User talk:Victory

-- WelcomeBOT (talk) 05:12, 20 December 2015 (PST)

pid template

Just so you know, the Subst:pid template is only used for painted variants. 11:27, 20 December 2015 (PST)

Right, thank you. What would be more appropriate for gallery images etc? Victory (talk) 11:41, 20 December 2015 (PST)

Well I'm not sure if there is a template for gallery images but I just write it out like this, copy-pasting it whilst changing the class

There's probably an easier way to do it though, heh 11:47, 20 December 2015 (PST)

Also, just some advice, try using the flex menu in HLMV. Giving the classes expressions can make images a little more interesting. Don't go overboard though

For example

Good

Bad

Anyway, if you need any more help, just let me know or you can ask in the IRC room 12:10, 20 December 2015 (PST)

That second face, my sides. Appreciate your help. Victory (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2015 (PST)

I think you deserve this

Wikichievement	Awarded by	Reason
Photo Bomb Continuously upload and add screenshots to articles.	Bojjob	Wikichievement unlocked! Uploading painted variants at blistering speeds, wow

13:59, 22 December 2015 (PST)

Victory!

Victory! — The preceding assigned comment was added by Tark {Finish Him! ▪ Contribs} 15:15, 22 December 2015 (PST)

Painted variants

Hey, I'm impressed by the amount of painted variants you managed to do, but I just thought I'd let you know that if it's a hat, we don't generally put the class' head in with it. It looks a little odd and makes the image a bit too tall. We really only add the class in if it's something like hair, glasses or masks. 10:50, 24 December 2015 (PST)

Cool, I'll update them at some point soon. Still would like to make them consistent.

Victory (talk) 12:28, 24 December 2015 (PST)

Saying that though, I'm going to complete overhauling the Sniper hat paint previews because I think it describes each hat more accurately. How it looks in game with certain paints is generally why people come to look and positioned on the head does describe the reality more accurately.

An example of this inaccuracy would be the difference between the new Crocleather Slouch previews and the old ones:

The old ones appeared flat and like the belt is ambiguously on the left or right, the new ones show that it's actually curved, the belt is on the left and that it's slanting up.

Victory (talk) 13:00, 24 December 2015 (PST)

Well, the only thing is, you can already see how it looks on the infobox. Since the paint table is for paints only, it doesn't really matter too much. You also get a closer look if the image is shorter 14:10, 24 December 2015 (PST)

The infobox isn't consistent and doesn't show how painted items look on the class (which is why most people look at the painted previews). Stuff like this is why people are moving to TFMV and loadout.tf, in my opinion. Victory (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2015 (PST)

Please keep in mind, the purpose of these articles is to document game content, not necessarily to compete with third-party sites and tools. If other people can provide a way to explore game content that we can't (for starters, they support full 3D views of the classes and their hats, something that would require a bunch of plugins here that might or might not work anyways), then all the better for them. The scope of this Wiki isn't so broad as to attempt to be the sole source of information about the game, and it would be better to focus on improving the areas that really do matter (such as concrete numbers for weapon damage, ensuring articles are up to date and factual, etc etc).

While we do appreciate your work at improving the painted images and making them consistent, replacing already-existing images that fulfilled the purpose doesn't measurably increase the quality of the overall Wiki. Plus, there are hats where rotating all of them to a specific viewing angle can be detrimental, as some hats have more of their details on the sides or back; for instance, if the Dead'er Alive was conformed to this standard, people wouldn't be able to see much of it at all since all of it is behind the Engineer's head.

I don't want to discourage someone who's contributed so many images to the Wiki, but please keep such things in mind in the future, so that you can ensure that your contributions do positively impact the Wiki. -- LordKelvin 10:51, 28 December 2015 (PST)

I get that you don't mean to be discouraging but it came off as passive-aggressive and discouraging, especially when you make it out like the only contributions worth making are things like grammar edits and weapon changes.

Pictures are information, they "really do matter" as much as concrete damage numbers, and the information some of them provided were low quality. Yes, some of my changes were minor, but it's not like you're paying me or I'm getting anything out of this.

An obvious, cherrypicked exception like the Dead'er Alive doesn't make the idea of having a standard invalid, and it doesn't mean my contributions haven't positively impacted the Wiki.

The whole idea of a Wiki is to be a comprehensive information site.

Realistically, I don't think you know who uses the Wiki. Nobody Googles "how to play Scout" or "TF2 rocket damage". Everyone knows an Enforcer does 144 crit and 60-90 depending on range. It appears above player heads and on your HUD.

I'm probably going to continue doing what I've been doing, because it does improve the quality of the Wiki, no matter how minor you may consider it to be.

Victory (talk) 13:27, 28 December 2015 (PST)

Heyo, I'd like to point out something. Although we do appreciate what you're doing via improvements of images and what not, As that is accepted. Though what you're currently doing with current paint images... Doesn't really make any sense. You're "improving/overhauling" images that have been fine for several months-years. No one complained, didn't determent the page in anyway. And to point out what Bojjob mentioned, we generally do not include the class head unless its "Hair/glasses" sort of thing. This has been in place since the start of these painted variant images. We even had multiple users who do the painted images even check and agree if its suitable or not. So in my point of view here... improving on images that don't need improving really doesn't seem to be.... adding to the wiki pages they are on...

Ashes (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2016 (PST)

Why are you all so resistant to minor change that doesn't even affect you? Painted variants aren't for us, they're for the average person who Googles "scout cosmetics" or whatever. Nobody complains because this site is a confusing mess to anyone who doesn't have the time or patience to learn how things work, and that's ignoring that the average person doesn't care to contribute to wiki, and of course none of you would notice things like the lack of updated colours on the Cold Killer, the second style added to the Bone Dome that's been mysteriously ignored for 2 months (that I've done but need to upload still), or the wrong materials on the BLU Rubber Glove pics, you've got no interest in improving things or using the wiki for the purposes that most people do.

The active discouragement is getting to be silly.

Victory (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2016 (PST)

Keep in mind, a large part of how things get done one a Wiki is cooperation and collaboration between editors, something that you seem to have been resisting. As mentioned above, we don't include the class's head when doing painted images of hats that don't need it, and you were told this, but your recent Pyro image uploads have all ignored that. This causes problems with how the rest of the cosmetics are shown, as you are creating inconsistencies by doing this; they may be reverted in the future depending on what other editors decide.

The main problem is that you're not really cooperating with other image editors; the images that you're overwriting have not been marked for improvement, and frankly I'm not convinced that they need to be. Instead of overwriting images that have been fine for years, why not first add missing images in those areas that you pointed out? You're also questioning whether we, the people who maintain the Wiki, actually know what's best for this Wiki, which I find rather curious since you haven't really shown any evidence of what outside users want from it.

As much as you believe that you're improving the Wiki, your lack of cooperation with other editors is in fact causing problems. If you truly do want to improve the Wiki, it helps to discuss it with others first before making sweeping changes on your own. You can do this through talk pages, project pages, or even joining our IRC. -- LordKelvin 09:19, 3 January 2016 (PST)

It's becoming pretty clear that you're grasping at straws to justify being upset that I didn't consult everyone. I'm causing inconsistencies by updating, in part, for consistency? Come on. This is a non-issue.

Images have been 'considered fine' for years because how are you supposed to complain to a wiki where you actively discourage people from changing things in a way that, at the least, doesn't reduce quality?

Here's some proof that it's not just me considering things improved: https://www.reddit.com/r/tf2/comments/3ybhlb/i_spent_some_time_this_week_overhauling_the/

You can go ahead and revert things if you insist they cause 'consistency problems', but I don't how that's a problem, since they'll eventually all be consistent and have the info to keep them that way on the rotations page.

Victory (talk) 12:06, 3 January 2016 (PST)

I'll make my point once again that the painted variants are only to show what the hats look like. Adding the class' head to the picture makes it too tall and shrinks the cosmetic down, making it harder to see what's going on. I don't really understand what you mean by the infobox being inconsistent... they look how they're supposed to look. If it doesn't show off the cosmetic properly, we just make a new one to better represent it. 16:54, 3 January 2016 (PST)

Also, to add to my point... you can't have them all facing the same direction because you'd be losing focus of the paint on certain cosmetics. 17:07, 3 January 2016 (PST)