Team Fortress Wiki:Discussion

create a new section

Help with the Model Viewer.

I was wondering if anyone could explain to me how to change the colors of the hats in the model viewer aswell as adding anti alising and better quality to the class models.

I'm trying to add wanted images of the classes wearing hats.

Edit: Nevermind. I found it the tutorial on the wiki.

Axel 15:37, 1 July 2011 (PDT)

Antialiasing can be enabled in your graphics card settings for hlmv.exe. SiPlus 07:08, 13 July 2011 (PDT)

Achievement translation

I'm wondering, when translating achievement pages, are you supposed to translate achievements and descriptions, or leave them be and simply translate the rest of the article? Freakie 08:07, 3 July 2011 (PDT)

For example spy achievements should be translated at Template:Dictionary/achievements/spy. Putting {{Spy achievement list}} on a translated page will then show the translated achievements. --CruelCow ^(talk) 08:27, 3 July 2011 (PDT)

My question was if they should be and not how, but I get it now. Freakie 08:46, 3 July 2011 (PDT)

It depends on whether those are translated on STS or not. Descriptions are always translated, by names are case-to-case depending on the language.  –  Epic Eric (T | C) 08:51, 3 July 2011 (PDT)

Yes, I've barely just found that out. Thanks for the responses. Freakie 10:58, 3 July 2011 (PDT)

Set default "Have" status to "No" on Template:User weapon checklist?

With the influx of new TF2 players since the game has become free, I don't think it's safe to assume that everyone has all of the weapons (even from the first class updates for each class). Why not change the default "Have" status on the User Weapon Checklist to "Don't Have" since the hat checklist already follows that standard anyway? It seems like it would be more effort for the new players to mark what they don't have rather than what they do have. -ButteredToast 05:08, 5 July 2011 (PDT)

 YES! This makes a lot of sense, especially considering the fact that many of these newcomers don't necessarily know how to edit a wiki, so this would help them a bit. At the same time, it brings forth the question on how soon we would see these new players in the Wiki. Who knows? TheTimesAndQueriesOfMyAss 05:42, 8 July 2011 (PDT)

There doesn't seem to be much interest in the topic; I guess the users here don't really care about the user weapon checklist. I went ahead and implemented the change to the weapon checklist template, and changed the documentation for the template accordingly; the "have" status is now set to "no" by default on all of the weapons. ButteredToast 06:18, 13 July 2011 (PDT)

Item rarity possibilities formatting

I'm not sure where to post this, but I think that we should include possible item rarities on item pages. An example: A Killer's Kabuto can be regular or vintage, while a Samur-Eye can be regular or genuine. I think this is important, since items keep gaining rarity possibilities.. Pardon me if I'm being ignorant of something obvious here .-. Anonynja 19:04, 7 July 2011 (PDT)

The page on that topic is Item quality distribution, although I don't blame you for not being able to find it, it's not linked from too many places apart from Item quality. seb26 19:06, 7 July 2011 (PDT)

Ah yeah, I figured there might be a general page like that. My suggestion, for the sake of convenience (in viewing, not implementing..), is to add these item qualities to every item page. It could just say "Rarity: R | V | G" or something, in the same vein as Price/Tradable/Giftable. Anonynja 19:12, 7 July 2011 (PDT)

Something like that is being worked on ;D but it'll be a little while before it goes live seb26 19:15, 7 July 2011 (PDT)

Sexy. I look forward to seeing that format :D Anonynja 20:01, 7 July 2011 (PDT)

Development stages for community items

Ive been thinking, i followed and watched people on the polycount website as they were preparing for upcoming polycount update, they showed their progress throughout their experience and alot of people were really interested in it. What im suggesting is adding in pictures and information about there progress on the item page itself, Now i know that there are SOME pictures scattered over the wiki of various item progression like the Tomislav for instance, but what im suggesting is an entire section on the page called development or something. Its just an Idea and id love to hear what you think of it. Ihasnotomato

A small number of Valve made items (like the Hunstman) also have decent development histories that might be worth writing about. It's something that would require some work to put together, and not every page would need it, but it may be a good idea. Balladofwindfishes 05:27, 11 July 2011 (PDT)

Status of TFC deathmatch maps

Yesterday I saw alot of articles (created by same person, Sniper-Combine) about Team Fortress Classic Deathmatch maps.

I see no reason for covering them on the wiki. Every GoldSrc map can be played in TFC, will we cover all maps for HL, CS, DoD, Gunman, DMC, Ricochet and tons of mods on this wiki then? This wiki is TF wiki, not GoldSrc wiki and not even Half-Life wiki. These maps fit into Combine OverWiki, but not into Team Fortress wiki.

I've marked them for deletion, but today my deletion flags were removed, so I decided to open a discussion here, because talk pages are dead.

Your opinion?

--SiPlus 23:39, 12 July 2011 (PDT)

I already had a debate about this with some Cructo guy :> Yeah, they should be deleted. And who removed deletion tags? DrAkcel ^{(T | C)}

K-Mac did. Check my talk page for his "reason". SiPlus 00:46, 13 July 2011 (PDT)

K-Mac's reasoning is they were popular, correct? If so, I believe they should be subject to the notability guidelines that were drafted up and forgotten about months ago, here. - 07:11, 13 July 2011 (PDT)

He also said that he believes that the maps were in pre-Steam version of TFC. But the maps were in all HL mods including CS, DoD, DMC and Ricochet too because all HL mods inherit HL content. But the maps were not intended to be played in TFC (making the maps not related to TFC), and were not listed in server creation menu. SiPlus 07:22, 13 July 2011 (PDT)

If the map can be played in TFC without any changes to the map and it's found in the game's coding, there is no reason we shouldn't cover them. As far as the game is concerned they are official maps, regardless of the original game the maps are from. I'm not entirely clear on how you play on them though. If they require a console command, maybe they might not be needed (but then again, Itemtest...). I really am not clear on the officiality of the maps. Are they even found in the coding of the game? Balladofwindfishes 07:15, 13 July 2011 (PDT)

But the maps are intended for Half-Life, and are not in game coding. If TF Wiki would follow this reason, then we should cover maps like cs_office, op4cp_park, dmc_dm1, capturephobolis and rc_arena. SiPlus 07:22, 13 July 2011 (PDT)

Oh, well if that's the case, they are no different than custom maps in my opinion. I thought maybe they were in the coding of the game, but since they are not... they aren't TFC maps. Balladofwindfishes 07:24, 13 July 2011 (PDT)

They are never mentioned in TFC, they're inherited like Alien Grunt model, Half-Life logo sprite, Adrenaline Guitar music, Snarks sound and so on. SiPlus 07:26, 13 July 2011 (PDT)

Please refrain from taking anything personal, or making personal comments towards me or other editors. There are HUGE differences between maps such as cs_office, op4cp_park, etc. and those maps deathmatch maps from Half-Life. First, the half-life maps were DIRECTLY playable. Second, the maps you listed are of mods of Half-Life. This means they were on the same level as TFC was. Keep in mind that all mods at one point they required Half-Life to run. The mods might or might not be able to run the half-life maps (it entirely depended on the mod), but the mods could not directly any other mods' maps. cs_office could not run on TFC much like 2fort could not run on CS. The same holds true for most other mods, even if only for a little while. Things may have changed now, I don't know. I can say with a high degree of certainty that prior to these mods being official this was the case. Third, prior to steam being released in 2003, these maps were extremely popular in server rotations. If I had to guess, I would estimate between 25% and 50% of all servers ran at least 4 of these maps in the server rotation. This was a substantial amount of servers. In TFC's prime, it was second only to CS for number of servers available and players in game. If anything, they should go on the future Custom maps (Classic) page (it is on a rather large to-do list for the classic section). Such a substantial part of TFC's history should not be neglected. I argue that we have to include material that was true at one point. These articles do not lower the Wiki's standards by any means and the information regarding TFC is scarce. Don't take my opinion as offensive because I am really open to discussion on this, but I really have not heard any convincing argument against inclusion at some point. These maps would do well on the custom maps page that will eventually be made. My main concern was taking such rash actions as to blanket delete a section of the wiki without talking it over first. K-Mac (Talk | Contrib) 08:45, 13 July 2011 (PDT)

I have to go with what RJackson said. The maps themselves were very popular, despite not being "official" TFC maps. I haven't played TFC lately, but I'd have to assume if there's a way to host a server for TFC nowadays, that people are using these maps on their servers. Death match has been a mainstay in FPS games for ages now, ever since the good ol' days of Goldeneye 007 on the N64. Not everyone likes Attack/Defend, so obviously the Death Match style, and these "death match maps" would be very popular. 404 User Not Found 07:32, 13 July 2011 (PDT)

So upon checking out a list of TFC servers, the outlook for these great maps is very bad. A small majority of the servers are on 2fort. Then there's several servers using gimmick maps like conc jump maps. Obviously, back in the early days of TFC, one would have to assume all maps were equally popular, however I can't seem to find any "historical" server records. 404 User Not Found 07:36, 13 July 2011 (PDT)

Well at least one server's used Snark Pit >_> 404 User Not Found 07:39, 13 July 2011 (PDT)

Intention of the map and current popularity of the map is irrelevant. If the map was at one point popular, I feel it meets the standards of being included at least as a custom map. Obviously TFC is not as popular as it once was, nor is it as easy to play these maps. I do not understand the difference between valve making a map not intended for a specific game but being popular and a custom map maker making a map that is popular. Point being, almost no maps are "popular" now, but since they WERE at one point, their inclusion in the wiki is interesting and informative for players of this mod. K-Mac (Talk | Contrib) 08:52, 13 July 2011 (PDT)

Here's the thing, if a map or maps were incredibly popular, considered the defacto standard set of maps, or otherwise made a big footprint in the game's history then it is worthy of being documented here. Do not turn the argument around and say that map A is popular now, because that meets none of the afore mentioned criteria and I think all of you know better than that. Disregard what game binaries were used and what content was carried over from HL. This was commonplace when Quake and HL mods were made. -- Lagg 09:21, 13 July 2011 (PDT)

For once, I fully agree with Lagg :3 — Wind 10:01, 13 July 2011 (PDT)

Current crate # template

It seems like there are many places in the wiki that have to be updated when a new series of crates come out. I think that we can make this better by having a template which has the current crate name. (For example, Template:CurrentCrate/1 would be 23 at the moment, /2 would be 24, etc.) Please tell me what you think. R4wrz0rz0r 16:53, 13 July 2011 (PDT)

Weird fuzziness on certain images...

I've just now noticed that on certain "Item_icon_<item>.png" images and even some "Backpack_<item>.png" images, there's a weird fuzziness that appears when they're displayed at around "x57px", and on a colored background.

For example, click here to go to my userpage, then scroll down to the Item Checklist. (It's my custom checklist that doesn't use "Item_icon" images, but "Backpack_" images instead). Unhide the checklist, then look at the image of the Lugermorph (Scout section). Notice that fuzziness? What I noticed is that that weird fuzziness is seemingly on every single "Item_icon" image. It's on a few of the "Backpack" images, as you'll notice if you go through my item checklist, class-by-class. A few Demoman hat images have the fuzziness too.

What is this fuzziness and why is it on 98% of "Item_icon" images, and like 20% of "Backpack" images? 404 User Not Found 18:53, 13 July 2011 (PDT)

They're Valve's backpack icons, I don't think there's much we can do. They're hit or miss when it comes to backpack icon quality. Balladofwindfishes 18:55, 13 July 2011 (PDT)

Ahh. See, I loaded up one of the fuzzy icons into Photoshop CS5.1, tried checking the background for any missed fuzziness that wasn't erased....couldn't see anything. 404 User Not Found 19:36, 13 July 2011 (PDT)

Ok wait, that explains the "Backpack_" images....but what about "Item_icon_<image>". Are those Valve made? Why are 90% of them fuzzy when small and on a colored background? 404 User Not Found 19:45, 13 July 2011 (PDT)

It might have something to do with the wiki software automatically making the image smaller server-side instead of letting the browser do the work (usually the browser version looks better). R4wrz0rz0r 05:44, 14 July 2011 (PDT)

Interactive Help System

I have an idea of creating the Interactive Help System. Such as Akinator. For example:

Dell (Engineer with Wiki-styled skin - default): "Hello! Welcome to the Team Fortress Wiki Help Center. My name is Dell. What can i do for you?"

Variants of answer:

• I have a question about Wiki.
• I have a question about translations.
• I want to call a translator.

If user click "I want to call a translator." then:

Dell: "Choose your language and i'll call a translator."

Variants of answer:

• Мне нужен русский переводчик. ///To Russian Help Center
• Ich brauche ein Deutsch-Übersetzer. ///To German Help Center. Google Translate, sorry :D
• ...
• I want to ask you a question. ///Back

After it user will be redirected to Main page of Help Center in his language. Wikinator (Dell) will be changed. For example: Ivan (Heavy wearing Ushanka, with wiki-styled skin) for Russian HC, Helmut (Medic wearing Vintage Tyrolean, with wiki-styled skin) for German HC, etc.

If wikinator has no answer, then:

Dell: "Sorry, my friend, but i have no idea."

Variants of answer:

• Okay, that's all i want to know. ///To main page of the wiki
• Wait, i want to ask another question. ///To main page of the Help Center

404 page :D

Images of the Wikinators will be different. They will be created using Garry's Mod. Variants of Wikinators' answers may be different (using radomizer).

Design is already coined. Interactive Help System (IHS) wil be interesting for use and will help to categorize all hints. So, go vote. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aperture AI (talk) • (contribs)

We actually already have some ideas for all of this :3 So  Support yes, that's an awesome idea, but hold on before starting that. There's a certain thing that needs to be done first~ — Wind 13:48, 17 July 2011 (PDT)

Very strong  Oppose. Too complex. SiPlus 00:26, 19 July 2011 (PDT)

Headshoot

Should we use "Headshoot" instead of "Headshot"? Since you don't shot people, you shoot them, and people don't get shotted, they get shot.  –  Ohyeahcrucz [T][C] 17:47, 17 July 2011 (PDT)

 Oppose. "To headshot" is to fire a shot in the head. maggosh 17:51, 17 July 2011 (PDT)

So, "to shot" is to fire a shot.  –  Ohyeahcrucz [T][C] 17:53, 17 July 2011 (PDT)

 Oppose Its the way the term is used. I just did a headshot and the guy that I had shot was shot in the head. Saying that I am going to headshoot you is technically correct, but then it becomes a matter of confusing users and again the way the term is used. 17:52, 17 July 2011 (PDT)

 Oppose How about we don't make it a verb and just say "shoot in the head?" You shoot someone in the head and you score a headshot.-- GenCoolio (talk | contribs) 17:55, 17 July 2011 (PDT)

 Oppose You're assuming the "shot" in the word "headshot" is the past tense or participle of the verb "to shoot". It's not. It's the noun "shot" as in "the result of launching a projectile or bullet". --Bri 18:09, 17 July 2011 (PDT)

That doesn't explain why we use "headshotting" or "headshotted".  –  Ohyeahcrucz [T][C] 18:10, 17 July 2011 (PDT)

 Oppose coined FPS term, and in-game term > grammar Balladofwindfishes 18:13, 17 July 2011 (PDT)

The -ing to create the gerund is attaching itself to the whole of "headshot" and not the -shot ending. If you isolate "shot" and then see "shotting" you might be put off, but it's "headshotting" as a whole. The "shot" doesn't become "shoot" because, again, the "shot" in "headshot" is not a verb. "Headshotted" sounds awkward, though, so I opt for just using "... are/was shot in the head." and rarely "... are/was headshot." for passives. --Bri 18:18, 17 July 2011 (PDT)

There are many angles to consider, but the choice of language should be consistent for the express purpose of ensuring that the Wiki uses terminology that the average reader is familiar with. As American English is the predominate variation used in the Wiki, for the sake of consistency we may wish to consider using it here. In American English, the term "headshot" is widely accepted, and in gaming may even be ubiquitous, and is used as both a noun and a verb. While "shoot" can also be used as both noun and verb, "headshoot" in my experience, has not gained the same level of near-ubiquity. The former term is a widely-established colloquialism, especially in gaming, and would be the term most likely to be accepted by readers. In order to ensure that the content is clear and concise, using the accepted term (i.e. "headshot" which would be most familiar to the reader) might be the best course of action. --- Esquilax 18:17, 17 July 2011 (PDT)

Beta Syringe Gun, Beta Bonesaw, and Detonator (Beta)

Since there is fragmented discussion going on with regards to these three weapons and the proposed merging, I'm bringing it up here.

All three of these weapon pages should be merged into their main pages Overdose, Solemn Vow and Detonator. The Beta versions of the weapons do not exist anymore. When I logged into the Beta after the July 12, 2011 Patch (Beta), my beta weapons were all converted into their stock equivalents.

• If you search the Mann Co. Catalog in-game, there is no reference made to these Beta weapons - but there is still entries for the Beta Sniper Rifle, Beta Sniper Club etc.
• Whether or not they still exist in items_game.txt should not matter. Hasn't there always been stuff in that file which has not been in the game?
• The weapons are functionally no different to their main game counterparts. This is different to the Beta Sniper Rifle and Bazaar Bargain, which have different stats.

For the astute, the reason I'm not including the Beta Quick-Fix in this discussion is because that still seems to exist. My Beta QF was not converted to a normal QF, despite the fact it also does not appear in the Mann Co. catalog. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 09:53, 18 July 2011 (PDT)

It might be nice to keep them around for archival sake. Balladofwindfishes 09:56, 18 July 2011 (PDT)

I say we stick to how we did the page for the Closed Beta version of TF2. As you can see here we already have a list of all the weapons in the open beta, and a section for previously changed weapons. Let's keep it this way and not create articles for all the open beta weapons. Eventually these weapons may/may not be removed from the open beta, and their info will end up in the section for Previously changed weapons, causing the admins to have to delete the articles in question. In closing, I say don't make new articles for every open beta weapon. 404 User Not Found 11:22, 18 July 2011 (PDT)

Aaaand of course I didn't fully read TheChrisD's message. We could add the Beta weapon info to the actual articles, but give it a corresponding section title, something relating to the Beta. Then delete the actual article for the weapon, and not create any new articles for Beta weapons. 404 User Not Found 11:31, 18 July 2011 (PDT)

As long as the fact they were tested at some point is not lost, then they don't really need their own dedicated pages. Using the previously mentioned table idea for beta weapon seems to be a good solution. Balladofwindfishes 11:42, 18 July 2011 (PDT)

So yeah, we can add a section to the actual weapons article, maybe something like "In The Beta". Then in that section, add a small table to the page with the info of what the weapon was in the Beta. And obviously, add the Beta weapon info to the the Previous Changes section of the TF2 Beta article. 404 User Not Found 11:46, 18 July 2011 (PDT)

Editing

Why does editing have to be so unnessisarily hard? Why cant you use a program in it thhat adds the complicated and rather boring other bits (you can clearly see i have no idea on how to use them) either have i bern missing something and its easy or why cant the people who do understand make it easyer for the people who dont?

Wrong page and sign your talk with ~~~~ Violencejr123(talk | contribs) 15:09, 19 July 2011 (PDT)