Talk:List of Community item owners

Templatification?

Since these lists seem to be getting split-off, would it not make sense to make a generic list template that takes a few inputs like ID/Name/Item/Reason/etc and fills out both community + backpack link for us? Ath 16:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It's already on my task list to do that this weekend; I'm starting right now, actually. :) ~ lhavelund ^{(talk ▪ contrib)} 16:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, brilliant. Ath 16:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a substable table line, or something similar? Want me to take a crack at it? – Smashman _(talk) 16:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I have some ideas; it'll show up on User:Lhavelund/List of Community Weapon owners. Feel free to drop comments and suggestions there, Smash. ~ lhavelund ^{(talk ▪ contrib)} 16:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"Only x (so far)"

I find this to be a useless piece of information. Permission to remove this when I'm templificatifyeraterating the table? ~ lhavelund ^{(talk ▪ contrib)} 16:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

 Agreed, IIRC so did WindPower a while ago in IRC. --CruelCow 16:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"Item" link

Thanks to the ID shift, every "Item" link is now broken. Seeing as Community items are essentially just Green varients of the standard weapons with an extra description and Particle effect, plus taking into consideration that people do change their community item on occasion; I feel that the "Item" column is more trouble than it's worth. Would just a backpack link not suffice in this instance? Ath 15:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

All that needs to be done to fix them all is add 2100000 to every item serial. I was going to do it, but i don't have time right now. I will probably get to it later (unless someone has a better way to do it or we decide to remove it) Natemckn 15:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I am well aware of the ID shift, my point was that it's a large time investment for little gain. Ath 16:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree, its going to be quite a pain to fix all of them. I would have no problem with that column being removedNatemckn 16:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This is what we have bots for. –lhavelund  ·  ·  16:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"Community" Skull

I've gone ahead and removed this entry since I feel it goes against the ethos of the article. With all due respect to the owner, having or having had cancer is in no way a community contribution and should not be listed as such or alongside items that are. To reiterate an old talking point from another discussion, any item is available in any quality; and considering there is no listing of Valve quality items or other "irregular" items, I don't think this item warrents documentation. ~ Ath (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2011 (PST)

Who cares how he got the item, it's a community item, it goes on the list. This is a documentation of community items and the skull is a community item. Balladofwindfishes 17:51, 15 November 2011 (PST)

Not sure what the story behind all of this was, but if someone has a community item, it should be on the list of community items. — Wind 17:53, 15 November 2011 (PST)

Community item, obviously belongs here I feel.. Also, you probably shouldn't just undo an edit and tell someone they must check here first. What you should have done was simply started the talk page, and not remove the edit first. - nixshadow (t|c) 17:59, 15 November 2011 (PST)

i agree. this is a community item. We have an article for community item owners and this is a community item. This is a no-brainer. The skull belongs here.Tele-Viper 18:02, 15 November 2011 (PST)

I think it is important to consider what we all learned during the time documenting the qualities themselves. Alone a quality is just a quality. You have Vintage set on things that aren't actually vintage by any means and you have truly Vintage items such as pre-crafting flare guns. These lists, to me are more than just what quality is attached to what but what history and meaning is attached to them. When someone thinks of a Community item they think "community contributor" and that is what this list is about and why we have a column for reasons. The kid made a good wish and I wish him the best but I think the meaning behind this list just goes beyond the quality itself. Also remember that from what I'm told this item was changed to Community quality on a whim in the first place. -- Lagg 18:00, 15 November 2011 (PST)

To rephrase what Lagg said, the list is as more a documentation of community contributors than community items, if which the item in question does not fit into category. I would raise into question the value of merely listing for the sake of it being assigned X quality. What use is this information? How does it fit in with the other entries? If it is valid, where is the list of Valve quality items? ~ Ath (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2011 (PST)

Except, it says right in the title. "List of Community Item Owners". Not "List of Community Contributors."Tele-Viper 18:08, 15 November 2011 (PST)

That is hardly a valid or well-thought out argument. To flip your logic then maybe the page naming convention is flawed and requires rectification? I'll state again, what use is documenting every item that has X "special" quality? Where is the Valve quality list if such logic is to be considered valid? ~ Ath (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2011 (PST)

Yes, a list of Valve weapons would be nice, and should exist. HOWEVER. That item is a Community item. This page is about Community items. If this item is to be removed, then how come the other items without a reason are to stay? And if they are to be removed. Why do some people want less information on this wiki? —Rocket Ship BBQ(•) 18:19, 15 November 2011 (PST)

I think he is using Valve weapons as a counter-point actually, a terrible counter-point at that, but either way I would really like to see that list on the wiki to be honest. - nixshadow (t|c) 18:20, 15 November 2011 (PST)

This is a simple list of community items, who owns them, and why they own them. We don't need to make it any more complicated than that, that's not what the article presents itself as. Balladofwindfishes 18:22, 15 November 2011 (PST)