TF2 Wiki:Discussion/December2009 Crafting talk page discussions

From TF2 Wiki

Share/Save/Bookmark< TF2 Wiki:Discussion
Jump to: navigation, search

Why has this page been made now, how do you know it isn't some joke like the Guarddog's. Also why are people SOOO eager to create new pages instead of adding or enhancing current pages? It's not official yet so it's getting deleted, go cry some more. --Aurora-avatar.jpgurora (talk | contribs) 11:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The Guard Dog page was on a fan-made URL address. The page on Crafting is on the official teamfortress.com page. That sounds pretty official to me. Minty Fresh Death 11:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You kiddin' me, yeah? That's official. [[1]]

Nope, is it in the game? is it even the 17th and would we post the patch details before it was released? Has Valve never joked about putting something into a game? For all your No needs, please visit No-tech, today. --Aurora-avatar.jpgurora (talk | contribs) 12:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Valve never joked about putting something in update.--The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nice Smile (talk) • contribs) 13:28, 13 December 2009
Really, how long have you had Valve games? If you're associated with Valve or have inside information, please PM me because I'm interested. But the fact is, the update has not been released and as a general rule we remove speculative content. When the update is released and if the Crafting is in it (personally I sure as hell hope not, TF is an FPS not RPG) then I will restore the page. --Aurora-avatar.jpgurora (talk | contribs) 13:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I started playing Source games in 2008.

You'll see it next week.. Btw, they already talked about this here [2]. --Nice_Smile

Again, your missing the point, it hasn't been released. It's like adding a new patch page before the patch is released because someone posted the details on a webpage. How about adding some new pages on things that are actually in the game but not covered? --Aurora-avatar.jpgurora (talk | contribs) 14:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Just calm down, ok?--Nice_Smile
Seems official to me too, it's on their official blog page for gods sake! Is there any rule preventing people from creating pages about future updates, even if official information about it has been released? On a side note, the information about the characters Saxton Hale, the Announcer and Miss Pauling that was posted on the blog should be removed aswell, that might also be a joke. --Traxus_2
Why should they be removed? the non-player characters are part of the TF2 'world', currently Crafting isn't. You're not reading the comments correctly, just jumping to assumptions. Did I ever state "information posted on the blog should be removed"? no, so don't post sarcastic statements. As a general rule-of-thumb we shouldn't create pages about future updates, no. It's speculative and as such is covered under the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball policy, which states:-
3. Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on Weapons of Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not.
I am calm, however I don't see the need for me to continually justify the reasons when the reasoning is covered under widely accepted wiki policies and guidelines. If people would take a little of their time to read all the help files available to them before posting, the admins wouldn't have to spend hours and hours patrolling the recent changes correcting things that are easily avoidable. --Aurora-avatar.jpgurora (talk | contribs) 17:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems a bit cheeky that Wilsonator added this article after the arguement that urora gave just here. -- ]]Pillinjer 21:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The whole argument seems a bit baffling. It's been added as part of the official update schedule so almost certainly isn't fake, and we have a handful of known facts, so the in-body text doesn't have to have any speculation, so it doesn't violate the crystal ball policy. (Otherwise wikipedia would never have articles on unreleased video games). Valve have also been mentioning their intention to add this for ages. There wasn't any problem adding data revealed in patch updates before so it's a bit strange it seems to be a problem now. I think the frustration of dealing with the storm of poorly worded and spelt edits around update time may be to blame, I can certainly sympathise to a great degree. I'm still have nightmares about the Sniper vs. Spy Update. It's the real double-edged sword for us regular editors. --Wilsonator 22:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Nope, it was the fact that I go by the guidelines on Wikipedia. To then have another admin restore the page is undermining, thanks. --Aurora-avatar.jpgurora (talk | contribs) 02:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I can't blame you removing it before since it was poorly written and had speculation in it, but there's no reason to keep the page blank until the 17th for every reason I stated above. Wikipedia has no guidelines against adding facts on unreleased content; that's a very different thing from speculation so I'm hardly 'undermining' you. Whether you're just trying to go by guidelines or not, you have been noticeably snappy lately. I know it's a frustrating time with Christmas, an update and all that on the horizon but everyone's got a lot on their plates, so take a deep breath and remember patience is a virtue, and that wikipedia does have guidelines on assuming good faith and etiquette. --Wilsonator 02:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Aurora, to delete an article before there's been a reached consensus can be ok, but (and no offense is intended here) don't treat it as "undermining" when it's reverted--to act like admin decisions are final, without question, and exempt from consensus discussion when there's clear contention on the issue is more undermining to the nature of the wiki itself. This article was certainly not the kind of article that would be in need of "speedy deletion" and you basically told people who disagree with you to "cry some more" before discussion had even been opened up. As Wilsonator said, articles about future products/content is allowed on wikipedia if there is acceptable sourcing, and it is certainly not in the nature of wikipedia guidelines to speedily delete an article because it is labeled speculative. G-Mang 03:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
People are welcome to discuss it, that's the whole point of the discussion pages. If I wanted to be a command authority, abuse admin status and didn't want people discussing it, I would have removed the talk pages as well. It's not like I even said 'Do not create this page', what I said clearly was the page would be restored when the details have been released. I also said that "I don't see the need for me to continually justify the reasons when the reasoning is covered under widely accepted wiki policies and guidelines" yet here I am again having to do just that. This time however, I'm having to explain to admins and mods on a public talk space, so fine, I'll answer your concerns here.
Wikipedia does have guidelines about future history, I've pasted the text above directly from their guidelines and with a link. Crafting is not in the game as yet, which makes it future history. Valve have also mentioned their intention to add Trading into the game as well, in fact it was in the same blog post [3] which Nice_Smile mentioned above, yet there is no Trading page, why not? Because it would contain speculative content as the details haven't been released.
To revert a deletion without discussion is undermining and the article was reverted a full hour before any discussion was posted. If you like I'll quote Wikipedia again, which in this case is from the Administrator page about "Reversing another admin's action" - "Administrators may disagree, but except for clear and obvious mistakes, administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought and (if likely to be objected) usually some kind of courtesy discussion." When I deleted it, I posted a comment on the talk page advising the reasons, which was left for further discussions.
We do not have a "speedy deletion" policy and cannot fall-back to use the Wikipedia policy because we don't have the structure for it. We do not have a "Deletion discussions" page, nor "speedy deletion templates", nor "Proposed deletions", or anything else that is covered by their policy save for the {{Delete-request}}.
This brings me on to the being 'noticeably snappy lately', the reason we don't have the policy is because no-one has written it (and certainly doesn't have anything to do with Christmas). I seem to be the only one who writes any help files, guidelines, maintenance templates, or concerns themselves with any potential legal, usability, or functional issues. That's fine but if people including admins and mods don't even read them or offer any constructive feedback on them, what's the point in having them? Anyone can add or propose such articles, yet in the year I've been away the only thing I've noticed which has changed is HarriL has amended the TF2 Wiki:Privacy policy to advise about the adverts. On top of that, the templates that have changed which general editors use for construction are a complete mess. An example of this is the {{Class}}, {{ClassUnlocks}}, {{ClassUnlocksSpy}}, and {{ClassUnlocksSniper}} templates which only differ with some minor additions to the weapon tables and were only created because people didn't understand the wiki template syntax. Some were also locked so editors who may have wanted to help in changing them, couldn't. When I brought this up in the Community Portal the one and only response I received was an unsigned comment by G-Mang saying "If you're having trouble contacting an admin, try steam messaging Wilsonator". Users should not have to contact admins via steam, they should be able to find sources of help through the wiki. Furthermore editors who have been editing the wiki for a number of years cannot use the "I don't know the syntax" excuse. There are litrarally hundreds of help files on Wikipedia and Mediawiki which explains this.
Another clear example is on the copyright discussion where Wilsonator states "we're pretty easy on the whole copyright thing" and "It's more that it's not a pressing issue". That's not really going to be a valid point in court is it? We have nearly 2.5m page views on the Main page and log around 4-5,000 unique hits a day, we simply cannot claim ignorance. I'm damn sure these points are more important and of a more "pressing issue" than something like adding quotes to templates, creating achievement boxes, or indeed having to spend an hour or so explaining ones actions on a discussion page.
To sum up, I've tried the "softly, softly", "please provide feedback", and the offer of "open discussions" tact's but got no helpful responses so instead I'm using the hard-line approach. If you don't like that then apologies, but you should have responded to the previous attempts to sort out the issues. --Aurora-avatar.jpgurora (talk | contribs) 15:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Deletion/Speculation
I think it'd be much more clear to everyone that trading page would be speculation, as Valve has released zero information on it and we have no reason to believe we know anything about it; they have never posted any details on how it would work, nor have they implied a release date or that they truly intend on finishing it at all. However, Valve has released a detailed page explaining crafting, which I and many other editors believe exempts it from Wiki's Crystal Ball policy, as the release of crafting qualifies as a "scheduled or expected future event" that is "notable and almost certain to take place" as per rule 1 of NOTCRYSTAL:
Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented.
Crafting is most certainly notable in the context of a TF2 wiki, and the information in the article is based directly off the release page. The guard dog is not analogous because it was never hosted by Valve, mentioned by Valve as an intended feature, or been given a release date. However, I think a number of people would argue that the crafting page is clearly more legitimate and sincere than other joke posts, and personally I (and I think a number of other editors) have little doubt that it's being released and that there's enough information on it for a short article. I could see how you'd disagree, but I don't see it as so clear-cut as to warrant fast administrative responses.
Administration Procedure
Yeah, Wilsonator probably should've let the discussion go on a bit before reverting another admin's actions. But, it's also true that you haven't followed wikipedia policy to the dot, which would include, among other things, allowing for discussion unless the page was clearly and obvious in need of speedy deletion (which it's clearly not, based on contention) notifying those involved in the creation of the page of its candidacy for deletion before the deletion actually took place, and allowing people to interrupt speedy deletions with an objection akin to {{hangon}}. Obviously, and as you mentioned, we don't have things like speedy deletion templates and deletion discussion pages, but I don't think it's too much to say that discussing it on the article's discussion page before deletion would have made an appropriate and obvious alternative (moreso than ignoring the procedure altogether).
I guess at this point people like me are at fault too for not helping to orchestrate policy creation and implementation even though we're familiar with the wiki. To be lame and blunt, I mostly just hadn't thought about the issue much, and I'll certainly try to help out where I can from now on (though issues like copyright I don't know much about). I've added Community Portal's talk to my watch pages (a feature I honestly haven't used before); are there any others I can add to try to get more involved in these discussions and activities? G-Mang 20:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


Oh christ, this whole argument just seems a little silly and unnecessary. I'm not trying to engender any hostility with Aurora, who's been an asset to this wiki and was the first person I thought of when it came to recommending editors to Robin Walker. I'll address some of your points:


"I seem to be the only one who writes any help files, guidelines, maintenance templates, or concerns themselves with any potential legal, usability, or functional issues." These were all on my saved list of things to do during my wiki sweep, including going over nearly every other page in the wiki. I just hadn't got round to them yet due to issues with my laptop that cannot be currently fixed. You could have asked me if I intended to work on them and I could have answered yes.


"That's fine but if people including admins and mods don't even read them or offer any constructive feedback on them, what's the point in having them?" We can't force people to read them unfortunately, but I fail to see how it's our fault for not 'offering feedback' when few people do read them. I personally have read them, they seemed sensible. What more do I have to say? My suggestion was going to be that we have an automatic talk page message for new editors as on wikia sites that points them in that direction.


"On top of that, the templates that have changed which general editors use for construction are a complete mess. An example of this is the Class, ClassUnlocks, ClassUnlocksSpy, and ClassUnlocksSniper templates which only differ with some minor additions to the weapon tables and were only created because people didn't understand the wiki template syntax." We've been through this already. Smashman and I have working knowledge of it, but the class templates were bloated and inflexible and we were pretty much keeping the wiki afloat between us.


"Some were also locked so editors who may have wanted to help in changing them, couldn't. When I brought this up in the Community Portal the one and only response I received was an unsigned comment by G-Mang saying "If you're having trouble contacting an admin, try steam messaging Wilsonator". The class pages were locked to stem consistent wrong edits from several users who ignored requests to stop. The templates were NOT locked. The comment was unfortunate, I was more than happy to answer queries on the talk pages which were also not locked. A single line from G-Man does not mean I am suddenly only reachable over steam. It was a temporary measure, and there was no information that could have been contributed to the class pages at that point that couldn't be posed to us through the talk pages. Again remember it was a temporary measure and I unprotected them later. I also never made the original class template, or the unlocks template, so please direct that rage somewhere else.


"Furthermore editors who have been editing the wiki for a number of years cannot use the "I don't know the syntax" excuse. There are litrarally hundreds of help files on Wikipedia and Mediawiki which explains this." I was exaggerating, I don't literally know no syntax. I do have a working knowledge, but I don't have the time to learn the more complicated code. Editing the text bodies of the articles is enough work as it is, and I do have other things to do in my life. There are also other users I can rely on who have more advanced knowledge of the syntax, for example, you. That's one of the wonders of wiki with multiple staff.


"That's not really going to be a valid point in court is it? We have nearly 2.5m page views on the Main page and log around 4-5,000 unique hits a day, we simply cannot claim ignorance. I'm damn sure these points are more important and of a more "pressing issue" than something like adding quotes to templates, creating achievement boxes, or indeed having to spend an hour or so explaining ones actions on a discussion page." Basically, take a deep breath and calm down a little, we're not going to get sued. Robin Walker probably would have mentioned it with the email where he handed us all weapons and congratulations. On wikipedia, copyright is obviously highly important. On here, the general content makes it far, far less of an pressing issue. No one would have any real reason to press charges against us. Believing so is just paranoud. Also, you forgot to mention my copy editing the recent edits list every day, adding all the new update info including partially rewriting several pages and writing a large number of the pages on this wiki as personal contributions of mine between inserting quotes in templates and figuring out ways to make the achievement pages more presentable. Please don't use your frustration as an excuse to take veiled jabs about my and other users' contributions on this wiki. I've been working very hard on the wiki lately and it's insulting to have all my efforts pidgeonholed.


"I've tried the "softly, softly", "please provide feedback", and the offer of "open discussions" tact's but got no helpful responses so instead I'm using the hard-line approach. If you don't like that then apologies, but you should have responded to the previous attempts to sort out the issues."

What? As far as I could see, you just went into rant mode a few days ago with no messages left on my talk page or emails sent to my address regarding any of the above problems. I'm not aware of recieving any communication regarding this issue and neither are any of the other mods. The last time we had a discussion, you mentioned the extensions you were adding to the wiki, but not any of these issues. What we really need is to take deep breaths and sort all this out civilly. I'm really not liking all the hostility around here lately and while some of it is understandable, a lot of it is just plain silly. The crafting debate here for example. There was never a issue in the first place, I'm wondering why one has been made at all. Unreleased content does not qualify as 'future history', that refers to something else entirely. Wikipedia has millions of pages on unreleased films, videogames and books that fit perfectly into all their policies. I'm juggling editing for the update with a very busy time at uni right now, and I'd rather we could discuss all this instead of shouting each other down on talk pages. --Wilsonator 22:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Both responses illustrate my points nicely, thanks for the replies. I'm not going to address every single point because this would drag on far too long. Instead I'll truncate a few things and sum this up.
So, in order:
  • "However, Valve has released a detailed page explaining crafting." - Hang on, I've missed something somewhere, are you referring to the teamfortress.com/crafting/ page? This is detailed and explains crafting, where? It's more like an advert. I like the blog posts that Valve produce, they make me chuckle, but calling them 'detailed' and referring to them as explainatory is a joke in itself. It doesn't actually give any details at all, in fact I'm assuming Valve make them deliberatly unspecific in case they have to change anything at a late date.
  • "...or been given a release date" - Correct, again I'm missing some 'vital' information source, when is the Crafting release date?
  • "...it's also true that you haven't followed wikipedia policy to the dot" - As above, this illustrates my points. We don't follow wikipedia policy, we use them as a guideline, we have no policies because they haven't been written.
  • "To be lame and blunt, I mostly just hadn't thought about the issue much" - I'm just noting this here because it's in order but see below for why this is important.
  • "...any others I can add to try to get more involved in these discussions and activities" - Yes, lots and most can be found via the Community portal, but a few important ones are TF2 Wiki:Tasks, TF2 Wiki:Proposals and the TF2 Wiki:Discussion portals. Also note that I tend to use my Useful Links page for commonly used links, but more on this below.
  • "...argument just seems a little silly and unnecessary" - Firstly, this isn't an argument, this is discussion. Hostility and personal attacks have no place on a wiki, and I'm not directly attacking you. I'm responding to yours and G-Mang's comments which I thought were inappropriate and as you say unnecessary on this talk page after I had said "I don't see the need for me to continually justify the reasons". This whole discussion should have been addressed in a different area, probably best in the Discussion portal.
  • "These were all on my saved list of things to do during my wiki sweep, including going over nearly every other page in the wiki" - What am I a mind reader? You could have mentioned them when I spoke to you about the upgrades. And I will tell you for free that you will never get round to going over every page. I thought I would someday do that, never happened, cross it off the list. Regarding these lists, see below.
  • "...we were pretty much keeping the wiki afloat between us" - I can tell you from personal experience that if you and Smashman weren't around the wiki would keep going. That's not to understate what a great job you do but other editors can and do add content regulary. Step off the content gas and direct your focus (again see below).
  • "...you just went into rant mode a few days ago with no messages left on my talk page" - again, the responses were neither arguments nor rant's and I've made several posts on different talk pages. Most of which never received any responses which just added to my frustrations.
That brings me on to all those 'see below' comments. With the loss of Nos, Wandering Fox and Wipnum (although I still think that the last two are just MIA) we no longer have experienced editors to run the machinery. Things like these points in this discussion and copyright issues need to be handled pro-actively, not re-actively. They are important, in some cases more so than adding new content and to think that something isn't an issue until it is, is irresponsible. Do you honestly think that Robin Walker thinks about copyright infringement or informs the Valve legal department everytime he sees an article with TF2 artwork on it? He doesn't need to, that's why they have the department. All those help files, welcome templates, guidelines, policy pages, administrative procedures, and administration/maintenance templates don't write themselves. It's slow, unglamorous work and I'm doing as much as I can but I also have 'other things to do in my life'. I've had to turn several offers down because I spend so much time on this wiki, I'm not moaning, I'm agreeing that it takes up a hell of a lot of time, even if its just reading about how some syntax works. The only way we can get things done is to split that work up and have several people going at it.
Those lists you have, I have my own, but how do we know who's wanting to look at what? How do the other mods know if something needs doing? We need them all noting down somewhere on the wiki, so we can see what's happening and when something's been completed. This is why it frustrates me when I see things like Achievements, it's not important that it's too long and needs sorting into two columns, not at the moment. What is important is to get all this 'backend' work done so we can have more time to do cosmetic changes or add content. Once they are in place we can just refer and direct people to them when there is an issue, and not have to spend hours reading and writting responses on discussion pages. Oh and maybe play a bit of TF2 sometime, seeing as I've had to forgo another night of it to write all this.
(Note: I'm now moving this to the discussion portal as it's no longer about the Crafting article and it takes a few minutes to display the Crafting talk page.) --Aurora-avatar.jpgurora (talk | contribs) 01:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "...or been given a release date" - Correct, again I'm missing some 'vital' information source, when is the Crafting release date?
  • It's set for release with the War update, which is why it's included in the preview. The general consensus on the talk page seemed to be that crafting does deserve a page for now. It's not too big an issue since it'll be expanding very soon with the addition of the feature itself in a few days.

"That's not to understate what a great job you do but other editors can and do add content regulary. " I was exaggerating a little, but we were the only ones copy editing. The wiki would be a total mess if all those months of edits were slipping through the cracks unchecked.

As for the 'rant' thing, I didn't mean literal ranting so much as the seeming sudden hostile attitude which I must admit is mostly understandable. I also didn't see the talk page messages, which must have got lost in the general edit rush. If you want me to add my contribution to these discussion, just drop me a line on my talk page when you do or send me an email (I added it to my userpage in case i'm not on steam). I apologise for the lack of communication, it's not for lack of wanting I assure you. As for my list, i'll post that on my userpage too, though it's rather rough. I was focusing on the smaller tasks which can be gotten out the way, so we could bring our full swing round to the larger tasks. If you think these wikipage and licensing tasks are more pressing, well, you're probably right and I'll notch them up the list. The key problem here was really a bit of a lack of communication. I've been editing a lot lately but i've been too busy to check around much or spend time on steam. Could I get a link to a list of uploaded files so I can help with the license tagging?

As for the achievements, well I may as well column the rest now in anticipation of the ones in the new update. I can focus on the other issues too. Anyway, let's get cracking on the wiki, and maybe, yes, playing some TF2. --Wilsonator 03:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"We don't follow wikipedia policy, we use them as a guideline" If you're gonna cite wikipedia policy to make a point, you can't just deflect it like that when someone else responds with a different portion of wikipedia policy. If you have a problem with wilsonator's behavior, then you should have no problem with others taking issue with your own behavior. And this "undermining" of your... I dunno, authority? (or whatever you're referring to) is contradictory to the guidelines of wikipedia's example of WP:NOBIGDEAL. Administrative roles are pragmatic, not authoritative or hierarchical.
In the end you basically started a discussion with "cry some more" and called my belief in the validity of the war pages (which is clearly not a contention-free issue) a "joke", and then went on to say I was acting inappropriately. :/
I'll be sure to add those things to my watchlist and try to help out. In the future, though, I should hope that the way you address others' sincere points in discussions will, at the very least, become a little less aggressive. G-Mang 04:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
G-Mang: Please keep comments in order. I wasn't going to reply to your comments in the interest of not inflaming the discussion. However I thought it would be best to clarify some points.
1. I or indeed anyone can cite wikipedia policy as a guideline, this does not mean it is our policy. Policy and guidelines are very different things and you should not confuse the two.
2. Although in current social dialogue "undermining" is usually linked with authority, it does not mean that it always goes hand in hand, undermining can apply to anything. If you had more knowledge of my editing, you would know I'm not the type of editor that abuses their status in an authoritarian way. I didnt ask for moderator status, I was given it. I actually don't believe that hierarchical, authoritarian, tyrannical or sociocratic governance systems work very well, this is a personal belief but the point being I agree with the Wikipedian principles. Don't assume I have issues with people disagreeing with either my attitude, behaviour or opinions.
3. At no point in any of the discussion did I ever state or imply that you or anyone were acting inappropriately.
I suggest that you re-read the discussion because I want to point out this - Both myself and Wilsonator may disagree on quite a few different issues, however over the course of the discussions, although we address the points of contention we then go on to defuse them by focusing on the more constructive and productive points. In fact Wilsonator is quite adapt at it, more so than me (uni=political studies by any chance?). However your last comments are counter-productive and only serve to add fuel to the fire.
Wilsonator: Yes, even though I still disagree, I stated as such on the talk page that the page will remain. I'm not, and never have been an editor that will rebuke general consensus to serve my own interests. However, what I'm getting at is where do we draw the line on articles about things that haven't actually been released? Again, taking the trading (because it's similar and initially mentioned in the same source) as an example - I would have to say that no definitive details about either the trading or crafting, just a screenshot and fragments. Are we going to say that all details on the blog warrant an article, even if details are sketchy? Now people have mentioned my comment on the Guard dogs, I quote "never hosted by Valve, mentioned by Valve as an intended feature, or been given a release date" and "The Guard Dog page was on a fan-made URL addres". Fair comments, if they were correct but the blog post on September 21st (http://www.teamfortress.com/post.php?id=2851) kinda disagrees with both comments, save for the release date part. Valve will continue to post stuff like this as jokes, that's just how they are and I like what they do but to use the blog posts as sources of fact is going to get messy. I would say that more than 90% of Valves blog posts are tongue in cheek and cannot be used as a basis of fact. True some details are subtly leaked this way but for fact and valid details we have to go by Steam updates when the updates are released.
Ok, moving on. I'd rather we have a centralised list rather than seperate lists on multiple user pages. At the moment there's only a few people who have a list of future actions, but if that changes, trying to find the details on various user pages is going to be difficult. It would also make it easier to link to a central page from other places like the Tasks list. It could go under either the Proposals or Tasks portals technically, I would favour the Proposals under a new subpage but I leave it open for input.
The Discussion portal was created to be a central hub of communication about the wiki for all. Previously editors have been monitoring the recent changes for discussions on talk pages and as you've found, sometimes things just get buried. The lack of communication is just down to us, me included, not making full use of the portal and I will try and use it more. We could also have an admin discussion subpage as other wikis do, but for the moment I don't think it's warranted and I would rather all be able to add there own comments.
Uploaded files - There's lots of different ways to find these, on the Special:SpecialPages there's a few utils under the "Media reports and uploads" section. I've actually been using the categories though, so I can take one cat at a time, making it easier to have checkpoints. All images should be subcategorised under the Category:Images, all Audio under the Category:Audio and all videos under the Category:Videos. I'm just going through each subcategory one by one. Once complete we then need to look through the Special:UncategorizedFiles and Special:UnusedFiles for any remaining files. Also use the {{Information}} template above the Licensing header. Have a look at the Chiefofstaff edit page for an example, we don't have much details on the file but anything is better than nothing. You can pretty much cut and paste each files edit page and just change the details once you get going. --Aurora-avatar.jpgurora (talk | contribs) 18:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I am just one of the numerous TF2 fans whom, after seeing the official website's page about crafting, immediately came to TF2wiki in search of more information and witnessed the debacle which ensued. Although I am a single voice, I am speaking on behalf of at least three others on my team when I say this: Aurora's attitude has thoroughly discouraged us from contributing to this wiki. Even if he is the most prolific editor ever to to place his pen upon this website's paper, we feel his skills at moderating are wanting to the point of being pernicious.
Perhaps knowing how we feel will be useful to you. Perhaps it will not be. Regardless, it is how we feel. Kind Regards, Era 20:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Era, I think things have calmed down. If you have a point to add that hasn't been made, go ahead, but otherwise you can probably go back to editing without worrying about it.
Aurora, I've never tried to suggest you had some habit of being abusive, and I understand what it's like to be alone on a side of discussion and to have administrative actions be undone, but mistakes can be and were made. I think this comment exemplifies the conduct that I took issue with: "Nope, it was the fact that I go by the guidelines on Wikipedia. To then have another admin restore the page is undermining, thanks." I hope you get where I'm coming from with my comments. If not, I guess I don't have anything to add.
As for the article: The Guard Dog page itself is not hosted by Valve--only a link to it is. Valve also never suggested they were putting it into the game, providing only a possible in-setting reference of Mann Co. considering it as an application. I think most of us believe that this is clearly very different from a Valve-hosted, update-promoting page with screenshots and explanation/examples. The page is just as descriptive as unlock promotional pages, and unless there's been some discrepancy I haven't noticed, we've had a practice for some time now of creating articles for those unlocks the moment the promotional pages go up.
I realize that Valve posts a lot of jokes and irrelevant bits on the site, but I can't recall a single time when they've made a attempt to deceive people to such an extreme extent during an update promotion, which is how they advertise and create publicity (as opposed to joke releases, which are more fan services).
Wiki stuff: If we really don't have any policies, is there any way I can help out with making them, or is that an higher-up thing? G-Mang 22:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Era - I am sorry if you feel that way, but you surely must realise that communities will have disagreements and moderators may sometimes take decisions that others do not accept. However to claim that numerous possible contributors would base their decisions to not contribute to a community because their first impression was a negative one strikes me a dubious. If I wasn't a contributor to a wiki and place myself in your position, I wouldn't base my decision on that impression, in fact I would be interested in how it all sorted itself out, whilst making other contributions elsewhere. I certainly wouldn't assume this is how all things work, just looking at one article, however everyone is entitled to their opinion. I will take note of your comments but having only created your account yesterday and this being your first and only post, I will remain skeptical of how genuine those comments are.
G-Mang - Please don't take this as belittling, it isn't intended that way. Once again your missing my point and I'm exhasting my reasoning. Where IS the line in what source's we use as fact? What is considered valid sources? We do not have a policy or a guideline and can only use Wikipedia policy or guidelines as a guide themselves. If we do not have these, things like this happen where all you have is one person saying "this is fact", the other "this is not fact". It's akin to a "yes it is" "no it isn't" schoolyard disagreement. And regarding the 'Wiki stuff', is it not clear we don't have guidelines or policies by now? We have Help files and a style guide, which can all be found through the Help:Contents. After being an editor for over a year I'm shocked you even need to ask. Just to point out, I'm not angry, I'm jaded.
All - After the past few days I've decided to step aside. I will post my full comments on this on the main discussion page. --Aurora-avatar.jpgurora (talk | contribs) 13:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I meant policies on these topics (the ones we're forced to cite Wikipedia on even though it's only guidelines). Things like deletion and administration and future content. I'm well aware of our style guides and help pages. G-Mang 22:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


Personal tools