Team Fortress Wiki:Discussion/Archive 6

Archive 6: January 2011

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

About The Milestone Unlocks for Weapons

We want to get appropriate formatting for the milestone unlocks right? but we don't want it to just blend in with the rest of the achievements. so i propose for the formatting that we do this (see here).... this is the best i could do im sure most others can do better its more of a suggestion. - Lexar - talk 04:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I like the milestone attribute but the image is too big, and probably not needed. It could just say Milestone #. —Moussekateer·talk 04:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Frequent LAGs

From time to time, it seems like the Team Fortress 2 Official Wiki goes through some rough lags. I just had one right now, and the oddest part is that such thing happens for about 5 minutes, and then everything goes back to normal. Does this happen to anyone else?  –  Epic Eric (T | C) 14:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It's Valve. It happens to the whole Wiki when that happens. Nothing to worry yourself about. Though it is indeed high time Valve took a look at whatever server the Wiki is on. *Envisions it resting on the top of a dirty coffee machine* -- Benjamuffin (talk | contribs) 14:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, what you are describing happens to everyone at the same time. The problem often occurs after a high-use template is edited.
— minip 08:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

1st-Person Viewmodels

I've noticed that the Warrior's Spirit, Ullapool Caber (both pre- and post-explosion), and Brass Beast all are missing the first-person viewmodel images that the others have. Is there a reason for this or were they simply oversighted? Stbeecher 18:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Org has been going through and uploading consistent first person images for every weapon and has been doing an excellent job at it. You can view his user page for his progress --Nate ^{(T | C)} 18:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Article Standardisation

Greetings. What is the Wiki's official policy regarding article standardisation? For example, maintaining a consistent structure on all weapon articles down to the wording, etc? I have attempted to standardise a number of articles in this way, but a number of those changes have been reverted (which is fine). The problem is though, with the changes reverted the articles have minor (and probably to 99% of people, unnoticed) differences. How much standardisation does the Wiki need, i.e. how obsessive should we/I be? An an example, juxtapose the first line for each of the Heavy's four Primary weapons (Minigun, Natascha, Iron Curtain and Brass Beast). One has "...for the Heavy class", while the others have "...for the Heavy". Which is preferred and does it matter if they do not match? Esquilax 22:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Weapon Sound Effects

I noticed we don't have the sound effects that weapons make on their pages. I think this would be something worth adding to the weapon pages, since it's a gameplay element. We also have the voice clips for all the classes on the Wiki. Balladofwindfishes 15:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

 Support It would help for the newer players to learn to recognise the sounds of particular guns. Eg 'When you hear this noise, that means a Heavy with a Natasha is nearby.' -- No-oneSpecial (talk | contribs) 09:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

 Nope The weapon demonstration project already does this. Adding the separate sound files would be unwieldy. — nVis (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

 Neutral I agree with everything said above. Yes, we do have the Weapon Demonstration Project for that, and yes, we should have the weapon sounds at hand. But I think there should be a better way to accomodate both. – Epic Eric (T | C) 21:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Reskin weapons and damage sections

The majority of reskin weapon pages (weapons that share identical stats to others) currently display their exact damage stats directly on the page. I'm proposing that they are removed from these pages and replaced with a simple line like "Damage is identical to the Bottle." (as is done on Frying Pan, for example).

I admit that there is some convenience to having the stats there visible on the page, however, I don't think it's a great idea. When presented with the stats on the page, it's easy for one to assume that the particular weapon has differing stats. To determine whether the weapon has any additional benefits the reader has to manually compare stats to the original weapon for themselves to find out. A simple disclaimer line would clear up the issue completely.

Removing the stats and adding the line would also reduce the duplication of damage information on the wiki. To display the stats on the page may be easier to the reader, but increases redundancy when a simple link can be provided. It's not uncommon to use the practice of referring readers to a different link. This behaviour is used throughout encyclopedias and websites because it's the most sensible solution.

seb26 [talk] 04:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Isn't readability something that should be encouraged? If you take a look at Talk:Amputator#taunt_healing_rates, it's clear that there are readers who would much rather have the information provided to them on the page instead of going from place to place with redirects. The same reason why "Trade Quests" are so notorious in videogames, no one wants to backtrack repeatedly to get something. For the sake of readability, it's an inconvenience to the reader. For those readers who may become confused, a disclaimer (in addition to the damage table) should clear up any misconceptions (although I am sure someone will find a way to complain). The disclaimer doesn't even need to be a redirect if the statistics are listed right there in front of the reader (this would solve the confusion of being sent to a page that has exactly what you were looking at). Just my two-cents for now. I await a rebuttal and/or a response from a third-party. -- Psychopath 04:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm in two minds about this. I do think users will assume the stats are different if they are posted as they are, even if there is a small disclaimer, but at the same time it is annoying to traverse to another page to view the stats. The ideal situation would be to have the stats 'hidden' somehow by default, and let the user open them up if they don't want to travel to another page. —Moussekateer·talk 23:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The Big Kill has identical stats too the Revolver, expand to view complete statistics and function times.
Attack Interval: 0.58 Reload: 1.16 Spread Recovery: 1.25 All times are in seconds. Times are approximate and determined by community testing.

How about that? ^Scatman _John (Talk | Contrib) 00:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Tis beautiful. I shall make sweet love to you. I think we have a winner, anyone opposing? -- Psychopath 00:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If everyone's okay with having the stats there alongside the disclaimer note then I guess we should have them, but I think the collapsible box is an unnecessary move. Just have them plain and simple on the page. seb26 [talk] 04:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

One final question, does there really need to be DPS listed for melee weapons? If not, I'm just gonna axe those because that value is compounded of damage AND function times, so for slower swinging weapons like the Ubersaw, the disclaimer that leads to the Bonesaw page would give an improper DPS reading despite the damages being the same. -- Psychopath 01:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding Class Emblem to Weapon Infobox

On the weapon info boxes, it has a section which describes which class the weapon is used by, in the format of "Used by: Spy or Scout or Soldier ect." I propose we change this to a format like the following, "Used by: [[Class emblem of appropriate Class]]" and that emblem would link to the appropriate class article. I have created a mockup of what the Dead Ringer would look like in this format on my sandbox for you to see it in action. MogDog66 _{t c p} || 22:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

 Support Or how about both? Spy — Wind 22:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

 Support Yeh Id say both. We already use both with class navs so it would just work well with the style of the wiki. So it would be "[[Emblem]]" Spy -- No-oneSpecial (talk | contribs) 17:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

 Support I think both would be good too ^Scatman _John (Talk | Contrib) 18:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

 Support You noticed one of my changes on IRC and posted this discussion. I believe that adding a class's icon to the left of its name is an improvement. Thank you for your input: Spy
— minip 23:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk pages in English(+exception).

As the title suggests, I am forwarding a discussion about the language in which the talk page should be. This will make some translators be angry and prone to refuse at start but, due to the increasing amount of languages spoken and translated on the Team Fortress 2 Official wiki, all talk pages should be available only(with a few exceptions) in the English language. This is for eliminating any doubts regarding warnings, insults, instigation to breaking rules, and so forth. This has come into my attention after some talk pages on the Wiki are mostly in their own original/natal language; not knowing what is happening is not something we should go by. Even if the pages are English, there should be the possibility of making the posts on talk pages English + the original language(French, Russian, Spanish, Romanian, etc.); to make other users more comfortable, though the talk pages will be a bit longer, there should be no problem in resolving misunderstandings faster; another advantage of this would be the fact that we could measure the English writing ability of our translators better. Nonetheless, every talk page should be at least in English, the original/natal language is optional.Vulturas 17:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

 Support I'll tend to support Vulturas position, but on a lighter note. I consider everything of major importance (we came to discuss that on the IRC when I couldn't give a Sp2 warning because the first one was written in russian), such as warning, suggestion or request should be in english. But between a community of identified translators (you can recognize who speaks your language with the userboxes) I see no reason to stop them from talking their language between them, as long as it's only about them or their translations, not about anything that could be useful to others on the Wiki. Tturbo _(T/C) 17:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a solution User:DrAkcel/Sandbox DrAkcel ^{(T | C)} 18:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

 Comment I don't think this is the solution to this issue, but I think the idea is good.Vulturas 18:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Map pages reorganization

I was browsing through the Map pages and I found quite a few inconsistencies. Should we set a standard on how the map pages should appear?

In which order the sections should be presented? I'd say:

• Introduction quote, taken from official source (blog or advertising blurb) or even a voice response, if fitting.
• Small description to describe the type of map, its setting, etc.
• Goal. I'm for removing this, see below.
• Introduction video, if present.
• Locations.
• Strategies, see below.
• Related Achievements, if present.
• Update history, if present.
• Bugs, if present.
• Trivia.
• Gallery. I'm undecided, see below.
• Control Point Timing. Should this be included somewhere else or left in its own section?
• See also.
• Notes and References.

Which sections are appropriate? "Goal" sounds a bit silly to me, the goal of a map is impled in its type. "Strategies" are fine, but in some cases (Dustbowl) are overly detailed, in others are barely mentioned.

Images: how to organize them? Is better having all the images in a "Gallery" section OR, especially for CP/PL maps, in the "Locations" section? Also how about having screenshots about on where the pickups are placed? --Kid Of The Century 11:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: I'm starting an example redesign here. So far I've removed the Goal section and tweaked the Locations one.--Kid Of The Century 14:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

A general layout would be beneficial. However, if people's reactions to the weapon guidelines are anything to go by, it will be ignored and you will spend most of the time fixing their bumblings. But oh well, go for it anyway.--Focusknock 22:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm a fan of putting the screenshots in the location section as close to the text describing them as possible. Personally, I feel that Badlands and Badwater have particularly good gallery organization. -Armisael 20:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

 Support Supporting integrating most galleries into the location section. One reason for what Armisael stated above, and another to help break down walls of text. I believe the Badlands article is a perfect example on how the map pages should be structured. ~Garticuno♥_(talk) 06:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Major updates nav

Now that a couple of editors who are more hard-working than me are getting the major updates up, I thought a navigation template to help travel between the pages might be a good idea. Try this on for size: User:NVis/Major updates nav Here's a link to it, as the one on the preview doesn't work. What say you, is this something we could use? — nVis (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2011 (cUTC)

 Support Im all in favour of this. ^Scatman _John (Talk | Contrib) 22:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

 Support I would like to see this new navigator implemented. Could you link the title to Patches#Major_updates instead of Patches? I think that this would be an improvement. Thank you for your creation.
— minip 22:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

 Comment It can be done, but as the anchor varies with language, it would require some additional tinkering. — nVis (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

 Support Yes, i like it. DrAkcel ^{(T | C)} 13:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

 Support After having launched No-oneSpecial and Problem to create the missing update pages, I was thinking of doing this nav. So go on nVis, I'd just like adding some icons where possible. But not all pages are created yet. Tturbo _(T/C) 13:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I added icons to the table, because I think it allows a faster and easier identification. We decided to put it up to vote, because nVis doesn't really. I's give ideas for missing icons in the code and we don't really like when there's two icons. What do you think? Tturbo _(T/C) 15:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

 Support F*ck yeah! How 'bout using a Packaged Crate for the Mann-Conomy Update (aAs people mainly refer to it as Polycount or Trading) and a Festive Crate (Or Key) for Australian Christmas (People'll remember that easily). Alternatively, you could use the "Polycount Budle" Icon for Mann-Conomy, and "A Bargaining Manne's" Icon for AC. Lancer anti-tank Rocket 16:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I had thought about using a key but the polycount bundle is a better idea. PS: Forgot to link to the code to see icons ideas. Tturbo _(T/C) 16:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

 Support Still in favour of this, even more now. Though it might be an idea to try and get both of the War Update icons on the same line. ^Scatman _John (Talk | Contrib) 16:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

 Comment They are for me. Maybe it's your Resolution... Lancer anti-tank Rocket 16:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

 Comment Yeah someone else told me that as well, must be my resolution. In that case I still support it anyways ^Scatman _John (Talk | Contrib) 16:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

 Support I'm in favour as long as we can have an icon for each update. It would look like a half finished nav if we only had icons for the class updates and halloween updates. If we can get some icons for the others then I'm all in favour for that. It's all or nothing :P -- No-oneSpecial (talk | contribs) 16:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

 Comment The draft with images looks a lot better now that each update has its own icon. I can implement Tturbo's version later tonight, and make the title link to the Major updates section of Patches for each language. Any objections? — nVis (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

 Comment The classless icon looks a bit weird, but I agree.Vulturas 19:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC) PS: I like how second one looks

 Support I know someone's not going to like the icons... Personally, I don't like that the Scream Fortress icon is at the end of the first line but the Scream Fortress link is at the beginning of the second line. They should be on the same line. That is all~ — Wind 19:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done Implemented on English pages. — nVis (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Mann Co. Nav and alphabetising

Hi, as it stands the current Mann Co. Nav isn't in alphabetical order in its Misc section. I went to edit this, however I realised that if I put this into alphabetical order, then items that should be next to each other such as the dueling badges would be all over the place. As such, I tried to re-organise the nav, and put items into further categories, specifically, Misc. Items, Action Items and Tools.

Is this ok, and how can I improve any mistakes I might have made? ^Scatman _John (Talk | Contrib) 20:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I personally think the Secret Saxton should come before the Pile o' Gifts, but other than that, should be left how it is here. There's no point in alphabetizing anything but the hats, since all but 2 of the weapons are poly set stuff, and in other places it just wouldn't make sense. -- Henry Spencer 21:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Pile o' Gifts is before the Secret Saxton in ToolNav, I checked whilst making this one because that seemed like the most logical way to me as well, though I wanted to see how it has been previously done already. Generally weapons aren't alphabetised either and are put into class order, all I have actually changed is the Miscellaneous section at the bottom, which I have split up into three as opposed to:

^Scatman _John (Talk | Contrib) 21:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

 For Ya I like dis new nav, more organized. —Moussekateer·talk 21:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

 Neutral It's more organized but also larger. Also, I know this is the case for the current nav, but why are hats before weapons? — Wind 21:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Because hats > items. Also, I definately like this. It's not too large, not at all. :3--Spyoncé 21:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

 Support Organisation: For the cool kids, by the cool kids. - 21:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

 Support I like this more than pie. -- Henry Spencer 21:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Fairly simple change so I've pushed it to the main template now. seb26 [talk] 21:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks :D. ^Scatman _John (Talk | Contrib) 22:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Individual Pages for Paint and Crates

Well, I think every paint and every crate should have their own separate page. I am, of course, aware that there is a list page for them. However, I feel it would be much more convenient for each to have its own individual page. For those who will say "The difference between paints is color, the difference between crates is what's in them", that is not the case. Paints have references, crates have history. As a regular user of the Team Fortress wiki, I find it annoying when I search a specific item: E.G. Australium Gold, and have a list pop up rather than the page. If the regulars here let me go forward with this I would be willing to create stubs/pages of all paint and crates, with dates, references, etc. Let me know what you think please! Theetah 21:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose Such a thing would create unnecessary clutter in the Wiki. All paints operate in the same exact manner except the color itself. Essentially, you'd have the same exact thing on each individual paint article except for a different image and a few words. Same thing with crates ... they all work the same way except for what can be found in them. There's nothing convenient in having dozens of pages all essentially saying the same exact thing. Vlad The Impaler _(t/c) 21:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you read it? They wouldn't "say the same thing"- they are all slightly different. Also I'm not sure what you mean by "cluttering the wiki"... You're not forced to read pages? Theetah 21:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose They would all say the same thing. What would be the differences on the 'Radigan Conagher Brown' and 'Ye Olde Rustic Colour' pages? You'd have 21 pages saying the same thing. It is clutter because there would be so much redundancy. —Moussekateer·talk 00:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose There is absolutely no reason for items with such minor differences to have their own pages. For all intents and purposes they are the same item. Each paint does exactly the same thing - colour a hat - with the only difference being the colour. Each crate distribute a random item when it is unlocked where that item is decided by the series. There's nothing more to say about them individually and it is certainly not worth explaining the names of every single paint colour just because a few of them happen to be clever. -- - _{(talk | contribs)} -- 05:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose Not enough difference. They're well enough grouped together.

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