle is arguably the most popular map in TF2 but, for obvious reason, it is excluded. Instead it might be better to judge each map on a case-by-case basis. When a map is added or suggested, its eligibility would be discussed on that map's talk page. After sufficient discussion, we would vote. A high majority, perhaps 80%, would determine whether it stays or goes. If the votes are even it just means that it warrants further discussion. The guidelines could be posted in the style guide to help ensure that the maps that are posted are at least more likely to be ones we want to include, but I don't think adhering to them strictly would work. In fact, I think the only rule we can enforce 100% is that if the map is featured favourably on the Blog, it should have an article. -- - _{(talk | contribs)} -- 07:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes gameplay and quality should be considered when looking at a map's article and a map in general however I really don't like some of these proposals to "notability". Yes, being mentioned on the blog is a strong case although, considering the above, should the Minecraft Payload map mentioned on the blog be included within the wiki? I had a go at answering this question although I was left underwhelmed with what I came up with. In summary though, when establishing notability of a custom map, editors should note:

* A Map's popularity. Although noting that stats sites like TF2stats.net don't take into account map updates (cp_wiki_b1 --> cp_wiki_b2, for example) so only maps in the "_final" and "_rc" stages get a proper chance to establish themselves on the list.

* Did well in map contests. See the competitive ctf competition TF2maps.net did where a number of ctf custom articles are from that particular competition. How "well" a map does to be included on the wiki will vary from user to user although including the top 5-10 is a good starting point imo with any maps with "interesting features" outside the top 10 should also be considered.

* Speaking of "interesting features". Maps that have a creative take on a game type (plr_panic, for example) should also be considered. Interesting landmarks should also be looked at as well.

* Used in leagues. I do know some people aren't into this competitive stuff but league admins rigorously look at and consider custom maps (as well as stock maps) when they look at changing or expanding their map pool so for a map to get through these tests they must be quite good. Gullywash and Obscure (hell, even freight prior to it's inclusion as a stock map) stand out in this case.

/two cents. --Leftism 19:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

 Comment When you guys have discussed and come up with the rules for whether or not a custom map is deserving of an article, make sure you put them in Help:Style guide/Maps. Please don't slap delete tags or remove articles until we have those guidelines in place - we shouldn't enforce rules that we don't have officially documented. -RJ 14:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Consistent video demonstration of weapons

• The idea: To have one consistent video style to demonstrate how weapons work.
• The objective: To demonstrate how weapons work (duh); firing animation, reloading animation, projectile trajectory, speed, damage, and simply viewmodel
• The benefits: Consistent, one video per page (quiets those wanting to add their own video), looks good
• The execution: Have a clear set of rules (minimum video quality, minimum video game graphics quality, must show damage values, no custom skins) and a clear set of steps (show item in backpack, show viewmodel, fire a bit, reload, kill someone, taunt); will make an example reference video if the idea has enough support. Make a page with a big table with all the weapons so that people may say "I'm going to do the video for this weapon". Have them upload the rendered video to some hosting site, then upload said video to the Official Wiki YouTube channel, and embed it on the page, replacing all videos already on that page. Be happy.

Discuss~

 Support Because is my idea! Also because I like consistency and solves problems with people wanting to embed their own videos and gives new meat to new editors. — Wind 18:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

 Support Consistency is always good, the quality between videos varies too much and they should be similar. Scatmanjohn 18:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

 Support I'd like videos of weapons if they're consistent as you put it. No crappy soundtracks or showing off what people can do with the weapon. They should have a strict procedure of what is to be shown which must be followed. Moussekateer 18:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

 Support It's clear and consistent. I especially like the "wanted videos" page idea so people know what is needed. - Alsoodani 18:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

 Support Sounds like a great idea. It must stay consistent however or else it won't reach its full potential in terms of usefulness.MR SLIN 18:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

 Support I like the idea of standardisation of every video on the Wiki. To stop debates about putting a video, then another, etc. But we have to keep the right to select a video instead of another one (you have to keep in mind everything I said about regulations on the IRC), and especialy not limitating one weapon/hat/class to one user, let everyone choose and we select afterward. Tturbo 18:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

 Support I don't have any specific or significant opposition to the idea. -- Pilk _(talk) 18:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

 Support As long as it doesn't encourage people to add videos where they aren't necessary I'm fine with it. -- Lagg 20:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

 Support Sounds lovely! I don't see why it shouldn't be accepted. --Vaught 20:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

 Support sounds like a great idea, just as long as it could be kept under controll and quite neat and tidy HyenaDip 10:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

 Support Sure, why not. I think good examples of videos would be the ones int eh Pain Train and Homewrecker videos. They are the stuff. -- OluapPlayer _(t) 10:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

 Support I've had some basic video guidelines on the weapon guidelines for a while now. Just basic stuff; no distracting things like skins, focus on the weapon, that sort of thing. If we can expand on that then great.--Focusknock s 11:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

 Comment Corey Peters replied with the non-training version of tr_target. I shall make a sample video, then the project IS ON, it's on, like, pain, train, station~ — Wind 22:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

 Support Seeing as I brought this up before with the fact that the user-made videos for weapons/taunts/etc. were all over the place in terms of quality, contents etc. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 22:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

 Support --Bri 01:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

 Support I like the idea, but it's probably a better idea to have one person do all the videos rather than have them done by different users. Even small things like font used, order of demonstration, how the camera pans, and so on, can be distracting. --LordKelvin 06:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Project started: Team Fortress Wiki:Weapon Demonstration — Wind 05:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Item List Nav

Hello, I would like to propose that we included a nav for all the item list pages, such as the wiki cap list and the community weapon list. I made a mockup here User:Scatmanjohn/sandbox which wouldn't be all to hard to implement. Currently it can be difficult to find the seperate lists and by including a nav you can easily hop from one to any other. Scatmanjohn 14:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

 Support I'm all for it. I'm a sucker for Navboxes, and this just seems like something we need to make finding the pages for who owns what alot easier. 404 User Not Found 14:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

 Support Sure, why not. — Wind 17:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

 Support Pretty much what everyone have said. MrSM 17:39 17 November 2010 (UTC)

 Support It's not to big, therefore you got my support. Strobe 18:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

 Support Good idea. --Picard ( | talk) 18:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

 Why not? Its not too ugly Natemckn 18:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)