Talk:Poses

Weapon Associated - Gunboats

I'm thinking this should be removed for the Soldier. The weapon isn't actually in the shot. Otherwise, we could just add "Gunboats" to the other two Demoman shots below. Open to discussion StarYoshi 22:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Unless there's any objections, I'm removing it. --Jetamo 10:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Look at the Soldier's boots. Shock394 05:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Weapon Associations Revisisted

This is a question I'd like to present simply because I can't think of a really clear-cut answer. Some of these poses (e.g. many of the Soldier ones) are directly tied to a weapon, or have a weapon in the actual model/on the TF2 blog. However, some of these (like the Scout pose) were not directly aimed at marketing the Scattergun so much as the double-jump-crouch bug. I'm just thinking we need a sort of standard: 1) Do we include a weapon associated only if the weapon was a part of the actual pose? 1a) Should we only include weapons if the pose was made for the marketing of that weapon? (e.g. Scout pose) 2) If a pose is related to a weapon (e.g. Demoman poses for Victory/loss), should the weapon be added to the pose. 2a) If a pose is lacking a weapon, should the "Weapon Associated" column stay empty?

What do you guys think? StarYoshi 18:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources of poses, and criteria for being on this page?

I'm not sure what the point of this page really is...the images are merely close (but still not entirely accurate, most noticably) recreations of the poses used on the pages, rather than the actual poses. It seems like a lot of needless work, and comes off more as a showcase of some guy recreating a bunch of official images with the models. Also, there's no real sources for the "unused" War Update images with Soldier and Demoman. Or if there are, they certainly aren't on this page. I feel like that's very necessary.

But what I want to know most is, what exactly should be on this page? I feel like it COULD be useful, but it's very non-specific as to what should go here. Would the classes as they appear on the class selection screen go here? Their official pictures or HUD images? Or should it only be limited to images Valve posted on the blog or for update promo pages? I feel like the biggest reason this page is so incomplete is simply because what it's trying to collect is very unclear. It'd be fun to fix this page up if I even knew what was supposed to go here! Evang7 03:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Source of the poses: Game files. They are all in Source SDK. Criteria for being on this page: being on the game files. -- OluapPlayer _(t) 03:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at the sources on the images and discovered this, which is probably something I should've done before commenting. I think I will make it clearer on the main page, however. Thank you! Evang7 03:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I'm suggesting this page for deletion.

I'm not certain why we have this page, but it serves no notable purpose. What say you? Is this page worth removing? Zoolooman 21:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, I assumed it was referring to humiliation poses by the title. As is, it serves no purpose whatsoever.--Subtlefuge 21:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what this page is for either ^Scatman _John (Talk | Contrib) 21:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

 Agree I can't think of an article less trivial than a list of poses used by the blog... —Moussekateer·talk 21:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

 Agree Blast it, doc! — Neo_Player ^{(t ▪ c)} 21:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose This page has potential in my opinion. I don't think deleting it is a good idea. -- OluapPlayer _(t) 21:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm opposed to the deletion also, I don't believe the deletion reason has much merit in this instance. seb26 [talk] 21:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose I oppose deletion. While trivial, these poses have been used to promote important parts of TF2's history. If anything, they should be reimplemented into the articles they promote (WAR! Update, post-war update, Demoman/Soldier/Heavy article, etc). Sorry, forgot my tildes. Sven 21:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

 Agree Unless someone put those poses in the respective weapon pages, i don't see what's the reason of having this page. -- Swordz (talk | contribs) 21:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose This is a stub. More so, this page is intended to be expanded on to include more than just the marketing poses of the game. We've been debating how far to go with it, but the people involved in it haven't really had time to do so. Furthermore, you've given no other reason for its deletion other than it "not serving any notable purpose." I could run over to Skins page and say that it "serves no notable purpose" for the very reason that it doesn't cover anything overly important (by the logic being applied here). I'd rather discuss what's "wrong" with the page so we can work to fix it before we nuke the page entirely. StarYoshi 22:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh, calm down StarYoshi. The purpose of the page wasn't clear to me, and I only suggested to remove it after much consideration. Once I spoke with seb, he informed me of what the page was intended to list, and I agree with him--it is both notable and interesting. I think everyone who voted for deletion thought the article was a bit of nonsense. Without context, the poses seemed arbitrary, and the only criteria for disposing of arbitrary info is its lack of notability. Hence the succinct reason I gave, and hence the hasty agreement of the first few people to look at the article. I switch my vote to oppose my own request. Zoolooman 22:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No intent to come off as harsh. On my side, it simply sounded as if you were deleting it just for the sake of doing so. We were glad to see this page come about, and having grounds for deletion being that "it serves no notable purpose" sort of riled me. Apologies :) StarYoshi 23:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose Doesn't merit a deletion. Like stated, it holds bits and pieces of TF2's history and the like. I didn't even know there was a demoman victory pose until I looked at this page, so you never know! --Vaught 22:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose No. This article contains interesting and useful information. I didn't know about some of the poses either, until looked at the article. mcComBat ^{(t • s)} 00:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

 Result of discussion: Keep. -- Pilk _(talk) 09:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The preceding discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Combine with class taunts pages?

The article is a stub, and I don't see it expanding any more. I'd like to put each pose in to the taunt page for each individual class. Like the Crazy Legs would be moved to Scout taunts, all the Demoman poses would be moved to Demoman taunts, each under a ==Marketing Pose== secion. Yay or nay? SilverHammer 02:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I guess it's not a stub anymore, SEB... Regardless, I think the content would be a bit more fitting with the taunts page. I get these having their own page, but it'd be a teeny bit more neat to have them filed under their own classes I think. Either way, thoughts? SilverHammer 04:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Them being here makes sense, and class pages are too packed already seb26 07:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope.avi Most of them aren't taunt poses anyway. --Cooper Kid (Blether · Contreebs) 01:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of this page?

Well, apparently from above, there were previous suggestions about deleting this page. Considering that the discussion is years old, I'm opening a new one. I support the deletion of this page, Marketing Poses are no longer in the game files anyway, and the poses are not used anywhere in the game either. I think all the page and related images could be deleted as well. ▪ - 19:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)