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)

New section: 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)

 Comment I don't know. While yes, this is a very good idea and can help a lot of new users (etc), but doesn't the IRC serve this purpose aswell? What's to stop some people coming in and asking a few questions? Granted, we don't want loads of new players to come and spam us with a ton of questions, but even then... I'll hold my judgement until later in time. 16:50, 22 July 2011 (PDT)

 Agree Neat idea, but it whould probibly be quite faulty unless you translated word for word. It whould be ideal if you were just making a small piece of text or were willing to put the time into making it. But I really like the idea of the translators in costume. Mysterious Island 19:31, 22 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? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Swiss4213 (talk) • (contribs)

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

Nothing in life is easy. Especially the good stuff like the TF2 Wiki. Thenyproject 17:31, 19 July 2011 (PDT)

It gets easy once you get the hang of it.  –  Ohyeahcrucz [T][C] 17:34, 19 July 2011 (PDT)

Wikipedia has extensive help for editing wikis in general. See Template:W. If you have more specific questions, come by the irc channel. — 04:55, 20 July 2011 (PDT)

This wiki is no harder to edit than any other wiki out there. So really, you're complaining about MediaWiki in general, and this isn't the place to do that. MogDog66 20:10, 21 July 2011 (PDT)

New section: Taunt

I was thinking (along with my idea to show the items history) It would be a good idea to have a little move on each of the weapons pages demonstrating the taunt. Its not like we have to make a different taunt video for EVERY weapon, some weapons that dont show the item and are shared with multiple weapons can be recycled. Ihasnotomato

 Agree A taunt demonstration project has been considered, I think. It'd be good to get it some attention, though. It'd be better than the still images we have on the class taunt pages now. --SilverHammer 20:55, 21 July 2011 (PDT)

 Comment The taunts are demonstrated in the weapon demonstration videos. —Moussekateer·talk 08:42, 22 July 2011 (PDT)

 Agree When reading the wiki before I've wondered what the taunts for new items are, it whould be helpful if there was a link, ie "When taunting with Crit-o-cola, the Scout preforms the Drinking taunt" with 'Drinking' linking to the Bonk! Atomic punch page. Mysterious Island 19:04, 22 July 2011 (PDT)

 Agree I could help do this without my computer exploding, unlike helping with the weapon demos. --Bri 00:21, 23 July 2011 (PDT)

 Comment Yeah the taunts are on each of the weapon demonstrations, but we also have the 3 new ones (1 from the replay update, 2 from uber update) K-Mac (Talk | Contrib) 00:35, 23 July 2011 (PDT)

Notability Guidelines and SourceMod Plugin Articles

It has just occurred to me that we follow the notability guidelines when it comes to custom maps, but we don't follow any notability guidelines for articles about SourceMod plugins. Why are there no notability guidelines for articles pertaining to SourceMod plugins? None of the plugins we have articles for have ever been acknowledged by Valve.

Frankly, the way I see it, we don't really need the articles about the plugins. AlliedMods (where all the plugins are downloadable from) has their own personal Wiki that could be used for making articles about the plugins. And most of the people who create the plugins own and operate their own websites which is yet another area that could be used to hold information regarding the plugins.

So I just wanted to get the communities' thoughts on this, and see if we can draft up some notability guidelines for SourceMod plugins, or just get rid of the plugin articles altogether, as the wiki really should only have articles about content in TF2/TFC. Obviously, we have articles for games like Gang Garrison 2, and the yet-to-be-released Team Fortress 2 Arcade, but those have become widespread and popular, and I believe Valve has acknowledged Gang Garrison 2 before (though I may be wrong). So what do you guys think? I'll be self-voting as  Support, as I think we either need notability guidelines for plugins, or that we should just get rid of the articles altogether (as AlliedMods already has a wiki that would be a better place for the articles). I'm gonna get to sleep now, I've got work first thing in the mornin'. 404 User Not Found 22:13, 21 July 2011 (PDT)

 Support I don't even see a need to mention any of them here, unless they were noted by the blog or something. Balladofwindfishes 05:56, 22 July 2011 (PDT)

Anyone else want to join this discussion? Or am I free to remove the SourceMod plugin articles due to being not notable? 404 User Not Found 13:25, 22 July 2011 (PDT)

Seriously? Nobody wants to voice their opinions? I'd love to hear some opinions from the Wiki's admins about this issue. 404 User Not Found 16:33, 22 July 2011 (PDT)

I support also, there is little to no reason to try to keep track of all the different things in the other games that have anything remotely similar to Team Fortress 2. These pages would become a joke if that is the case. Only those things determined to be canon, and/or referenced in the blog should be added. DJNerd 19:28, 22 July 2011 (PDT)

 Disagree While not part of the stock game itself some of these mods are very popular, and players will run into servers running them through the server browser in-game. Also I disagree with the statement 'None of the plugins we have articles for have ever been acknowledged by Valve.' Valve have included changes in patches for the benefit of these mods. —Moussekateer·talk 19:44, 22 July 2011 (PDT)

Valve did not include changes in patches for the benefits of those particular mods. The changes were included to benefit mod creators. Regardless, as I've stated above, AlliedMods has their own Wiki which currently only contains hardly helpful information about SourceMod features. That would be a better spot for any SourceMod plugin articles, than here on the Wiki. And the creators of some of the plugins have their own websites, which would be an even better place for info on their plugins, than here on the Wiki. This is the "Team Fortress 2 Wiki", not the "Team Fortress 2 SourceMod Plugin Wiki". 404 User Not Found 01:07, 24 July 2011 (PDT)

Well, seems so far we have 3 Supports (counting me), and one Disagree. I still feel that we should get rid of the SourceMod plugin articles for the reasons I stated above (AlliedMods Wiki being available, plugin creators often have their own websites). I'm not exactly sure how to "close a discussion" though, so if an admin could enlighten me on the standards for "ending a discussion" so we can begin getting rid of the articles, that would be great. 404 User Not Found 19:11, 24 July 2011 (PDT)

Woah, hold up there, I'm no longer in favor of removing all the article pages about mods. As stated, Valve supports these mods, and shows that through the patches that benefit said mods. Vs. Saxton Hale is a perfect example, it is not part of the regular game, but it is very popular and still deserves an article as Valve has put patches in place to make it work better with the main game, thus showing that they know about it, and silently support it. So I can't say that we should remove all the pages anymore, or even one. We have to be fair to the mods that Valve has helped, they deserve to stay because they are silently recognised by Valve as beneficial to main game. In my mind, TF2 is Valve's product, so Valve has the final say in things like this. If Valve recognises it, it is valid. DJNerd 06:27, 25 July 2011 (PDT)

Valve did not include changes in patches for the benefits of those particular mods. The changes were included to benefit mod creators. Oh hey look, AlliedMods has a wiki. Why not move the plugin articles there? Seems like a better idea to me, because then we wouldn't have certain plugin creators creating articles for plugins they haven't finished (Parkour Fortress, GunGame are perfect examples). Those 2 articles were deleted for being Not Notable and mostly created by the plugins creator. 404 User Not Found 07:42, 25 July 2011 (PDT)

The previous patch included a change specifically for the Advanced Weaponizer. Valve has also put mentions of Prophunt into patch notes. And honestly, I'd say those are the only two mods I could back up staying around. Also Versus Saxton Hale, since that's probably one of the most played and popular mods around. Balladofwindfishes 08:03, 25 July 2011 (PDT)

 Disagree Regarding your claim that Valve haven't patched specifically for a 3rd party game-mode, take a look at this. Now if that isn't official recognition by Valve, then what is? i-ghost 08:14, 25 July 2011 (PDT)

 Disagree 404 User Not Found you state that (AlliedMods Wiki being available, plugin creators often have their own websites) However, there is something really vital which you have not taken to consideration. The demographics of those individuals whom use Allied Modders tend to be coders or server administrators that run TF2 servers for the general public or privately. How is the average user going to understand and know how these plugins work in laymen's terms? If TF2 Wiki has clear articles on certain popular game modes and plugins which effect the actual game e.g. RMF Ability Pack, Roll The Dice (to name a few), many of our readers would get important and basic details on how they effect the game. As Moussekateer has mentioned many players would encounter many of the plugins in one server or another, so having a place which is related to the game they play explaining how 3rd party plugins work seems to be a logical amalgamation. Some of the articles in Allied Modders are full of lines of code which would confuse if not deter the average user from finding out basic information they require. Tl;Dr Articles detailing game effecting plugins should not be removed from the Wiki. Each game effecting plugin should get their own page detailing how they work so our readers can be informed. Allied Modders focuses on a specific target audience whom are mainly tech savvy Server Administrators and the information given there may be a little too complexed for some. BiBi 09:16, 25 July 2011 (PDT)

First, to BiBi: I know what AlliedModders is for. I happen to own a TF2 Server (with a 2nd on the way), and I personally coded up many plugins that were used on my server. And to your statement "How is the average user going to understand and know how these plugins work in laymens terms?". Many of the threads for the plugins on the forums have very simple-to-read-and-understand instructions. As well, you'd think that the AlliedModders Wiki would allow articles to be created for the various plugins that have been created. Also, you state that every "game effecting" plugin should get an article. I have to disagree. Some might say plugins like "High Five" or "Spawn the Horsemann" are "game effecting", when in fact they are minor plugins that add small features. With that being said, I move on to the next bit of my reply...

Second, to everyone: Seeing as this has gotten a rather shocking amount of "Disagrees", how about we switch from "deleting the articles", to "creating notability guidelines", so that in the future we don't end up with articles for silly plugins such as "High Five" or "Spawn the Horsemann". To start off this new discussion about notability guidelines, perhaps we should set some requirements that a plugin would have to meet in order to allow it to have an article? I think a good one would be:

• "The plugin in question should not be a 'fun' plugin that adds small things such as the ability to spawn the Horsemann, or adding "high fiving". The plugin in question should be a rather large plugin that creates/adds a new form of gameplay (such as PropHunt, Randomizer)"

Whaddya think? It's a start. Got any ideas for possible notability guidelines? Toss 'em up, let's put something together. 404 User Not Found 14:15, 25 July 2011 (PDT)

Weta Workshop Page?

With the recent advent of the Dr. Grordbort's Victory Pack, I've noticed that WETA Workshop's done a lot for TF2, like that life-size sentry they made for Valve Headquarters. Should there be a page for these amazing Engineers?Fyahweather 02:51, 22 July 2011 (PDT)

I don't think so; it's neat that they created that sentry and contributed content to the game, but the Wiki is ultimately about Team Fortress 2 and its content, not the other studios or community contributors that created content for it. ButteredToast 05:20, 22 July 2011 (PDT)

WETA is also making the TF2 action figures. Yes, they probably should have a page. They're as much a contributor to the community of TF2 as any website like Polycount. Balladofwindfishes 05:54, 22 July 2011 (PDT)

You're thinking of NECA, Ballad. I think Weta Workshop deserves a mention somewhere, but maybe not their own page. Maybe an extended disambiguation page that talks a bit about the sentry and their company, as well as linking off to the Soldier items and comic? --SilverHammer 18:29, 22 July 2011 (PDT)

needvideo template

She'd be used a lot more rarely than her sister template, needimage, but I think it'd be nice to have around when needed. I suggest it only because I wanted to add one to the Taunts article, for the Soldier's new show taunt I've heard about. If there's already a template for this, please direct (heh) me to it, because I couldn't find it.

--SilverHammer 12:26, 22 July 2011 (PDT)

The problem is that videos are rarely needed (other than weapon demonstrations), and that this results in ugly youtube videos posted just to get views. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rocket Ship BBQ (talk) • (contribs)

Like I said, it'd be used a lot more rarely. Maybe only by moderators or something. It would be used explicitly to mark pages that need a video. Maybe, in place of the quote, it could link to the Weapon Demonstration Project page? --SilverHammer 15:46, 22 July 2011 (PDT)

 Agree Rarely used, but I think this template is needed--Nik9990 Talk | Cont 15:48, 22 July 2011 (PDT)

 Support Sure, but make it clear on the template page that this template should never be included on weapon pages, otherwise we'll get fake video demonstrations~ — Wind 19:38, 22 July 2011 (PDT)

How's this, then? Template:Needvideo --SilverHammer 20:10, 22 July 2011 (PDT)

 Support I think that this template can be useful. Maybe it won't be used so often as need image template, but still will be used. -- Szumin (talk • contrib) 14:48, 23 July 2011 (PDT)

 Support Like this idea very much. BiBi 01:27, 24 July 2011 (PDT)

 Support You know how I love those "Need This" templates. Balladofwindfishes 09:01, 25 July 2011 (PDT)