Difference between revisions of "Talk:Weekly Strike Target"

Latest revision as of 17:36, 5 January 2014

Abbreviation

Requesting a new abbreviation for Weekly Task Force... honestly I don;t wanna be getting tells like this:

[Tell]averagejoehero:WTF?

Maybe Task Force of the Week (TFW) would be better as a global recommendation for abbreviation. just a thought.Joshex 19:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Technically, WST is the proper official abbreviation based on the term that was handed to us by the developers. The alternate abbreviations are in frequent use throughout the community, meaning that only the community-at-large really has the power to change that. --Eabrace 19:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Past Strike Targets?

At what point do we start removing "Past Strike Targets"? The list is going to get long pretty quickly if we add another line every week. SpaceNut 16:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think it should be removed immediately. I don't see it holding much historical significance. --GuyPerfect 16:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The only use I really see the list serving is in the case where someone is asking, "When can I expect my favorite TF to be the WST?" and the answer is, "It already was the WST <X> weeks ago." Perhaps if we want to preserve those dates, it would be better to indicate in an already existing table the last time a given TF was the WST. (Maybe here or in a "Historical" section in the individual TF's main article, for example.) --Eabrace 17:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Badge Awarded	Task Force Name	Contact	Min Size	Level Range	Merits	Missions	WST Date	Notes
	The Rule of Three	Positron	3	10 to 15	11	7	N/A	Accolade requirement for Positron's Ally and Task Force Commander.
	Dam Hero	Positron	3	11 to 16	15	7	N/A	Accolade requirement for Positron's Ally and Task Force Commander.
	The Fall of the Clockwork King	Synapse	4	15 to 20	58	15	N/A	Accolade requirement for Task Force Commander.
	Clamor and Destruction	Sister Psyche	5	20 to 25	50	14	02/22/11- 02/28/11	Accolade requirement for Task Force Commander.

What do people think? Does it make the table too crowded? SpaceNut 21:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I personally feel that a Historical section in this article with the some of the above information in the table would be the most logical choice. A mention should be made in the Task Force article that Weekly Strike history can be found here. That said, I'm not sure it would be necessary to display any information other than the Task Force name, the last Weekly Strike Target date, and possibly the badge icon just for visual clarity. An alternate possibility would be to display the abridged version of the table I described here and additionally add the Weekly Strike Target column on the Task Force page.

One significant reason I feel that the information should at least be present in this article as well, if not only here, is that its more convenient to only have to check one article for the relevant dates, rather than both the separate Task Force and Strike Force articles, if you're interested in both Heroes and Villains. Draeth Darkstar 20:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I like tables. I like data-lists available in one centralized location if possible. To that end, I made [[Talk:Weekly Strike Target/Past|a suggestion]]. The usage would be to replace the text list with tables. (I like tables.)

• Add a new line to the bottom of the appropriate table(s) when an activity is made a strike target for the first time (e.g. when the Tin Mage TF is moved to Past, put it on a new line at the bottom)
• Add a new line to the bottom and remove the old line when an activity has been a WST before (e.g. remove the 3/15 ITF when the 4/5 ITF is moved to Past, put the 4/5 ITF on a new line at the bottom)

That way, the default view is oldest to newest, but you can still sort by other columns if you wanted. ~ AGGE talk/cons 01:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That looks like a reasonable solution to me. May I offer a counter-suggestion that instead of two separate tables it be just one of the form of Date - Hero Activity - Hero Contact - Villain Activity - Villain Contact? Draeth Darkstar 03:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Could have it in a table, and also keep it in a hide template or something if people are worried about it eventually getting too long. As for why to keep it, it's historical - otherwise we might as well remove everything which is deemed history once it's out of date. As for "Past Strike Targets" as a name, I just came up with that because I couldn't think of anything else. Feel free to change the name if you don't like it.  :3 Sera404 03:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

@Draeth: There's two tables because there's occasionally a hero choice and a villain choice. And it's possible that the developers don't pick the same two activities to match up each time. In order to remove one but not the other to make a new date, there has to be two tables. Otherwise we're inserting a bunch of empty cells when we're dropping one activity down but not the other.

@Sera: It's at the very bottom of the page, so no one has to see it unless they want to. I don't see a need for a hidden template.

~ AGGE talk/cons 04:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC):::PPOOef

It is my strong suspicion that the Task Forces chosen will always be coupled in the same way, because thus far when it's been a TF and a SF, they've always been the same level bracket content, and we've also gotten the same coupling twice on the schedule now (Sister Psyche and Silver Mantis), but I suppose the only way to know for sure is with time. Assuming they're not always the same, I agree that one table with empty cells would look bad, but if they are, I feel one table would look better. Draeth Darkstar 21:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Based on the May list this isn't 100% acurrate. Since there are more Hero TFs than Villain SFs it looks like the plan is to pair a single Villain Sf with Multiple Hero TFs (i.e. Ice Mistral Being paired with either Eden Trial or Numina).CmdrAdeon 19:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

unindented ~Agge
I went ahead and did a hidden template with a by-date table layout, including from Weekly Strike Target/Historical for ease of use. As stated in the page itself, when recording new activities that haven't been Strike Targets before, put them on a new line at the bottom of the table. When recording activities that have previously been Strike Targets, move the previous line to the bottom and update the date. The table should be sorted by date (oldest first). ~ AGGE talk/cons 03:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we could add a number of times it has been the WST? It's nice having the most up to date, but I'd also be interested to watch the number of times they do each task force. Deertayorkay 11:09, 3 May 2011

Done ~ AGGE talk/cons 15:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to Remove the Past Strike Targets

I would like to remove the Past Strike Targets Section from the page. In order for the bit on the front page to be useful this page needs to be regularly updated (ideally every Tuesday). I don't know about other people but for me having to update the "Past Strike Targets" page as well really puts me off from bothering to update this page (it's a fiddle, you have to rearrange a table and change values). Do we really need that information? It seems pretty clear that the devs are keeping the run counts reasonably even so tracking the run counts seems pretty pointless (and as time goes on the numbers will get ridiculous anyway). I'd also propose removing the current/next WST section since it has to be reguarly updated but doesn't give any information that isn't in the Scheduled WSTs section. I'm not going to make any unilateral decisions but I really think we need to change how this page is handled. That means either we need some sort of automated update for it or we need to make it simpler for peopel to update because at the moment no one is updating it and that's a shame. CmdrAdeon 22:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see why it needs to be removed, my vote would be for it to be made as simple as possible, to ease the "stress" of updating it. I know I personally have not once touched the WST page to update it simply because I don't want to futz with rearranging 2 different tables, and making sure the values are right... and it seems like half the time other people do it, they do it wrong and someone else has to come in and fix the dang thing. Why can't the tables be merged into one table with:

WST Name | Level | Last Chosen | Times Chosen

Have it organized by TF Name, and folks who are intersted can simply look at the list (or sort it by a different value, that way there is no need to reorganize, just to change the date and add a 1 to the count each time. Also, I find it odd that two different date formats are used on the page... one in the Scheduled section, and another for the Table... which also makes copying (if a new TF is chosen) harder than it needs to be. No idea if this is making any sense, or is merely a rehash of earlier points. ~ Thirty7 19:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed the giant list of hidden pairs, because it was screwing with the layout of the front page (where that section is transcluded from) - I returned the headers so that said transclusion happens properly - and I also returned the {{req sub}} template to the top that was removed (shifted to the front). ~ AGGE talk/cons 22:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Compromise. I created Weekly Strike Target/pairs‎ to copy-paste from and hid a link to it before the listing. ~ AGGE talk/cons 22:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding removing the historical section, I am against that entirely. I am not averse to removing how many times a task has been chosen (I only added it because someone requested it), but I reference it fairly frequently (especially getting to the end of the month to see what might come up next month) - and I have heard multiple references to it in-game, from my friends and from random strangers in various chat channels (global and otherwise). ~ AGGE talk/cons 22:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am likewise opposed to its removal. But I am very much for a simplification of that table as I stated above.  :) Just my 2 Influence. ~ Thirty7 20:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, a quick note on the {{req sub}} positioning: I still feel that it looks just as bad in its current position, and intersects with the text too closely. ~ Thirty7 20:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The current historical information feels incomplete to me, as it doesn't list when the trials were run except the most recent. Why shouldn't we have a table that lists every single WST? If you want to see how often one occurred, just sort the table by TF/SF. This simplifies things because we needn't try to keep track of the counts anymore -- and makes mistakes less likely. It also simplifies record keeping in general. When new WST's are announced, they should get added to the historical section and the scheduled section. Then, people just need to remove old entries to keep the scheduled section up to date; no more having to move + reformat. In any event, I don't think we should remove the historical information. As an aside, we should always be using dates in YYYY-MM-DD format; we have both US and EU users, and MM/DD/YY is not international friendly. Plus YYYY-MM-DD is more sort-friendly and allows for more consistency. I'll go ahead and make that fix in the scheduled section. -- Sekoia 22:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Three Months?!?

Do we want the full three months worth of dates and things transcluded to the main page? It seems a bit... long. Is there a way to have all of the dates on the article page, but to only transclude the entries for the current month to the mainpage? —  Talk · Cont 08:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought that looked a bit excessive. I tried to fix it using <noinclude> tags but DPL doesn't respect them apparently. I don't have any other ideas at the moment. -- Sekoia 17:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The Labeled Section Transclusion extension makes this possible. We can manually define a region we want to specifically transclude, and then transclude just that section using its name. However, it'll have to be manually maintained, like we do with the news. Do we want to do that? -- Sekoia 04:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)