Talk:Item quality distribution

The Rimmed Raincatcher must be updated in this template to denote that it can exist with Unusual quality. This change was added as part of the Febuary 14, 2011 Patch. SnowCanary 17:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Beak and Phantom

Here it is stated that Unusual Beak/Phantom could only found previously. That is untrue, they can still very much be found! Benvil 08:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone update it? Benvil 09:20, 4 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.

These lists will not be merged back into Quality for a few reasons. One of them being that they already were a part of it at one point and were split away as part of a compromise and due to the fact that these lists will grow, and there will be more made in the near future. Them being collapsed and "not taking any space" in the page is irrelevant. The fact is that they aren't related to Quality as far as documenting qualities themselves go. These lists document items that "can" have a particular quality attached to them. I quote can because as we've seen before any item can have any quality attached to it. -- Lagg 19:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge

IMHO, we needn't so small article. It will be appropriate to merge it with Quality. These articles have the same theme. - Grand-O-Rand 22:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

 Support You beat me there. Shock394 18:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

 Support Yeah, this merge proposal looks right to me Cthulhu1992 09:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

 Support I agree. Zoon-li 18:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

 Support Why not. -- Nightbox _{(t s)} 09:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

 No. They already were merged with that article at one point however we decided to split them for a few reasons, one that there is likely going to be more lists like this made and another being that we document the qualities themselves there. Not the items that "can" have them, since any item in the game can technically have any other quality. -- Lagg 10:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

 Support Go ahead and merge it. On it own it feels really lacking, and since the lists are hidden by default they won't be in the way within the quality article. Ailure 12:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

 No. I just gave the reasons the lists aren't in the article itself anymore, and this was not one of them. However it is also a valid reason because assuming a person has JS (what allows the lists to be hidden) enabled by default is not always a good idea on a wiki. -- Lagg 13:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

 Support DO IT -

This is a really pointless page it's basically the same topic as quality but in a different way. This should really be on one page for reader convenience. - Lexar - talk 11:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

 Nope.avi A wiki is not designed primarily for reader convenience. I must make it clear that these lists were already part of the quality page at one time but were removed for the reasons I gave above. Please read them. -- Lagg 11:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

WTF is the wiki for then? If Valve is going to crowdsource their documentation then obviously editors will make the wiki for the convenience of fellow users. I'd flame on and call you an idiot if I weren't so disoriented by your bizarre statement. Pez 14:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It's been made quite clear in mediawiki's design philosophy and that of wikis in general that they aren't designed to cater specifically to the casual visitor. This wiki is not a crowd sourcing project, it still is and always has been a project made for and run by the community. The only difference now is that Valve hosts it for us to make it less frustrating for viewers (like yourself) to use it without having to deal with advertisements. I suggest reading up on your wiki history and the history of this one specifically before hurling insults. -- Lagg 16:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Why yes Pez, why don't we document every small minor detail and otherwise non-notable little tidbit, let us have mile long worthless trivia sections! Cuz dats whut a weekee be faw liek ay billehbob? No. Go take a look at the old and now un-moderated Wiki site and look how well unrestrained editing has worked out there. And quite frankly, if you have to resort to insults over discussion of an article merge, I don't think you're really mature enough to have a valuable opinion. ~ Ath (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

What are you even.. I have no opinion on this article merge or on how detailed the documentation should be; I only addressed Lagg's blatantly incorrect statement about the purpose of a community wiki. And don't talk to me about mediawiki, I'm an administrator on the English wikipedia. And I'm glad I'm not one here if this bullshitting is representative of the community at large. Pez 19:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Please tell me what was incorrect about it? If you are a wikipedia admin you should know very well that the content is much more important than things that supposedly make it more accessible to the uninitiated visitor, and that pages should stay on topic. You have addressed nothing so far besides lies that someone told you. -- Lagg 00:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hah! I'm sure the Wikipedia administration would appoint a petulant little child incapable of civil discussion such as yourself. If you have no opinion on this merge then what are you doing here? If you really were the Wikipedia admin you claim to be, you would at least be competant enough to realise that such a (subjective) matter is for Lagg's own talk page, not here. ~ Ath (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Uhhh...

Cuz dats whut a weekee be faw liek ay billehbob? -Ath

I'm sure the Wikipedia administration would appoint a petulant little child incapable of civil discussion such as yourself -Ath

Can we not do this, please? As pointed out earlier, this is a community wiki and anyone can comment on whatever they want. I really don't approve of people being told not to even comment because they disagree with what is being said. seb26 21:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose: There's no need at all. Just a link from there suffices. – Smashman _(talk) 11:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose These lists frankly shouldn't even exist to begin with. Quality can very easily be change by Valve as we've seen recently; adding this to Quality would only serve to make that article a target for yet more useless edits. In light of recent events as mentioned, I'll go as far as propose for these lists to be deleted. ~ Ath (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the opposite, these lists are needed more then ever. Yes quality can be changed for anything at anytime by Valve. If these lists didn't exist how would a newbie to the game know which items exist in vintage quality? Before yesterdays update they'd have to look through 100 pages to see which ones were released before the Mannconomy update. And now without this list I bet you could not name which weapons were made vintage recently. You may not care about this information but a lot of people do. —Moussekateer·talk 20:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Should we also document what is "available" in terms of Community and Self-Made? Flukes such as the TTG Lugermorph fiasco? Vintage Max Heads (Biiig market for those) and 119 medals? A newbie isn't going to be interested or potentially even aware of the implications of Vintage, the actual audience in this case will be traders. ~ Ath (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Whether we like it or not trading is part of the game now. A player will want to know why other players value their vintage weapons more than unique ones, why he'll have trouble trading his unique one for a vintage one and why others are making a fuss over a vintage Max's Severed Head or vintage Bill's hat. —Moussekateer·talk 23:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see what relevance that arguement has to these lists. All of those examples you state are solved by the explanations on Quality, such as valuation of Vintage over Unique; not these lists. ~ Ath (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Because for one reason or another people are interested in knowing which items can exist in which quality, as seen here. An explanation of the quality is not helpful. —Moussekateer·talk 00:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. You stated that new players would want to know why their Uniques weren't as values as Vintages. Quality explains that, not these lists. Citing a recent SPUF thread in the immediate period is hardly a compelling arguement either, of course people are going to be curious just after an update, that doesn't mean there is a consistant demand. ~ Ath (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

And naturally the next question will be which weapons can be found in vintage quality is it not? That SPUF thread is relevant because clearly they understood the patch notes but had no clue which weapons were made vintage (myself included). What's wrong with giving people that information? —Moussekateer·talk 00:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

With the example provided the value of such a list is temporal, outside of the immediate post-release timeframe, such lists have little value. It comes down to it being "wait what has happened now?" vs "What is now Vintage", and I'm certain for the majority case the former is true. ~ Ath (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose This article has a different goal from the Quality page. Creating a new article is better than stuffing old ones with unnecessary information.  –  Epic Eric (T | C) 18:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose I like the idea of keeping articles very focused, and having a separate article for discussing item quality and listing every possible prefix for an item is a good idea. -- Henry Spencer 01:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

 Support You might as well do it. Pierow 23:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

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