|
On April 02 2024 16:07 MM-yingxiong wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2024 07:08 LUCKY_NOOB wrote:On April 01 2024 05:18 MM-yingxiong wrote:
i mean if you make small changes for 2-3 weeks straight you get promoted to editor, not very hard. just make a change and ask in their discord to approve it, usually doesnt take a lot of time for them to react If 369 days (actually 371 until it was resolved) is not a lot of time to react IDK what is... lel Literally the first image I posted in this very thread: https://imgbb.com/0m0k5bp IDK if you saw it before you formed your opinion. I assume over the years many people have left for real life reasons or whatever. Maybe the system worked like a charm at peak BW times... It hasn't worked like that for years now. Also editor can NOT approve their OWN changes (to the best of my understanding). My argument is this: 1. Contributing should be easy 2. Approval (or denial, ideally approved AND fixed by the editor if need be) should be quicker than 1 year 3. More editors = less work each would have to do 4. People with actual Brood War knowledge should be editors for the liquipedia (I believe currently it is not the case) 5. Actually having a more friendly copyright license for the wiki in particular may be helpful too... P.S. if it is indeed so easy as you say I am looking forward to your ascension to editor. Hope you can do better. I hear many people tried a few times and didn't get approved and gave up forever... I mean yes, it's not as clear as it should be but I saw your messages on discord couple of weeks ago and you havent linked any of your changes you were just saying how it's a vicious cycle since noone will ever approve your changes. i myself edited like 10 times and just posted a link to a revision and they approved within couple hours.
Did you look at the screenshot I posted? I also updated my original post which you can see here:
+ Show Spoiler +- Hide Spoiler - (Wiki)index.php?title=Special  endingChanges&offset=&limit=100 The list goes on and on with edits pending revision. I am confident we can find people with the knowledge and willingness to review edits and keep the Brood War section of Liquipedia.net up to date. I can't find what the requirements are to be an editor, but it seems to me they are needed! As you can see the oldest page pending review is 369 days! It is a copy of Quatari's massive article: https://www.starcraftai.com/wiki/Tricks,_Glitches_and_ExploitsThe single most comprehensive article on the topic that I've seen to date.
I feel like you are not reading anything I am saying. I would bet good money the changes you made were approved AFTER my original post. There are 2 editors that I know, NOW aware of posts. One of em said they don't deal with content of the BW liquipedia. So down to 1.
The point is 1 is clearly not enough because everything I've said so far. I am happy my intervention helped you any anyone interested in your edit, but the problem is far from solved. There is no Universe in which waiting more than A YEAR to get an edit reviewed is a good time frame. I'm just repeating myself at this point...
|
I agree with your main point, Brood War liquipedia is in need of a revamp and I'd be happy to help with it if I can.
Unfortunately, you have to test most things you see on Liquipedia yourself to be sure of it. For example, look at Protoss building times, and then test them yourself. There's a 2-3 second difference because Liquipedia doesn't account for the extra time it takes for the building to fully warp in before you can start producing a unit. Small details like this make Liquipedia a good starting resource, but always take with a grain of salt.
|
On April 03 2024 11:04 fearthequeen wrote:
I agree with your main point, Brood War liquipedia is in need of a revamp and I'd be happy to help with it if I can.
Unfortunately, you have to test most things you see on Liquipedia yourself to be sure of it. For example, look at Protoss building times, and then test them yourself. There's a 2-3 second difference because Liquipedia doesn't account for the extra time it takes for the building to fully warp in before you can start producing a unit. Small details like this make Liquipedia a good starting resource, but always take with a grain of salt.
Maybe if editing was more accessible more people would be incentivized to add information like that.
There is no shortage of salt ;D I seriously wonder how many useful updates have been rejected over the years due to the strict ruleset.
Having outdated info does not help with the credibility. Maybe if the editing problem was solved we can start a "test liquipedia for errors initiative"...
|
On April 03 2024 14:49 LUCKY_NOOB wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2024 11:04 fearthequeen wrote:
I agree with your main point, Brood War liquipedia is in need of a revamp and I'd be happy to help with it if I can.
Unfortunately, you have to test most things you see on Liquipedia yourself to be sure of it. For example, look at Protoss building times, and then test them yourself. There's a 2-3 second difference because Liquipedia doesn't account for the extra time it takes for the building to fully warp in before you can start producing a unit. Small details like this make Liquipedia a good starting resource, but always take with a grain of salt.
Maybe if editing was more accessible more people would be incentivized to add information like that. There is no shortage of salt ;D I seriously wonder how many useful updates have been rejected over the years due to the strict ruleset. Having outdated info does not help with the credibility. Maybe if the editing problem was solved we can start a "test liquipedia for errors initiative"...
I believe that herein lies the crux of the issue.
The concern is likely "notability." I am (was?) an editor on Liquipedia and I sure as hell would not feel comfortable making the unilateral and authoritative decision that your edits satisfy the "notability" requirement. Does an extremely lengthy page on bugs and glitches benefit anyone who would regularly use the Wiki? Considering that the majority of the content is centered around competitive leagues, competitive players, and competitive maps, I think that there is room for doubt here.
Historically, tournaments, leagues, players, and other pages have been declined for submission due to these notability guidelines. Quality control has been increasingly important to Liquipedia over the years, as far as I know.
For what it's worth, when I go to the link you shared in the OP as an editor, I see this:
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/uvGJcf0.png)
So, either there is some sort of error, I lost/don't have permissions, or those articles/edits you saw in that list have already been approved/rejected.
Either way, the Discord is probably the best place to go for getting approval for article topics, projects, and edits before you waste your time and energy writing something that may not be approved. As to the previous disgruntled poster's "how the hell should I know that" which was quickly followed by "I'm not doing that", well if you don't care enough to have your problem addressed then I think that says everything that needs to be said about it. Joining a Discord and writing a message describing the nature of your problem isn't asking a lot. Doing so in condescending way on forums may not be the best move, either.
Even ignoring the condescending points, your argument boils down to "We need more people who are more experienced to give up their free time to review changes that random people make on this wiki, all for no compensation and little-to-no recognition!" and well, yea, that'd be great! How do we achieve that, then?
To address a different point made here, you can do all the testing you want in your own user page as a sandbox. For example, mine contains the old bracket format.
EDIT: Want to make it clear that I have not been an active editor in a long time so I am not speaking on behalf of Liquipedia or BW editors, just my own opinion.
|
On April 03 2024 14:49 LUCKY_NOOB wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2024 11:04 fearthequeen wrote:
I agree with your main point, Brood War liquipedia is in need of a revamp and I'd be happy to help with it if I can.
Unfortunately, you have to test most things you see on Liquipedia yourself to be sure of it. For example, look at Protoss building times, and then test them yourself. There's a 2-3 second difference because Liquipedia doesn't account for the extra time it takes for the building to fully warp in before you can start producing a unit. Small details like this make Liquipedia a good starting resource, but always take with a grain of salt.
Maybe if editing was more accessible more people would be incentivized to add information like that.
This, when I get bad info and have to dig into pending edits, or can't see my own correct info being reflected it discourages me from contributing
|
I am mainly active on the SC2 wiki, but I want to chime in.
We use the RecentChanges page to see recent edits:  Special:RecentChanges.
This is where we usually catch edits that need to be checked.
After some time, the unchecked edits can get out of the list. Then, the pages that need to be checked appear in the page you linked: Special:PendingChanges. Unfortunately, it is visited much less often, and edits can go weeks or months without being checked. As Jealous said, not all editors are comfortable accepting changes.
The fact that it took so long to review these pages is a shame, but hopefully things will get better from now on. For reviews, we need editors that understand how Liquipedia works. The current system of auto-promoting to editor after a given set of time and number of edits (and other parameters) is maybe not the best, but at least it means editors have had time to get some experience about the dos and don'ts.
For example, the changes to the Bugs page looked good, but had to be rejected because of license issues. This is why we cannot "just" give editor status to active BW people.
On April 03 2024 17:16 iopq wrote:
This, when I get bad info and have to dig into pending edits, or can't see my own correct info being reflected it discourages me from contributing
You made one edit to the article 12 Pool (vs. Zerg) on 24 March 2017 and it was reviewed within 24 hours.
Special:Log?type=&user=&page=12+Pool+%28vs.+Zerg%29&wpdate=&tagfilter=&wpfilters%5B%5D=review&wpfilters%5B%5D=patrol&wpfilters%5B%5D=newusers&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist
|
On April 03 2024 15:55 Jealous wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 03 2024 14:49 LUCKY_NOOB wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2024 11:04 fearthequeen wrote:
I agree with your main point, Brood War liquipedia is in need of a revamp and I'd be happy to help with it if I can.
Unfortunately, you have to test most things you see on Liquipedia yourself to be sure of it. For example, look at Protoss building times, and then test them yourself. There's a 2-3 second difference because Liquipedia doesn't account for the extra time it takes for the building to fully warp in before you can start producing a unit. Small details like this make Liquipedia a good starting resource, but always take with a grain of salt.
Maybe if editing was more accessible more people would be incentivized to add information like that. There is no shortage of salt ;D I seriously wonder how many useful updates have been rejected over the years due to the strict ruleset. Having outdated info does not help with the credibility. Maybe if the editing problem was solved we can start a "test liquipedia for errors initiative"... I believe that herein lies the crux of the issue. The concern is likely "notability." I am (was?) an editor on Liquipedia and I sure as hell would not feel comfortable making the unilateral and authoritative decision that your edits satisfy the "notability" requirement. Does an extremely lengthy page on bugs and glitches benefit anyone who would regularly use the Wiki? Considering that the majority of the content is centered around competitive leagues, competitive players, and competitive maps, I think that there is room for doubt here. Historically, tournaments, leagues, players, and other pages have been declined for submission due to these notability guidelines. Quality control has been increasingly important to Liquipedia over the years, as far as I know. For what it's worth, when I go to the link you shared in the OP as an editor, I see this: So, either there is some sort of error, I lost/don't have permissions, or those articles/edits you saw in that list have already been approved/rejected. Either way, the Discord is probably the best place to go for getting approval for article topics, projects, and edits before you waste your time and energy writing something that may not be approved. As to the previous disgruntled poster's "how the hell should I know that" which was quickly followed by "I'm not doing that", well if you don't care enough to have your problem addressed then I think that says everything that needs to be said about it. Joining a Discord and writing a message describing the nature of your problem isn't asking a lot. Doing so in condescending way on forums may not be the best move, either. Even ignoring the condescending points, your argument boils down to "We need more people who are more experienced to give up their free time to review changes that random people make on this wiki, all for no compensation and little-to-no recognition!" and well, yea, that'd be great! How do we achieve that, then? To address a different point made here, you can do all the testing you want in your own user page as a sandbox. For example, mine contains the old bracket format. EDIT: Want to make it clear that I have not been an active editor in a long time so I am not speaking on behalf of Liquipedia or BW editors, just my own opinion.
My edit was rejected on copyright grounds. I am highlighting a bigger issue here.
I am CERTAIN that we can gather knowledgeable active BW community members who would be more than happy to look at the liquipedia more than once a year (or w/e called upon on discord). Myself excluded btw.
The only lack of willingness I see is to restructure how editors are given their power.
BTW plenty of people have told me they made many edits and never got an editor status.
I already addressed that the current batch have been reviewed. The screenshot was before I raised the issue.
|
On April 03 2024 19:59 enuaj wrote:I am mainly active on the SC2 wiki, but I want to chime in. + Show Spoiler +We use the RecentChanges page to see recent edits: Special:RecentChanges.This is where we usually catch edits that need to be checked. After some time, the unchecked edits can get out of the list. Then, the pages that need to be checked appear in the page you linked: endingChanges. on Liquipedia" target="_blank" href="https://liquipedia.net/starcraft/SpecialendingChanges.">SpecialendingChanges. Unfortunately, it is visited much less often, and edits can go weeks or months without being checked. As Jealous said, not all editors are comfortable accepting changes. The fact that it took so long to review these pages is a shame, but hopefully things will get better from now on. For reviews, we need editors that understand how Liquipedia works. The current system of auto-promoting to editor after a given set of time and number of edits (and other parameters) is maybe not the best, but at least it means editors have had time to get some experience about the dos and don'ts. For example, the changes to the Bugs page looked good, but had to be rejected because of license issues. This is why we cannot "just" give editor status to active BW people.
On April 03 2024 17:16 iopq wrote:
This, when I get bad info and have to dig into pending edits, or can't see my own correct info being reflected it discourages me from contributing You made one edit to the article 12 Pool (vs. Zerg) on 24 March 2017 and it was reviewed within 24 hours. https://liquipedia.net/starcraft/Special:Log?type=&user=&page=12 Pool (vs. Zerg)&wpdate=&tagfilter=&wpfilters[]=review&wpfilters[]=patrol&wpfilters[]=newusers&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist
Now it's 1 person comfortable accepting or rejecting pending edits. Call me crazy I think we can do better.
I am also indeed questioning the dos and don'ts.
P.S. no way to get you more into BW? 
|
|
|
On April 03 2024 22:01 LUCKY_NOOB wrote:
BTW plenty of people have told me they made many edits and never got an editor status.
Making a lot of edits does not necessarily mean you should be an editor FWIW.
|
On April 04 2024 01:43 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2024 22:01 LUCKY_NOOB wrote:
BTW plenty of people have told me they made many edits and never got an editor status.
Making a lot of edits does not necessarily mean you should be an editor FWIW.
True. If you still are an editor I'll be telling people to bug you then... lel Or it's a use it or lose it type of power?
|
On April 03 2024 22:09 LUCKY_NOOB wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2024 19:59 enuaj wrote:I am mainly active on the SC2 wiki, but I want to chime in. + Show Spoiler +We use the RecentChanges page to see recent edits: Special:RecentChanges.This is where we usually catch edits that need to be checked. After some time, the unchecked edits can get out of the list. Then, the pages that need to be checked appear in the page you linked: endingChanges. on Liquipedia" target="_blank" href="https://liquipedia.net/starcraft/SpecialendingChanges.">SpecialendingChanges. Unfortunately, it is visited much less often, and edits can go weeks or months without being checked. As Jealous said, not all editors are comfortable accepting changes. The fact that it took so long to review these pages is a shame, but hopefully things will get better from now on. For reviews, we need editors that understand how Liquipedia works. The current system of auto-promoting to editor after a given set of time and number of edits (and other parameters) is maybe not the best, but at least it means editors have had time to get some experience about the dos and don'ts. For example, the changes to the Bugs page looked good, but had to be rejected because of license issues. This is why we cannot "just" give editor status to active BW people.
On April 03 2024 17:16 iopq wrote:
This, when I get bad info and have to dig into pending edits, or can't see my own correct info being reflected it discourages me from contributing You made one edit to the article 12 Pool (vs. Zerg) on 24 March 2017 and it was reviewed within 24 hours. https://liquipedia.net/starcraft/Special:Log?type=&user=&page=12 Pool (vs. Zerg)&wpdate=&tagfilter=&wpfilters[]=review&wpfilters[]=patrol&wpfilters[]=newusers&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist Now it's 1 person comfortable accepting or rejecting pending edits. Call me crazy I think we can do better. I am also indeed questioning the dos and don'ts. P.S. no way to get you more into BW?
Your post actually got me to make a few edits on the BW wiki! I'll try checking it regularly in the future.
For info, these are the stats for edits in the last 30 days:
https://liquipedia.net/statistics/?view=activeusers&wikis[]=starcraft
If we ignore the 3 bots, that's 16 people who have made at least 1 edit in the last 30 days. All the people with silver, gold or diamond coins are probably editors.
|
On April 04 2024 04:57 enuaj wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2024 22:09 LUCKY_NOOB wrote:On April 03 2024 19:59 enuaj wrote:I am mainly active on the SC2 wiki, but I want to chime in. + Show Spoiler +We use the RecentChanges page to see recent edits: Special:RecentChanges.This is where we usually catch edits that need to be checked. After some time, the unchecked edits can get out of the list. Then, the pages that need to be checked appear in the page you linked: endingChanges. on Liquipedia" target="_blank" href="https://liquipedia.net/starcraft/SpecialendingChanges.">SpecialendingChanges. Unfortunately, it is visited much less often, and edits can go weeks or months without being checked. As Jealous said, not all editors are comfortable accepting changes. The fact that it took so long to review these pages is a shame, but hopefully things will get better from now on. For reviews, we need editors that understand how Liquipedia works. The current system of auto-promoting to editor after a given set of time and number of edits (and other parameters) is maybe not the best, but at least it means editors have had time to get some experience about the dos and don'ts. For example, the changes to the Bugs page looked good, but had to be rejected because of license issues. This is why we cannot "just" give editor status to active BW people.
On April 03 2024 17:16 iopq wrote:
This, when I get bad info and have to dig into pending edits, or can't see my own correct info being reflected it discourages me from contributing You made one edit to the article 12 Pool (vs. Zerg) on 24 March 2017 and it was reviewed within 24 hours. https://liquipedia.net/starcraft/Special:Log?type=&user=&page=12 Pool (vs. Zerg)&wpdate=&tagfilter=&wpfilters[]=review&wpfilters[]=patrol&wpfilters[]=newusers&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist Now it's 1 person comfortable accepting or rejecting pending edits. Call me crazy I think we can do better. I am also indeed questioning the dos and don'ts. P.S. no way to get you more into BW? Your post actually got me to make a few edits on the BW wiki! I'll try checking it regularly in the future. For info, these are the stats for edits in the last 30 days: https://liquipedia.net/statistics/?view=activeusers&wikis[]=starcraftIf we ignore the 3 bots, that's 16 people who have made at least 1 edit in the last 30 days. All the people with silver, gold or diamond coins are probably editors.
Nice, thanks!
Yeah tournaments and things like that get updated quickly.
The obscure pending changes really does make a difference.
I stand by the thread and the suggestions but I (and hopefully others) now have a little better understanding of the inner workings.
|
On April 04 2024 04:57 enuaj wrote:
All the people with silver, gold or diamond coins are probably editors.
I don't think that's necessarily true. I have coins and it just shows as "Liquipedia contribution", not editor. At least here in the forums. It's just for having done a bit of stuff on Liquipedia. I guess the fancier the coins, the more contributions.
|
It's true that editor status is not tied to coins exactly. The algorithms are different.
That's why I said and "silver, gold or diamond coins", and why I did not mention bronze coins, what you have.
By experience, I usually see people get editor status around the time they get their first or second silver coin.
Here is another page which shows who's editor or not: index.php?title=Special:ActiveUsers&limit=500
|
Hopefully the unit pages get overhauled by those who are paying attention to the current metagame. There is a lot of outdated info, or just flat-out misinformation. For what it's worth I overhauled the Carrier article, removing misinformation like "battlecruisers hard counter carriers". Maybe they did a long time ago, but not now.
|
On April 04 2024 09:22 enuaj wrote:It's true that editor status is not tied to coins exactly. The algorithms are different. That's why I said and "silver, gold or diamond coins", and why I did not mention bronze coins, what you have. By experience, I usually see people get editor status around the time they get their first or second silver coin. Here is another page which shows who's editor or not: https://liquipedia.net/starcraft/index.php?title=Special:ActiveUsers&limit=500
I missed the part about the coin levels being specific. My bad.
On April 05 2024 04:36 Gippy wrote:Hopefully the unit pages get overhauled by those who are paying attention to the current metagame. There is a lot of outdated info, or just flat-out misinformation. For what it's worth I overhauled the Carrier article, removing misinformation like "battlecruisers hard counter carriers". Maybe they did a long time ago, but not now.
I mean, if you go mass BC against mass Carrier, without any supporting units and micro, the BCs win easily. How do the carriers win? With the attack+stop spam? Generally BCs will shred the interceptors and not care if the carriers stay out of range for auto attacks and even yamato.
|
I mean, we could theorycraft a number of situations where the BCs win, but it doesn't happen at the professional level, and certainly not in ASL. If there are recent professional games of BC vs carriers with the BCs winning, then please let me know.
From what I've seen in recent ASLs, if a protoss goes "quick" 3-base or 4-base carrier, typically what happens is that the protoss gets only the goon range upgrade, and then tries to stall out the terran mech push with goons and reavers until the carriers come out. Terran will have invested into mech with several upgrades (all machine shop upgrades, mech +atk/+armor) plus several factories, and so switching to air isn't very feasible. Terran is forced to push with mech before the carriers are built, as seen in ASL17 Snow vs. Sharp.
Meanwhile, the carriers only need the interceptor capacity upgrade and the air attack upgrades for them to smash face, and the air attack upgrades for carriers scale better than terran air upgrades.
Overall, it appears that terran air upgrades don't mesh well with the rest of terran's gameplan at the professional level, and what we mostly see from terran air are dropships and vessels. If facing zerg, then perhaps throw in 2-3 valkyries, which don't need upgrades to beat the mutastack. That's it. Wraiths and BCs seem to have been metagamed out.
|
You know, on real wikipedia you're not supposed to do original research and instead must provide an external source for anything you write.
I think that'd be a bit drastic on liquipedia, primarily because there's no serious sources about most of the interesting stuff and ergo there's very little to be said about the game if you follow that rule. But people should try to 1. substantiate their claims by pointing to facts about the world (link to VODs and tournament BO stats) and to 2. separate the data (what happened) from their interpretation of that data (what you infer/conclude).
Also everything that can reasonably be expected to change in the future like meta should have a qualifier saying as-of-current-date and maybe go into historical context.
E.g. (completely made up) "As of April 2024, BCs are seldom used to counter carriers as this has never been observed during the last 2 years of proleagues and ASL (of which 210 games featured carrier play). Conclusion: BCs currently don't counter carriers. A possible but unsubstantiated explanation is that viably switching to capital air is a heavier investment for terran than it is for protoss and does not offer higher success rates than just using goliaths."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
