Team Fortress Wiki talk:Community topics notability guidelines

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

My thoughts, as per request

These are my thoughts about the current guidelines, I've gone over the sections I've had something to say about. The others I have had no issues with.
GrampaSwood (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Community event notability

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but "include at least as much linkage" to me feels like an essay demanding at least a certain amount of words. It would likely result in having way too many links just to meet this demand.

Custom map notability

You can't really measure player count per map properly, I think popularity can be measured much more easily on many servers have that map in their rotation (servers that actively update them, that is. E.g. Uncletopia or creators.tf). Perhaps find out somehow if those server hosters have any numbers on how often it's played (Given that those people vote for a map). I also personally think that maps in mvm gamemodes should not be included, as they've all (so far) been pretty much exclusively been tied to events from the same people, which would be equal to having one set of servers run the map and no one else. If they're being ran by multiple servers, however, I'd be more towards including them but as it currently stands I don't really see that happening.

Custom MvM missions

I believe this flies directly into the face of "the wiki must not serve as a website for the mod/event", as this stuff should either be information available on the website and not the mainspace wiki (I find custom user space more acceptable as it's simply using the wiki's resources to help them, which is only helping them). I think that hosting it here is similar to functioning as the website of the project. I personally believe no custom missions should really be featured on the wiki, seeing the current state of missions a lot of them just aren't finished and it's relying on a few people to be updated as they have the knowledge on how to document this stuff.
GrampaSwood (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Community event notability

" feels like an essay demanding at least a certain amount of words

That was not the intent. The statement was rhetorical, and, therefor probably misplaced. My intended point was that making several links to the events site it not a bad thing if Valve thinks it is a good thing. I was reacting to the supposed guilt of Community event editors linking too much to the event site, only to be surprised that Valve's promotions of Community events make links to several parts of the event site, at least recently. You could make it more appropriately NPOV. Maybe, since Valve gives all of the links, we should just link to Valve's promotion?

Custom map notability

You can't really measure player count per map properly

"Properly" can be a matter of opinion. As we have discussed, Valve's Community Servers is readily accessible and has a real-time-accurate measurement of both server count and player count for each map (on servers visible to Valve); but, yes, measure of servers or players a day or month is hard to come by, I would think it would only take a script kiddie to measure. But you make a point. I wouldn't know, but you might, servers could be remotely surveyed for their rotation? Or just scan Valve's Community Servers periodically.

It has been easy enough on my restricted schedule to see that of the nine oldest Custom map pages, only Convoy is usually hosted and actually played by anyone, the other 8 are only rarely hosted, often none are, and I have never seen anyone playing; IMO only Convoy has any evidence of notability, the rest were, or probably were, self-promotions.

they've all (so far) been pretty much exclusively been tied to events

• What we have seen so far is that between Creators/Potato events is that the Potato MvM maps are being hosted,
• During the present Creators/Potato event:
  • At the moment (the down slope on the daily cycle) I see only three people on Valve Pass Time Servers, while there are 72 players on Potato MvM servers (yes, about a thousand grinding Australium on Valve MvM).
  • And I am looking here at 14 Community servers with Mannworks, all empty.
  • And the only Potato Powerplant running at the moment is not on an Creators/Potato server.

Even deeper into the evening decline:

* achievement_idle... : 29 servers, 62 players

* tr_walkway... :22 servers, 34 players

* trade_minecraft... :54 servers, 148 players

* trade_plaza... : 51 servers, 164 players

Custom MvM missions

Look, I never made any bones about being the person to write policy on Missions, I never use the "official" Mission sections. But, I have seen enough that it seems that people who care about the Event Missions are working to improve them ( I have no idea what is a well or badly done mission page looks like ). But, for people who do use the missions, I can see that these even missions fill the useful requirement, and I can see that for the Potato events, the missions would be similarly useful. If moved to the User space, then these lose any usefulness, unless an underground User directory is implemented.

But, I can see where that also looks like we are doing the event's work for them (assuming that making the Mission pages is their work). If there is anyone that we should be doing their work for them, for free, it is Valve, right?

M I K A D O 282 ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ (talk | contribs) (Help Wanted!) 02:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

For the maps, I find it a lot of effort to scan the server list multiple times a day for several days straight just to find out if a map is played enough. You could be at the wrong time (timezone-wise or just looking at the times the map isn't played much), which (from my pov) is the most accurate way to gauge player count (I don't count teamwork.tf, because I don't believe that somehow the over 100k players more that Steam itself, SteamDB, and Steamcharts report are all bots or just entirely non-existent fabrications). Something that might be relevant is third-party website download statistics, which also shows more over-time importance (but not really current relevance). As for the decline of other maps: achievement idle and trade servers (Trade minecraft and trade plaza being both the same kind of "trade_" maps) were really popular back in the day and you'd be able to find hundreds of servers full of ppl who played it (Falling under the "Once notable, always notable" part). You simply can't measure tr_walkway with publicc servers, because it's an offline training map. Furthermore, I also think it's not really fair to compare it to Valve's own maps, because they're only notable because they're officially part of the game.

As for MvM missions, they're pretty much what they themselves should document as part of the event, because nowhere else is the mvm_mannhattan mission with the huge trollfaces gonna be run other than the limited-time April Fool's event. They should be either on the potato.tf website or the potato.tf website should have a link to the user pages containing the mission info. (These missions have also proven to be a big burden to the wiki, as there have been NSFW sound clips, copyrighted songs, or other such things hosted on the wiki that shouldn't be).
GrampaSwood (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Covering MvM missions under the event page itself would make a really subpar experience for readers, same for user pages (that said, user pages wouldn't be allowed to be linked from outside sources either, the wiki is not a hosting site). Valve is already promoting such events in an official-like way, so I think it's fair that players expect the wiki to document missions in detail.

As for copyrighted material, this is the staff's fault for not properly moderating uploads. — Tark lm(pt-br) 15:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The reason to compare with Valve maps is this: It is quite clear that there are 3 to 4 orders of magnitude (I, too, am a physicist) of differences in popularity between Valve-hosted game modes; just as is it quite clear that no community maps are nearly as popular as the most popular valve maps. While this last is true, is it also clear that certain Custom maps are more popular that certain Valve Maps some community events can have more participation that multiple Valve modes combined (yeah, the least popular ones).

One third of player time is enough to us to cover here somewhat; but your argument only means that the 1/3 estimate of off-Valve play is a low-ball.

tr_walkway, yeah, you’ll have to be the judge on “off-line”. I only “grind”ed walkway online.

trade_minecraft.. != trade_plaza… "Trade minecraft and trade plaza being both the same kind of "trade_" I don’t see it, many maps are trade maps but I wouldn’t think of making a “Trade maps” article. Within seconds of spawning on either, it is obvious they are different map families with different applications. I never understood the massive popularity of trade_plaza…; it was never really much more than a place to stand around and trade, and I never traded in game. I only used trade_minecraft to grind achievements because many had been set up for that; so, would you say that minecraft and achiement_idle are the same kind of "achievement" maps?

Sorry, really have to leave.

M I K A D O 282 ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ (talk | contribs) (Help Wanted!) 04:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion for community missions and associated maps

So I've already done this before with some previous events, just to prevent a sizeable amount of red links that currently exist on Operation Canteen Crasher, Operation Digital Directive, Operation Madness vs Machines, Operation Mashed Mediocrity, Operation Memes vs Machines, Operation Starched Silliness, and Operation Titanium Tank. As you can see, the newer operation pages look much better because there aren't any indefinite red links.

My suggestion would be to add a guideline that says something along the lines of:

For any maps and missions that belong to a big community Operation event, all maps and mission pages have to be completed on user space before being moved to mainspace.

This is already done for big projects that people want to undertake. It prevents half-made projects from ending up on the wiki and having a half-created project left for us to either finish or clean up. This would solve most of my issues with the missions/map pages (but not the notability issue on maps and the "serving as a host" issue for missions).
GrampaSwood (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Custom MvM mission pages

Regarding custom mvm missions, they shouldn't have a page, the current templates are not ideal, even for translators. See this template, I don't think I need to elaborate more: Template:Mvm_upgrades_gettysburg (this is just for one mission page btw). In my opinion, this information is enough. Was there any discussion about these templates in first place? Mgpt (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Custom MvM mission move

Back from a hiatus in TF2, and I've been thinking during that hiatus that the custom mission pages should indeed be placed elsewhere. Fortunately, the Potato community now has a separate wiki for custom content, and I would be happy to move all custom mission pages from this wiki to that wiki, to settle this once and for all.

My only concern, other than the sheer amount of time needed to move all the content, is that the custom mission pages rely on this wiki's MvM templates, from mission infoboxes to navigation templates. May I request to reuse the code templates for the other wiki so that the move would be smoother and quicker?

Bot Rot (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Chiming in a small bit: essentially, what this would mean for us going forward, in terms of how the articles operate, is that instead of our currently proposed set of mission hosting guidelines, we would no longer be hosting content here, directly, and mission tables for operations would hotlink out to the SigMod Wiki pages through our new plain link template. I'll endeavour to be as thorough with that as I can be. My concerns are:

• I would still prefer that all the mission articles be prepared completely, before we hotlink them out, for the sake of cleanliness in the template.
• Would you also be willing to host mission content for Moonlight MVM there? If we are to go through with this, it has to have parity with both groups, I would imagine. We all have to be on the same page.

— 01:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Due to lack of manpower for this, my current concern is moving all the custom mission pages first, and possibly filling the pages for Canteen Crasher and Titanium Tank. In addition, I am unfamiliar with the Potato tours past Digital Directive, and don't get me started with the April Fools missions, so my recommendation is to not hotlink the campaigns post-Digital Directive for now.

Once again, due to lack of manpower, currently hosting Moonlight MvM missions for the new wiki is not possible. In addition, the wiki right now is advertised as a Potato.TF wiki, so that might bring some confusion for both communities.

EDIT: After some further discussion, I'd personally welcome Moonlight missions for the SigMod wiki after a rename some discussion with Moonlight members interested in adding their own mission pages. But until that happens, the SigMod wiki will focus on Potato.TF content.

Bot Rot (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I realize your question was about asking permission to use template code to host mission pages on the SigMod Wiki; that's a discussion point that someone of a higher jurisdiction than me will probably have to address. I wanted to make sure that, since this is a wide-reaching policy change, we were all sure of what was to potentially happen in regards to it.

As far as I understand it, if template code permission is granted, we'd hotlink out mission articles when they're completed on the SigMod Wiki, rather than being responsible for hosting content here. We would only hotlink out from the mission tables when every mission in a campaign is completely documented; this would largely just be an evolution of our current policy, where missions are only to be on the mainspace once they were all prepared. At the moment, the only Moonlight operation we host content for is Operation Starched Silliness, which would need to be figured out, as that's content we're already hosting from another group.

The rest of the discussion will have to be had by the staff, I think -- but that's the proposed changes so far.

— 03:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Porting template code over should be fine, but the most we can do on our end is add the Potato wiki to the "External links" section, similar to how we handle regular links. Hotlinking to specific articles on a third-party website is not an option.

Regarding the proposed guidelines, could you specify what exactly is problematic for your use case? I tried reaching out to some users for feedback to make the transition more accommodating, but I received no responses.

Our goal with these guidelines is to avoid situations like Operation Canteen Crasher, where some missions have pages, some don't, and some are incomplete. We don't want to outright forbid or discourage the inclusion of such content, we aim to encourage consistency and completeness. — Tark 03:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Had some clarifications with Tark to clear up on misunderstandings and discuss more on the proposed guidelines. If custom MvM content can indeed stay in the wiki, then I have no problem with the current version of the proposed guidelines, and there would not be any need to perform the move after all.Bot Rot (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Legacy content

The memory dims. I might have written this note. If I did, my intention was maybe one of two things:

1. Legacy content is any content existing on the Team Fortress Wiki before assessment; an easy concept but maybe too broad -- I don't think the intention was to give any sort of degree of amnesty to any page that got in before we built the wall. OTOH, maybe it meant that the Policy of no deletion without [specific] discussion should still be applied.
2. Legacy content is any content that has been on the Team Fortress Wiki for a Long Time. If I wrote this note, I might have been thinking particularly about the custom map pages made before 2011, mostly transferred from the Nos Unofficial Wiki in July 2010. It can be seen that the Great Editors of the Past were aware of these custom map pages and maintained them. Why? We may never know. Maybe they were hugely popular or innovative (cf. Convoy), but that was not written. (If you could prove that you had managed to survive in pre-Revolutionary Paris for a full year without getting caught, you were granted residency.)

I leave it to the rest of you all to decide. Maybe this could be removed, maybe it should be promoted to a section.

M I K A D O 282 ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ (Contact Mikado282 (SM)) | (contribs) (Help Wanted!) 14:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I believe it was my inclusion, actuall! Since our goal with these guidelines is to address the sheer amount of content currently being developed by the community, it doesn't really make much sense to go on a deleting spree for content that has been here for over a decade, even if they don't really fit the new guidelines (Hi, Mechanical Engineer Update!). This is the first time (?) we've tried to make clear rules for the inclusion of such content, so I'd like to at least acknowledge and honor pages that were created many, many years ago and let them remain accessible.

The note about "legacy content must follow the style guide" is a leeway for us to avoid hosting barebones articles that already don't fit the guidelines. While incompleteness is not a reason for deletion, these pages have been here forever, don't meet the new guidelines, and honestly, probably won't ever be finished. — Tark 14:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Policy is not style, exactly. If you find it is not in proper style, the job is to fix it. If you find it is not compliant with policy, the job is to tag it for deletion discussion, or alter it so that it complies, if possible.

Yes, it is policy that style be followed, but it is a fixing thing, not a deletion thing.

IMO.

If someone >wanted< to fix the style of a legacy page, should they feel any constraint from doing so?

M I K A D O 282 ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ ⊙⊙ (Contact Mikado282 (SM)) | (contribs) (Help Wanted!) 15:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with Tark here, a lot of old content has been here so long there's not much point in deleting it. {{Cleanup}} could be added if it needs to be cleaned up, but if it's too barebones I think a deletion is fine (but if someone wants to take a shot at improving it I think they should get the chance even post-delete).
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Final criticism (hopefully)

The only change I'd like to see is to have MvM missions featured in at least 2 events (preferably from different organisers). Otherwise, every event will have all the missions that they have in each tour eligible, which is an overwhelming amount.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't see this happening, ever. Community campaigns usually run contests (which we don't cover) to decide which missions will be featured in the event itself, and, as I understand, each one is a completely new batch of missions.

Having different groups run the same mission is also quite difficult. There aren't that many groups for this to happen, and naturally, groups have different goals.

This requirement would essentially be a barrier, as the requirement itself seems quite unrealistic. Not that it can't happen, but that it likely won't. — Tark 23:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Understandable, the whole thing about having every mission page be ready before moving over to main space should also partially prevent what I mentioned anyway, so it's not a huge loss.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Weighing in on this, I also agree that the requirement wouldn't happen at all, because missions are almost never re-ran, especially not by both of the two existing groups.

But just to clarify, there aren't so much contests to determine which missions get used anymore, so much as a more-standardized pass/fail judging queue system, where missions are uploaded to a test server by an individual, and then judged by a selected panel. Public open contests were really only a thing in the earliest days of community MVM submissions. — 09:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

That's pretty much exactly why I wanted it to happen, for a custom mission to be truly notable I feel like it shouldn't just be featured in a single event.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) 09:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Then at the end of the day, none of them will ever be. I've played during every single one of these events, and the only time missions were re-ran (outside of archive servers in the downtime, obviously) was when they explicitly re-ran all of Titanium Tank as a whole operation. The key draw of these events is that they are entirely new missions each time, like all of Valve's official operations were.

Though it seems as though your key issue is just about an influx of articles, which doesn't really make sense to me. The missions would be part of an event that's already deemed to be notable, as per the guidelines most everybody already agrees to, and some operations do already have full mission tables. Are you not in favor of documenting any of them? Community mission articles have been going on for quite some time, and I don't remember you being too terribly concerned at the time, outside of April Fools missions. — 13:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

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