Team Fortress Wiki:Discussion

create a new section

Beta Trivia

We're getting quite a lot of trivia/info on beta items/maps etc. in the main articles. Good or bad?

 Oppose: The entire point of the beta is changing stuff often. We don't want to update the stats every day. --CruelCow ^(talk) 01:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose: Totally agree with CruelCow's point. —Moussekateer·talk 01:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you were about to introduce a system where you vote on trivia to see if it'll pass. Anyway.

 Oppose:I agree with Cruel Sentry 01:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

 Very bad! Everything can change overtime, so there maybe be some attributes that doesn't come in the final version. Shock394 01:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

 Comment I think we should at least have a main article covering all the beta changes while keeping beta info off from the other articles. That way we have a tidy, easy way of accessing and editing beta-related info instead of single paragraphs scattered all around the wiki. Stab ! 02:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose: beta stays in beta. Beta is by definition not permanent and subject to change. You could keep beta in their old articles (ex. Fire retardent suit), for the more important changes/versions. You could simply mention there is a beta version, but even that is iffy.--Kurathedog 02:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose with reserve: In terms of practicality, just as CruelCow said. However, adding a special "beta" section on the item main page that covers every (stats, trivia, etc.) aspect involved in beta could be more manageable.--Kid Of The Century 15:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose: Too much can change within the beta that the main articles could end up hijacked talking about beta stuff.but 17:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Beta Weapons

Hello, looking at the Beta weapons article I was thinking, would it be a good idea to move the beta weapons page to say, Closed Beta Weapons and start a new article for the public Beta Weapons? Currently it is a bit ambiguous as to what beta these weapons featured in and I think this would go some way to help. ^Scatman _John (Talk | Contrib) 18:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think there should be a separate article for the closed beta weapons. - LingoSalad _(talk) 21:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

 Support Yeah, there is nothing to indicate the difference between which was Closed Beta and which is Open Beta to new players. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sentry (talk) • (contribs)

See: Talk:Beta_items. Netshroud 00:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Non-playable character slight edit.

While I was browsing the site, I noticed a little...inconsistency I guess. There is a section under Non-playable characters for the two "unknown" men in the portrait over the fire place. Well If you look closely and the large version [1] you can read under the portrait it reads Zepheniah and Silas Mann, 1827. I'm new at editing and I was unsure about what to do, delete the pair of unknown individuals section, or edit it or what. Help would be appreciated. --Luke5515 21:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete this section and merge that info into their profiles. —Moussekateer·talk 21:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I got it. Thanks for the heads up, man. – Smashman _(talk) 21:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I just wasn't really sure what I was doing and didn't want to screw it up. --Luke5515 22:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You should have really given it a go. You've got to learn sometime, so just give it a go. If you mess anything up (Which is unlikely), we can fix it up and let you know what occured and you'll learn. – Smashman _(talk) 22:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

And if you mess up, just burn the corpses. Scalene 16:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Shuting doen the unofficial wiki

How come the unofficial wiki isn't closed yet? It's an absolute mess there. Can't we convince the new users on the first wiki to come here? --Hobbes348 22:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing we can do I'm afraid. We don't own the hosting and the current owner isn't open to the shutting it down. The problem is, it's still first in the Google rankings, so it'll still get traffic. We've tried a few ways to get their traffic over here, but nothing's stuck. Nevermind. It'll die. Just leave it. – Smashman _(talk) 22:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

---Bummer, ah well. Wonder how long it'll last.--Hobbes348 01:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Weapon table layout

As per suggestion by Vaught in here, should we change all the current layout of weapon tables?

Weapon	Weapon Name	Kill Icon	Ammo Loaded	Ammo Carried	Damage Range	Notes / Special Abilities
Stock	Flamethrower		Fire: 200 Air blasts: 10 (same reserve)	N/A	Base (Max): 139.4 / sec. Crit (Max): 418.2 / sec. Afterburn: 6 / sec. × 10 secs.1	Secondary fire blasts compressed air which knocks back enemies, redirects enemy projectiles, and extinguishes flames on teammates, using 20 ammo per blast. All reflected rockets/grenades/arrows will inflict Mini-Crit damage.

Or

Primary

Weapon	Kill Icon	Ammo Loaded	Ammo Carried	Damage Range	Notes / Special Abilities
Stock Flamethrower		Fire: 200 Air blasts: 10 (same reserve)	N/A	Base (Max): 139.4 / sec. Crit (Max): 418.2 / sec. Afterburn: 6 / sec. × 10 secs.1	Secondary fire blasts compressed air which knocks back enemies, redirects enemy projectiles, and extinguishes flames on teammates, using 20 ammo per blast. All reflected rockets/grenades/arrows will inflict Mini-Crit damage.

— Neo_Player ^{(t ▪ c)} 01:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The second one -= M-NINJA =- 01:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

 Agree I like the second version. Looks way better and cleaner, and it makes more sense that the way the tables currently are. — Neo_Player ^{(t ▪ c)} 01:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll take whats behind door #2! (I like choice 2) Natemckn 01:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

 Comment Add a line break between "Flamethrower" and "Stock" and I'll support. :D --Leftism 12:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to add that break line between the two. Fixed! --Vaught 12:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

 Support Yeah, I was going to say swap Flamethrower and Stock around but I think I like the arrangement you've done there. Anyway, you get my support now. :-) --Leftism 12:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

 Support I like it, though I think that it could still be better (as in, more efficient in terms of vertical space) Stab ! 15:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

 Support I like it too. (The second one) mcComBat ^{(t • s)} 16:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Any more feedback for this or can I go ahead and begin my conquest? :o --Vaught 18:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Do eet seb26 [talk] 20:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to upstage him but i did improve the table a bit take a look at it hereLexar 22:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I like the way you organized the damage and ammo, but I don't like the weapon image being so small. Put it the size that currenty is and center vertically the text in cells. I like with yours, looks cleaner. — Neo_Player (talk ▪ contrib) 04:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Class hats/misc nav merge

I propose that the hats navs be merged as they look quite silly separated in their current state. I have prepared a mockup here of the new nav, along with the old navs for comparison. —Moussekateer·talk 07:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

 Support Fuse them and name the new section "Cosmetic". BLUH 07:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

 Support Agreed. Misc are hats anyway, they're just hats that don't go on your head. -- Netshroud (talk | contribs) 07:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

 Support Not much to say, agree. — Neo_Player ^{(t ▪ c)} 12:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

 Support It'll clean up the Medic and Pyro templates quite nicely. :D --Leftism 12:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

 Support Iunno..on one hand, you can make obvious connection with the hats you want to see the page about by looking at it, but if all 9 classes were to follow this, it'd probably make the page a great deal larger and longer. I'm no code master, so what about independent collapsed sections, with the class you're looking at as open? Like you're on the Nappers Respite page and scroll down and see the Pyro hat section open, but you want to see the Demo hats. You just uncollapse it and find the hat you want. Figured it would save space and all that. Just my two scrap! Hurk, I thought too much into this. This seems to work just fine! Sorry for the brick of text! --Vaught 12:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

 Support Much cleaner and doesn't just leave the oprhaned item floating out there. Balladofwindfishes 13:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

 Support Looks way better. mcComBat ^{(t • s)} 16:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

 Support Sounds like a plan to me. -- クリザル_0 00:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

 Support Looks great! - LingoSalad _(talk) 00:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

 Support the redo looks alot cleanerbut 18:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

steam treasure hunt

Hi I'm new however I have plenty of previous editing experience. I just wanted to give to the TF2 Wiki heads up about the Steam Treasure Hunt, which will have TF2 unlockables: the Bounty Hat (for completing 5 objectives), the Treasure Hat (for completing 15 objectives) and the Hat of Undeniable Wealth and Respect (for completing 28 objectives). Here's a link [2]. Hope this helps. Smashbrother101 00:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Great Steam Treasure Hunt -- Netshroud (talk | contribs) 00:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Netshroud. Just double checking to make sure everyone was informed. : D Smashbrother101 00:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Title Capitalization

Almost every article is inconsistent with title capitalization. Almost every hat has "Previous changes" with a lowercase c, but weapons have "Previous Changes" with a uppercase one, and that's just an example. Should we capitalize all the major words in titles or only the first one? — Neo_Player (talk ▪ contrib) 05:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say a lowercase c. As that's what we've been going with. – Smashman _(talk) 21:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Crap wiki, once again stealing our stuff

So they copy pasted our MediaWiki:Common.css including WindPower's font hosting. They've also got the few external files that we've got in there. So I say we do a few things. Change the external images that they're getting to stuff about their wiki being awful and to come to us. Then they'll get them. And let Wind move the font hosting, or at least have his server ignore theirs. They're officially getting beyond the pale. – Smashman _(talk) 21:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm? – Smashman _(talk) 21:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with them ripping our content. It's better them having our moderated high quality content than a load of useless information. Thinking about end-users of course. -RJ 22:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I'd rather they came here, and I doubt Wind likes them sapping his server either. I wish I could come on the damn IRC. – Smashman _(talk) 22:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It would really be a matter of changing the filename/path on the server, then editing the stylesheet here to reflect the change. Then it would be broken for them. Problem is that they can just as easily keep switching it, and the font file is so small it barely dents his bandwidth. Especially considering it's unlimited. -- Lagg 22:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yup, well if we change the images that they get to something about coming to us and how their's is awful and then upload the normal ones in a different place and edit the stylesheet. Barely dents his bandwidth? Ok, but nonetheless, we don't want to be helping them. – Smashman _(talk) 22:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Well... granted they are "the competition" for web traffic, but they're not exactly "the enemy"... they're just misguided enough to think that their unofficial wiki is worth maintaining. I think if we start directly fighting with them, there could be annoying repercussions of some kind in the future. Just my $0.02, though. --Mar 22:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Change List of maps to a sortable table

I propose that List of maps be changed to a sortable table such as User:Pseudo/List of maps --Pseudo 17:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose I prefer the current one personally, separated by objective; much more organized than a giant list. Stab ! 18:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

 Support The proposed list still has them sorted by objective type, so it seems pretty well organized to me. --Mar 22:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

 Support The new proposed list seems very simple to navigate and read. NihonTiger 23:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose Don't get me wrong, you did a good job on it. I just prefer the current layout. The subheadings make it easy to jump to any game mode quickly from the top and the divisions are just that much more obvious. Laid out as it is, you don't really need any further sorting. -- - _{(talk | contribs)} -- 05:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

 Support It's still easy to navigate and sorted by objective. Either way, definitely support adding the extra information like in your table E00 15:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

 Neutral I like the idea of this, and love how you added the creator information and the release date to it. Only reason I don't fully support this is of how large the page seems now. In its previous style, its smaller size is less daunting and I am not sure you can make it smaller while still having this style. K-Mac (Talk | Contrib) 17:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

 Update I altered the page so that each game mode is listed in the "table of contents" at the top, to quickly jump to that game mode's place in the table. I also made an alternate table that has a heading row for each map type. One potential issue with the alternate version is that when sorting by something other than "map type" or "filename", the heading rows will all be at the bottom of the table (or the top if sorting descendingly). For that reason, I prefer the version without the heading rows, but it is an option. --Pseudo 09:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible new design for class pages.

User:Zoolooman/Demoman - Pilk helped me design this new version of the Demoman class page as an example.

Look over the page but ignore everywhere that it says "Zoolooman." This is apparently a result of the dynamic parts of the page. Any comments? Or do you think this is a good design to replace the current one? In other words, would you like to see all class pages made more like this userpage? Slimmer, more efficient, meaner. :D

Tiny changelog:

• Removed basic strategy section, merchandise, all class avatars, and all class hat nav.
• Vastly compressed the class weapon section, since weapons already contains a full list of weapon comparisons.

Zoolooman 17:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

 Support I like it. Looks great. If this is implemented though, the weapons page should have a table sortable by class to make comparisons easer. K-Mac (Talk | Contrib) 17:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

 Support But you're missing the taunt attack -- Firestorm 17:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Does it need the taunt attack? That seems weapon specific to me. Zoolooman 18:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

 Strongly oppose Nothing personal, but to me it looks like you just deleted lots of relevant info about the class (weapon stats, basic strategy, taunt attack, etc.) without making any significant redesign or "compression" of the article to account for the space you freed up with the deletion. I do agree that the "all classes" hats and misc items seem unnecessary in a class page, but everything else should be kept. Stab ! 22:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

 Eh Doesn't really look all that different to me, except half as big with half the info. Toomai Glittershine 22:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

 A tad too far?: I agree that some of that stuff had to go (all class hat nav, etc), but cutting down the class weapons section seems unnecessary to me. In my opinion, having that quick reference on each class's page is rather helpful. -The Neotank ( | Talk) 22:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

 Some good, some bad: While I like that some of the fat has been trimmed (all class things, basic strategy (that one was quite some controversy)), some shouldn't, like the weapon attributes. Consider the use case where someone wants to determine their preferred Demoman loadout, where would they do that conveniently? Having a bit more detail for weapons wouldn't hurt, especially the Primary one in the case of the Demoman (Grenade Launcher icon taking the whole width of the page seems a bit lonely). — Wind 23:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

 Slightly Oppose Weapon info is very, very relevant to the class pages. Especially when trying to choose items that work well together. Having to slog through the weapons page to find all Demo weapons, persay, would be very inefficient. (also I just wanted to use  Nope.avi) <3 TheMedik 23:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

 Neutral Same opinion as Neotank. -- OluapPlayer _(t) 00:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

 Strongly support We don't need THREE different places all outlining the stats of a weapon. If you want to compare weapons, that is what the page Weapons is for. The rest of it is fluff that nobody who reads the class pages is actually interested in knowing. 03:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

 Neutral I'm just no sure yet. --EvilDeadFan 16:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

 Support I like the leaner and cleaner look of the page, but I agree that it makes weapon comparisons more difficult. Splitting the currently unwieldy Weapons page to class-specific pages might be something to consider, since comparing weapons between classes doesn't make a lot of sense anyway. NVis 18:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

 Support I think bigger pictures are good. This wiki isn't so serious and must be more attractive (it's right word?) then wikipedia. - Juffin 18:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

 CommentEh... where do you see the bigger pictures? The size is the same in both versions... Stab ! 22:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

 Support I like it - it's small and looks great. --Parseus ( | talk) 06:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

 It's all little... big Not that I hate it, but the weapon section is a little ugly... and the page feels short without all those other things. But I mean, it's not like I have much say here anywase, right? : D Smashbrother101 23:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

 Neutral It has been simplified and definitely looks cleaner, but it depends upon whether or not readers would like to have all of the information on one page for convenience (e.g. damage, etc) or would be happy to view multiple pages in order to acquire the same information. The current design allows the information to be obtained at a glance however, and in my experience wiki users are usually interested in specific information and wish to obtain it quickly. As such, hosting all the information in the one page, while a little cluttered, if efficient for the user as it means that only one "click" is required. Esquilax 23:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

 Neutral I'd like to see the weapon stats as a quick reference. I don't think a user will want to navigate to a different page to find simple weapon stats Balladofwindfishes 01:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible Vintage Statuses on Item pages?

meh, its a bad idea, ignore this bit Chelsea 16:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Chelsea 17:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary since all items (except promotional, excludes Lugermorph) released before Septemeber 30, 2010 turned into Vintage, they can still get that same item but in the Unique version TL;DR  Nope. Shock394 03:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I know but like I said, not all items before the mann co update are eligable for vintage status, plus it seems likely that more items may receiev it, just thought it would make it clearer? Chelsea 16:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree, it's unnecessary information. All hats before the Mann-conomy update were made vintage, with the exception of promo items. The Lugermorph is the only exception to this. Doesn't justify a vintage-able attribute. —Moussekateer·talk 15:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose While it is interesting, it's not needed, and the items that shouldn't be vintage but are will muddle things up. (Bill's Hat, GMSM, etc.) TheMedik 15:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)