Talk:Laughter

Is it just me or most of the trivia on this map are uncomfirmed by creator or didn't add any kind of proof. Some don't even have anything to do with the map

Most Trivia won't have on-page confirmations, but might in the edit section. Feel free to remove all unrelated Trivia, though.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 12:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

That's the disappointment of the policy discouraging proper in-page citations, a couple of those developer references had been confirmed, but the confirmation was lost because of avoidance of citations.

Sad to know it, what kind of proof will provide in these old pages then, or where exactly are they?

All I recall is discussions on a couple of these, may have only been in long gone steam messages. I have no hope of recovering any of it; I am just venting. There have been times where I provided WP-compliant citations only to have them deleted as unnecessary ("We all know this now, we agreed to this in the IRC, we don't have to write it down."). It should be stated that effective citations should be covered in the discussion page, if only to record the unrecorded conversations.

One could go to the effort to track these down, but if it is negative (the developer positively does not confirm), then where does that get recorded, so we don't bother them again? The discussion page is the only place I suppose.

M I K A D O 282 🦃🦃🦃🦃🦃🦃 🦃🦃 🦃🦃 (contact)(Help Wanted!) 04:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

As long as they were confirmed once, and the confirmation can be found (i.e. a link to an image), they'll still be valid even if said image has been deleted. The current Trivia guidelines state that archiving an image is required.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 12:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

As long as they were confirmed once, and the confirmation can be found (i.e. a link to an image), they'll still be valid even if said image has been deleted. The current Trivia guidelines state that archiving an image is required.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 12:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Restarting the previous discussion, although it looks unique, that doesn't make it good. I'm not sure what this format is supposed to accomplish, but it's very confusing right now.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

That was some time ago. I might look at it again after the event.

If I recall, coming out of Jungle Inferno, and the SF that followed shortly, there were several symmetric maps. A challenge for some of them is that the references for callouts are not the same on both sides. "Bumper Cars" would be a good callout, but only one side has Bumper Cars. Something that could be done with Laughter is to normalize it to the structures, but the structures are not always nameable.

Maybe for the buildings left and right of the Point: Gallery upper floor flank, and Tunnel, Ride, or Tunnel Ride. for the lower floor flank

• Underpass below the Point
• Balcony overwatch on the Point
• ...

M I K A D O 282 🎃🎃🎃🎃🎃🎃 🎃🎃 🎃🎃 (contact)(Help Wanted!) 21:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I think to solve this you could have like, "Gift Shop (RED side), Arcade (BLU side)" with a note at the top explaining it. The Helpful overview section can also be reworked to include a better image with these callouts.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 22:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks.

M I K A D O 282 🎃🎃🎃🎃🎃🎃 🎃🎃 🎃🎃 (contact)(Help Wanted!) 22:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

No, really, just got back from dinner and a 3 km walk, and I had thoughts expanding on this. I would like to work on this after a couple weeks.

M I K A D O 282 🎃🎃🎃🎃🎃🎃 🎃🎃 🎃🎃 (contact)(Help Wanted!) 01:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks like it got taken care of, that's OK.

Discussion of the different format for locations?

• Remember, Locations is for setting the place for Strategy.
• Locations is not for map description. The Lead, Features/Attractions, Notes are more the place for the description.
• Locations are generally the nouns for Stratagems; that said, the Location names are rather descriptive in this case.
• Maybe three columns, one for the tactical names that are repeated in RED and BLU (Flank, Spawn, Battlements) and one each for the whimsical place names that are different for RED and BLU.
• This format won't work on some (most) symmetrical maps, since Attraction names are not always common on maps.

Great map!

I have now put up an attempt at a three-column version. Please, comment.

That looks very confusing, specially the pictures. I think the regular format is better.

Yeah this location is VERY VERY confusing, rly need some change on that format