Team Fortress Wiki:Discussion

create a new section

Imperial vs metric

I've noticed that a bunch of pages, it only mentions imperial. I think the standard should be metric, then imperial. On the English speed tables metric is excluded altogether, and I don't see a reason why. I've asked Tark to look at this but he didn't understand the table. Might be a minor topic, but this is what I think.
GrampaSwood (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd support the metric system over imperial anytime :> VasyaTheWizard ^{(talk) • (contributions)} 16:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Setting a standarized response to events of enormous importance?

Hi! Context - So, it's been a day since the now historical and infamous leak of source code for TF2 (the leaked code is from around late 2016 or early 2017), and as a consequence of it there has been a massive amount of rumors and misinformation regarding whether the live build of TF2 had its security compromised, specifically the remote code execution (RCE) exploit being possible (as we thought at the time). As it turns out, the RCE was false information (that we had learned about several hours later and didnt know at the time of adding/discussing banner) that was claimed by many people and we were alarmed by it, in response putting up a banner informing users of such possibility. In my overlook - it was a good decision, albeit it might be considered to be a rushed move.
My questions here are two - 1 - How do we response in the future? Do we, for example, accept speculation that entails potential security exploits/risks as facts for sake of "Better safe than sorry", until we get an official word OR someone with an engine knowledge to do an "expertise" for us or do we simply stay quiet on the situation? We could alternatively word any banners in safe way so that we show we lack confirmation for any information, but we're putting a warning just in case?
2 - if it isnt a security-risk exploit, but an exploit or any other event of high importance (remember Crate depression of 2019?) do we also put up an informative banner? excuse poor formatting
EDIT: also forgot to mention that another factor is of course how severe the situation is and how much time should be taken to make a decision - in this instance of potential RCE, the decision had to be taken immediately given how dangerous it is/was. - Goodjob (talk)

Discord vs IRC

So to settle this discussion, because it keeps popping up, we might as well make a discussion on it so we can point to other users.

I see no reason to step over, the only real thing that it has is a better UI that's less scary for new users. The support team for Discord is garbage, if you have a problem (E.g. someone posting illegal content or people starting a witch hunt) they just tell you to ignore the problem. I've reported both of the examples I gave, and got the response to block the user and/or leave the server. The situation we had with a user constantly coming back to harass us is one that wouldn't have been resolved as quickly as it had been on IRC. The only feature I can think of that would be more useful is an embed feature, which can also happen in a client. I find that Discord is less stable with servers, as there are the occasional outages that I have never experienced in IRC (Only time I get disconnected from IRC is when my own internet fucks up). Furthermore I think that Discord requiring a phone number to sign up now (If you don't have an account yet, you HAVE to include a phone number otherwise you can't get access) will limit access unnecessarily.

TL;DR: Discord doesnt have any features I see needed, and it's just more of a hassle.
GrampaSwood (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I think we should move to Steam when Valve fixes the history auto-deletion bug (if that's really a bug, I dunno), it's kinda-like Discord but you don't need to register it, and most (if not all) users on the Wiki have Steam. What you said about Discord needing a phone number to register may not be true, I just entered on their website, clicked on Register and it haven't asked for a phone number (unless it's after I input an e-mail and password), unless that's a planned future "feature". Personally I don't like Discord, I only use it to talk with close friends, so it's most likely that I wouldn't enter the Wiki Server either, but that's just me. - ▪ - 20:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

After you create an account you go into the software and it tells you to put in a phone number with no way of removing it.
GrampaSwood (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I guess it's even worse like this since it doesn't ask prior to your registration (like how it "should" be, but honestly it shouldn't need to write a phone number to begin with). - ▪ - 20:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, I didn't mentioned, the only downside with Steam (other than the chat history deleting itself) is that Steam servers are very unstable. I've lost count how many times I had conversations interrupted with someone (on Direct Messages, not even on a Group) because of Steam servers. - ▪ - 20:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Some of us can't access Steam or Discord at work. — Tark lm(pt-br) 20:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. - ▪ - 20:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Very Strong Oppose To Discord -- a platform constantly issuing false bans at random and worsening their software with every update is completely unreliable, not to mention the extra points Grampa put up. I can expect there's a reason many wikis still use IRC.
I am neutral on Steam, it has a couple differences from Discord but is ultimately really similar in terms of features (and we can also guarantee a Steam account when the wiki is for a Steam game). I already own a Steam Chat containing several other people on the Wiki, so it would be easy to simply add more people as segue. However, Garbielwoj I should tell you that the message deletion is not a bug, as Steam is intended for regular conversations and not archives, you should not be holding out for a "fix". However, this would not be much of a downgrade as IRC does not archive either so we could continue logging to the website.
Ultimately, I don't think there's any huge glaring problems with IRC. Sure, you can't post images and such, but it's easily workaround, we've been using it for years, and there's no glaring problems/micropurchases/proprietary other problems. In short: either Steam or IRC is fine with me at least. Naleksuh (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

"IRC does not archive either" - IRC does log chat. It has since the start. However, I initially thought it archived everything. Upon checking, it seems you can only go about 3 years back in the archives at any time. The site won't load anything past a certain point in 2017, so for example you can still view May 1st, 2017's logs. Unless this is just a technical issue with the site or something? I swear you used to be able to go back way more before. 404UNF ^(talk) 00:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

As Naleksuh said, logging is done by us, it's not an IRC feature. It should't be a problem if we ever decide to move to a better service.

You can't see pre-2017 messages because the database got corrupted. — Tark lm(pt-br) 04:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Naleksuh and Swood here, very strongly opposing Discord. It's a closed, proprietary platform that is extremely unreliable with its constant outages, the likes of which I have never experienced on IRC myself (could depend on the client's internet connection?). Somehow they manage to make it worse every update and it's already starting to look and feel Facebook-ish. At any point in time, they can decide to do literally anything to your accounts/servers (remember how it didn't use to require a phone number?), and you'd have no choice but to comply and bend over. What if they locked your account and started requiring photos of your ID? Not to mention their constant controversies - remember that youtuber guy getting banned for personal drama with a mod? Remember how they said that they don't consider pedophilia a violation of their ToS? With just that alone I personally consider Discord a disgusting service to stay away from. A modern IRC client beats Discord in every aspect - it's free, open source, anonymous when necessary, decentralized, you can self-host servers, run your own custom clients, and you don't risk getting booted off the entire network because a mod disagrees with you or something.
/endrant, please excuse any strong language I used here. I promise I'm not Richard Stallman's alt account :> VasyaTheWizard ^{(talk) • (contributions)} 05:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Pedophilia has been against their ToS since the start, but it was specifically furry cp (called "cub") that they would allow (Their staff is known for being almost all furries, the guy who responded saying that cub was fine had a furry pfp as well). That, in my opinion, is worse. Also to add to Discord's bugs: Sometimes sets already read messages to unread which is very annoying/confusing (Did Discord bug out again or did someone delete their message?), muting certain categories and collapsing them will randomly make them uncollapse and add a read message notifier. If we were to switch to Discord, I'd expect a lot more users because people join all kinds of Discord for stuff they might be interested in, this might lead to the server slowing down (If the Subnautica Discord announces anything in their announcement channel you can't see it because the channel won't load due to an overload of users trying to go there).
GrampaSwood (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Changes to where SCM links should be

Some cosmetic items can not be marketable in their unique form. (ie the Team Captain) Most of these do not have SCM links in their infoboxes. However, some items which can not be marketable in their unique (non killstreak) form (ie the Conscientious Objector) do have SCM links. Should all items that have a marketable quality have this, or only items that can be marketable in their base form? InfernalShroom (Talk) 03:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

We've added the market buy button just a while ago, so it's normal that some pages weren't updated yet (as we don't have many editors actively checking them). — Tark lm(pt-br) 04:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Source code on the wiki

With the recent source leak, how do we handle source code on the wiki? I've generally accepted it as being allowed as long as there is no link to download it and it's just a picture, but I don't know if there are any legal troubles with this. If we do allow it, how can we verify that it is real TF2 source code and not just something that looks like it quickly written?
GrampaSwood (talk) 08:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The problems start and end when you redistribute code with a proprietary license. There's no trickery or technicality around it. I don't want Valve's lawyers putting their spiel on our talk page cause both them and us knows that would be the silliest thing. So avoid putting any of the code on the wiki, even if alleged, even if screenshot of monitor displaying screenshot. Thank you for bringing up question though. Probably needed addressing. -- Lagg 18:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Reverting image deletions

I don't know if this is a bug or a limitation of MediaWiki, but I attempted to restore some deleted files (images), and it seems that these are not coming back (I checked the pages for it, and the images are not showing up), it only restored their page, but not the file... Looks like they were deleted forever:
Looks like the only way we could get those images back are hoping for Google cache or WayBackMachine. - ▪ - 19:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it's because RJ recently did a purge of images. Pretty sure it deleted any images that could be rolled back I guess.
GrampaSwood (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Well I managed to get the pictures back by visiting https://dev.wiki.tf/wiki/Killstreak_Kit, I didn't even knew dev.wiki.tf was a thing, I found out searching on Google for Killstreak Kit images, then I went to someone's UserPage on dev.wiki.tf and searched Killstreak Kit from there. - ▪ - 20:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Featured pages in other languages

How featured pages work in languages other than english? Only english pages gets featured, but theres featured article section on every main page? Are we suppose to update local main pages to match same features article as english one? And even then, the featured page is sometimes outdated in different language. Do translated fetaured pages are also featured? I propose complete removal of featured page section on main pages other than english, and replacing it with something else. FiatSeicento 09:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Dereko is not sure about "Do translated fetaured pages are also featured", however, it's possible to update them in Template:FeaturedArticle (for example, Template:FeaturedArticle/zh-hans ), and there is no need to remove them. Like you said, featured page is sometimes outdated in different language, you can keep an eye (by using watchlist) on it to keep updating, if you'd ilke to.

09:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Change to trivia guidelines

There's been multiple instances in the past where I've undone trivia which broke the "no speculation" guideline. Personally I think this guideline is a good guideline since it prevents false info, however I believe it needs some changes. I've undone trivia which I personally did see the connection with (See the Mercenary Park fiasco. TL;DR: helicopter looks like a real-life one, but because no source I removed it). A change to include very obvious things or pointing out similarities with what something may be based off of (E.g. like the helicopter examples. Maybe include a {{cite}} or similar notice) or just allowing them to be moved to a "notes" section would suffice. I personally wouldn't mind either or maybe both. I do think something should be done regarding this. GrampaSwood (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Note that loosening criteria for what qualifies as good trivia is a floodgate as it is. After a while it'll just end up being cloud watchers putting their favorite pet notion into the game. -- Lagg 19:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Loosening criteria for what qualifies as good trivia can't open a floodgate if you know what to let through. For example, before the eighteen RED and BLU UberCharged avatars were released by Valve (nine for each team respectively), two users ::on the FacePunch forum, Occlusion and Fearlezz, created a set of avatars very similar to what Valve would later release. Some things to keep in mind are:

• For every Valve title that was given a set of avatars, Team Fortress 2 was the first to ever be given three avatar sets. Every other Valve title has only ever received one set of avatars (L4D being the exception with special infected avatars).
• Before Valve even ever rolled out these avatars, Robin Walker was seen using one of the avatars created by Occlusion and Fearlezz.

Do you think this was an intentional addition to the avatar pool to show Robin Walker's appreciation for the avatars created by Occlusion and Fearlezz? Or do you think this was all purely coincidental, and thusly, should be thrown out under

the tense that since Valve never made an official statement on the matter, it's all speculation and theory crafting?

Synth (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Synth: This thread is specific to adjustments of Trivia policy and process. I don’t intend to discuss unresolved examples here. Any removal of a contribution is a de facto open invitation to the contributor to discuss it on the remover’s talk page (unless the remover starts a discussion with you elsewhere). GrampaSwood’s talk page would be the place for your discussion or you may take this subject to my talk page and invite GrampaSwood.

M I K A D O 282 ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ (talk) (Help Wanted!) 18:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the common sore point in Trivia submissions and reversions is the question of speculation. "Guesses" and "conjecture" are rather easy to define, but the speculation is confusing to many; to both clueless posters and "subject experts" (generously speaking). The clueless posters really haven’t contributed anything, and their post may be reverted with gentle explanation, but the contributions by subject experts (assuming notability and relevance) can be a positive contribution. The challenge is for the reviewing editors to figure out which is the case for each contribution. The clueless poster may rant about the revert, even with gentle explanation; that is the simple nature of the beast. The subject expert gets a different impression, especially those that are on only going to make one post ever on the subject of their joy, if not profession. The subject expert is not going to understand how their practiced, maybe even professional, knowledge is speculation. In short, the word "Speculation" in the edit summary alone is very insufficient in either situation. The noob will not know what speculation means (yet), and the expert will know they are not speculating. The clueless posters, ideally, should be led to an understanding of the wiki’s processes. But, IMO, the subject expert should be engaged to provide substantiation to the reviewer. Moreover, if there is nothing in the edit summary (except "Speculation") or the OP’s talk page, there is no way for the patroller to know if there was any other collaboration.

So, rather than suggesting loosening of the criteria, I suggest a focus on process. The published "Removing trivia" guidance is rather binary, either keep or remove immediately. What if it might not be Trivia? Maybe it is not necessary to remove every non-Trivia (almost Trivia) immediately?

My Personal Trivia Patrol Practice is to first to assess the contribution for any virtue and either leave it in the Trivia if it is good and fitting or adapt it for inclusion elsewhere, collaborating with the OP if currently active. The present heading "Removing trivia" pretty much says that removal is the option, but I envision more of a Reacting to Trivia Posts toolkit, including the practices GrampaSwood suggests, or maybe a section or annex on how to "fix" a contribution that is missing substantiation.

M I K A D O 282 ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ (talk) (Help Wanted!) 18:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

What with all the new stuff found in the source code leak (as well as some of the reslist leak stuff), I think the stance on speculatory content in general needs to be changed a tad to not be so anti-speculation. I try to refrain from getting too speculatory in some of the cut/experimental content articles I've been creating based on things in the source code, but sometimes all you have to go on is a single string (see Throwable weapons#Snowball for example) so in cases like that I feel like some speculation on intended functionality wouldn't really hurt provided it were properly labelled as such. Something like "The following information is purely speculatory based on the existing evidence we have at this point in time", just as an example. 404UNF ^(talk) 01:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Something found in the source is not speculation, but guessing why something is in the code is speculation, and unnecessary. We have places and style for Unused Content. Speculation is not the only constraint to apply here. Candidate content for Trivia and Unused Content still must also be notable and generally interesting. M I K A D O 282 ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ (talk) (Help Wanted!) 12:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I suppose this type of thing would be better suited for a more cut-content-focused wiki like TCRF instead of here. 404UNF ^(talk) 03:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia vs fandom

If wikipedia can be used, but so can fandom. Which one is preferred? It's been changed on the Tsar Platinum and Starboard Crusader twice now, but I don't know which one is better to use. I personally prefer wikipedia, as fandoms might not be kept up-to-date.
GrampaSwood (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

That and wikis maintained by and for a fandom have a tendency to start crawling up their own butt with fanfic at some point as the Silent Hill wiki's weird ass has proved on at least one occasion. Wikipedia is the one with citations and accuracy checked by people that care purely about those things for their own sake. If it were me I'd go with wikipedia unless the reference was so obscure it's not anywhere but fan wiki. Pretty much what I do anyway. -- Lagg 23:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I would prefer to not have outbound links in the middle of the article besides to wikipedia (and even then there would ideally be some type of indicator), even if jojowiki.com is better than fandom, it should be treated like any other external link Naleksuh (talk) 07:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Cut content update note question

Regarding articles I've created for the Jungle Inferno weapon leaks such as Viewfinder; In the update notes where I've listed their removal from the game files, I've added a little "wink" of sorts with the addition of "Oops." to the end of the note "[Undocumented] Files for the Viewfinder were removed from the game". as the files for these leaked weapons were pushed accidentally by Valve with the moving of many weapon models to their new models\workshop directory in the update. There was no actual patch note from Valve about the removal of these files to my knowledge so it is an undocumented change and I feel a little wink like this doesn't hurt but it's been contested I guess you can say, so I'd like to get some consensus on this. 404UNF ^(talk) 07:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

•  Remove "Oops" is absolutely non-encyclopedic editorial commentary, and possibly a bit speculative. It should be left to Valve to say that. I try to hide such in comments or talk. M I K A D O 282 ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ (talk) (Help Wanted!) 12:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

•  Remove Pretty much what Mikado said here. I also doubt that many readers will be able to understand the allusion, and as already stated it is non-encyclopedic commentary and adds no value whatsoever.  Wookipan (talk | contribs) 20:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

•  Remove I'm usually pretty positive when it comes for suggestions and such, but I have to agree with the others here. I'm fine with a patch stating that the unused content was removed, however the "Oops" is not necessary, in a way, it ends up being an opinion from someone who has written on the article/item itself, however most readers doesn't associate individual users on articles, so most will probably think that it's an opinion by the Wiki editors as a whole, I think... - ▪ - 20:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

 Remove Naleksuh (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

{{achievement name}} template?

The game has 520 achievements. How about an {{achievement name}} template to easily translate an achievement's name on a page instead of having to go through files and pages to find the localized names? - BrazilianNut (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Speed table changes

Can we please change the speed table to be a more normal template? For some reason it's very confusing and uses maths to calculate the speeds (At least, that's what it seems like). And uses imperial on the English page exclusively. This makes it very hard to add anything new or change it. Can this template just be changed to something like the {{Class health pack and overheal table}}? It's much easier to add something.
GrampaSwood (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Not completely unrelated, but, speaking of speeds... I made this topic on Talk:Medic#Medic.27s_speed. - ▪ - 22:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)