Yesterday we launched our third wiki, a wiki that will aim to cover the professional Dota 2 scene and provide information, help, and tips for players of all skill levels. For us it’s structurally quite a big step since the game is very different from the two StarCraft titles we’ve covered this far. But also the professional scene is driven by team games, which is also different from the professional StarCraft scenes. We think we’ve dealt with those two issues quite well, changed templates to reflect this, and laid a solid foundation on which to build on as we go forward. That is what the wiki is today, a foundation to build on.
The next step is obviously to create more content and increase the coverage of the Dota 2 scene: Players, teams, tournaments, strategies, hero guides, and more. To do this we will need help from the community, from people like you, all you need to do is put in a little time—for some, perhaps effort too—share some of your knowledge, or the knowledge of others that you have found from other sources. The potential for a wiki is almost limitless, and the amount of dedicated people we've found on TL, contributing to the other wikis, have been awesome (but we still want/need more!). We have been fortunate enough to have over 200 pretty dedicated contributors, and over 12 000 who have at least contributed once for our StarCraft II wiki. The results speaks for themselves, I think.
Of course, we hope that some of you reading this are interested in helping out creating this ultimate Dota2 encyclopaedia. A wiki is necessarily dependant on its contributors and, based on our own experience, we have all the faith in the world that the TL community can do it. We hope many of you will become part of this ambitious dream. If you are considering making a start in Liquipedia-editing, check out the tutorial video by Chobopeon below (originally meant for SC2, but nearly everything carries over). Of course, should any questions arise, we are happy to assist anyone in our IRC channel. Take heart, the learning curve for Liquipedia is nothing compared to that of the actual game
Note: For the Dota2 wiki, the template or skeleton pages shown around the 1:30 mark are not all yet in place (but the will soon be,) for now we have Player Template and Team Template.
A wiki is about collaboration, you can use this thread to point out which team(s), player(s), hero(es), and or tournament(s) you want to help edit, if your interest overlaps with others you can hopefully work together to make the page(s) even better. (You may also use this thread to talk about anything else that falls under the topic, of course)
So from me and the rest of the Liquipedia team "We hope to see you on the wiki, Dota 2 fans!"
/salle - Head of Liquipedia
PS. You can direct non wiki editing questions you do not want public to me in PM or to the whole team at liquipedia@teamliquid.net. Otherwise feel free to ask anything in this thread. General feedback to Liquipedia can be directed posted in The Liquipedia Feedback Thread.
NOTE!
On September 01 2012 01:22 blahz0r wrote: [...]Also, please do not copy content directly from dota2wiki.com (they are CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 pretty much means we can't use content from dota2wiki.com because our licenses are not compatible, ours being CC-BY-SA).
On August 31 2012 22:21 Implenia wrote: Which are the parts of the liquipedia that need improvement the most, where our community could help out?
i think we are currently lack of Players and team profile pages. i myself just create Loda profile page after hour of googling. Try to avoid copy pasting from other wiki.
is it possible that there is maybe a mistake in the match template or am i just dumb? look at the second match of every game from ti2, the picks and bans are always on the wrong team. i edited myself some mouz matches last night and saw this. so what you have to do is: give the dire team, the radiant pick and bans, and the other way aound.
yay LP announcement. Lots of content to be had, lets do it people!
Also, please do not copy content directly from dota2wiki.com (they are CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 pretty much means we can't use content from dota2wiki.com because our licenses are not compatible, ours being CC-BY-SA).
On September 01 2012 00:18 Windwaker wrote: is it possible that there is maybe a mistake in the match template or am i just dumb? look at the second match of every game from ti2, the picks and bans are always on the wrong team. i edited myself some mouz matches last night and saw this. so what you have to do is: give the dire team, the radiant pick and bans, and the other way aound.
Let me check that out.
EDIT: Okay, the variable name should have been updated we initially made this template to work as a best of one, then radiant would always be left and dire would always be right, as per Dota convention. But when we moved to a multiple game series we decided to change the left/right sorting order to be of the team, as in the team is always in one column, we're not 100% sure this is how we'll always do it, but for now it's the less of two bad choices we had to make. I'll get to fixing the name of the variables soon, just not while the International is live as people will want to edit the page and me locking it down for edits or me trying to fit it in between people editing it feels a bit So keep putting them on the wrong team for the 2nd match for now.
whoops, forgot to check 'minor edit' most of my contributions
If I'm correcting a player's name or a typo, it's a minor edit, but if I'm adding a player to a list of former players, it should be left unchecked right?
yeah minor usually signifies you did not change the content, merely fixing minor spelling mistakes or changing a sentence around or something. if you fix tonnes of minor things you can make it normal change... it's mostly a curtsey thing to other editor who can filter out the minor edits when looking in recent changes or the history.
So, Question about Strategies. Is there a good template for strategy pages, or how they should be laid out and linked to heroes? I might have an interest to do a few 'strategy' series.
I'm wondering how guides (of any kind) are going to be handled, assuming Liquipedia will feature them (which it should imo, being the ultimate resource and all). Just one template for strategy won't be enough I fear, since hero-,gameplay-,item-, and strategyguides need to be layed out differently. Guessing someone has to come up with a good layout for every kind of article first..
Start with the strategy forum first, we need to sort out a few things so were not inundated with strategies all of a sudden with no way of discerning how good or bad a guide is.
Are there any conventions for editing the scores of matches? For example, we should be making the hero picks/bans always be in the order they were picked or banned, and not the order that they show up on the scoreboard, but we should have the players on the scoreboard section in the wiki should be in the order they appear on the game scoreboard, right?
Also there is a score section and a kills section. Should both just be the same as the numbers that appear on the top of the UI when spectating/playing, or should you manually add up the kills for the kills section, and use the score counter at the top of the screen as the score? I know for some games, players will die to neutrals or get denied which does not count as a kill for any of their enemies, but their death will count towards the score at the top of the screen. This sometimes leads to a discrepancy between the kills made by a team and the final kill-score.
Also, are there any plans to use APIs to automatically obtain the information from scoreboards instead of entering it manually? I know some other cool information might be able to be obtained, such as towers left standing for each team like it shows on the watch tab for live games. However, I don't know how APIs work.. :/
Picks/Bans are the order, so you'll have to watch the replay for that. Scores, I've been using the team scores, and not adding individual kills up, because they don't count split kills and suicides.
Salle: I've been putting people on the "right" team for the 2nd match because I noticed the mistake
On September 07 2012 12:56 eng.nayR wrote: Are there any conventions for editing the scores of matches? For example, we should be making the hero picks/bans always be in the order they were picked or banned, and not the order that they show up on the scoreboard, but we should have the players on the scoreboard section in the wiki should be in the order they appear on the game scoreboard, right?
Also there is a score section and a kills section. Should both just be the same as the numbers that appear on the top of the UI when spectating/playing, or should you manually add up the kills for the kills section, and use the score counter at the top of the screen as the score? I know for some games, players will die to neutrals or get denied which does not count as a kill for any of their enemies, but their death will count towards the score at the top of the screen. This sometimes leads to a discrepancy between the kills made by a team and the final kill-score.
Also, are there any plans to use APIs to automatically obtain the information from scoreboards instead of entering it manually? I know some other cool information might be able to be obtained, such as towers left standing for each team like it shows on the watch tab for live games. However, I don't know how APIs work.. :/
At the moment, bans/picks are listed directly under the team. Do not confuse the "left" and rights" for placing picks and bans. The red and green colors are to denote whether that team were radiant or dire for that game. While this is different compared to the ingame screens and such, this is the convention we're going with for now(subject to change in the future maybe). The scoreboard at the bottom with the items, kills, deaths, and etc can exactly match what the game end scoreboard shows.
I'm not sure if this is the correct forum to post this stuff but I have a quick suggestion for the Dota 2 Liquipedia.
You should add a field to the tournament template which displays the patch the tournament was played with. It's probably not that significant at the moment because most tournament were played using 6.74, but with 6.75 expected soon, it could start becoming important.
On September 08 2012 17:11 tauon wrote: I'm not sure if this is the correct forum to post this stuff but I have a quick suggestion for the Dota 2 Liquipedia.
You should add a field to the tournament template which displays the patch the tournament was played with. It's probably not that significant at the moment because most tournament were played using 6.74, but with 6.75 expected soon, it could start becoming important.
This is absolutely the correct forum (and thread) to post suggestions like this. Thank you, we will most likely include patch version into the infobox template.
while looking at some team profiles in the liquidpedia i saw the former players, wouldn't it be better if some of the were listed as former squads or teams? because one looks at that and might think that a team can be really unstable getting new players all the time. i dunno if i made myself clear, but for newer players that don't know the scene can get confused with who played with whom and in what squad/team.
@ZEEEPh yeah that seems like a good thing to show, also the kind of timelines that Wikipedia has could illustrate this perhaps, not sure if theres a self evident sollution for how to show it simply without the Former-list becomes too complex.
@TheYango yas, thats a good idea. feel free to do it if you have the time.
On September 09 2012 07:36 salle wrote: @ZEEEPh yeah that seems like a good thing to show, also the kind of timelines that Wikipedia has could illustrate this perhaps, not sure if theres a self evident sollution for how to show it simply without the Former-list becomes too complex.
this ideia occured to me while seeing the coL team page, where the former monkey business team was in the same place as former players from the actual team. someting like "former monkey business" or something in that line of thought. i can try and think of something more useful and clear, if it's not that useless and confusing
On September 09 2012 07:36 salle wrote: @ZEEEPh yeah that seems like a good thing to show, also the kind of timelines that Wikipedia has could illustrate this perhaps, not sure if theres a self evident sollution for how to show it simply without the Former-list becomes too complex.
this ideia occured to me while seeing the coL team page, where the former monkey business team was in the same place as former players from the actual team. someting like "former monkey business" or something in that line of thought. i can try and think of something more useful and clear, if it's not that useless and confusing
On September 09 2012 07:36 salle wrote: @ZEEEPh yeah that seems like a good thing to show, also the kind of timelines that Wikipedia has could illustrate this perhaps, not sure if theres a self evident sollution for how to show it simply without the Former-list becomes too complex.
this ideia occured to me while seeing the coL team page, where the former monkey business team was in the same place as former players from the actual team. someting like "former monkey business" or something in that line of thought. i can try and think of something more useful and clear, if it's not that useless and confusing
yeap, that's what i was thinking. imo, there is no need for a active squad former members, that could be implied in the former members since the others are listed as a former squad, but with a little bit more polishment that could get really neat good job!
On September 09 2012 07:36 salle wrote: @ZEEEPh yeah that seems like a good thing to show, also the kind of timelines that Wikipedia has could illustrate this perhaps, not sure if theres a self evident sollution for how to show it simply without the Former-list becomes too complex.
this ideia occured to me while seeing the coL team page, where the former monkey business team was in the same place as former players from the actual team. someting like "former monkey business" or something in that line of thought. i can try and think of something more useful and clear, if it's not that useless and confusing
yeap, that's what i was thinking. imo, there is no need for a active squad former members, that could be implied in the former members since the others are listed as a former squad, but with a little bit more polishment that could get really neat good job!
Well there is, if you check Quantic for example it wouldn't make much sense including Mikey/Solara/Lasthitmagic in the Danish squad.
On September 09 2012 07:36 salle wrote: @ZEEEPh yeah that seems like a good thing to show, also the kind of timelines that Wikipedia has could illustrate this perhaps, not sure if theres a self evident sollution for how to show it simply without the Former-list becomes too complex.
this ideia occured to me while seeing the coL team page, where the former monkey business team was in the same place as former players from the actual team. someting like "former monkey business" or something in that line of thought. i can try and think of something more useful and clear, if it's not that useless and confusing
yeap, that's what i was thinking. imo, there is no need for a active squad former members, that could be implied in the former members since the others are listed as a former squad, but with a little bit more polishment that could get really neat good job!
Well there is, if you check Quantic for example it wouldn't make much sense including Mikey/Solara/Lasthitmagic in the Danish squad.
maybe i didn't explain myself too well but i was exactly thinking of what you have done to quantic's page, good job!
Ok got a suggestion for all item pages. Currently there is a section called "Recommended Heroes". I think this should be eventually upgraded to have 3 sections, being
1. Necessary on these heroes every game.-----ex: blink dagger in ES 2. Viable on these heroes every game not necessarily optimal ---------------------------------- ex: desolator on mirana 3. Situational on these heroes, not necessary and even bad some games ------------ex: shadow blade on tiny
Because right now there are items like blink dagger where 27 heroes are recommended for this item. People new to the game might get the impression that they're playing the game wrong if they don't get a blink dagger.
On September 25 2012 08:27 galtdunn wrote: Ok got a suggestion for all item pages. Currently there is a section called "Recommended Heroes". I think this should be eventually upgraded to have 3 sections, being
1. Necessary on these heroes every game.-----ex: blink dagger in ES 2. Viable on these heroes every game not necessarily optimal ---------------------------------- ex: desolator on mirana 3. Situational on these heroes, not necessary and even bad some games ------------ex: shadow blade on tiny
Because right now there are items like blink dagger where 27 heroes are recommended for this item. People new to the game might get the impression that they're playing the game wrong if they don't get a blink dagger.
Sections would clear this stuff up I think.
That's exactly what the current system has. Starting, early, core and luxury items? ^^;
On September 25 2012 08:27 galtdunn wrote: Ok got a suggestion for all item pages. Currently there is a section called "Recommended Heroes". I think this should be eventually upgraded to have 3 sections, being
1. Necessary on these heroes every game.-----ex: blink dagger in ES 2. Viable on these heroes every game not necessarily optimal ---------------------------------- ex: desolator on mirana 3. Situational on these heroes, not necessary and even bad some games ------------ex: shadow blade on tiny
Because right now there are items like blink dagger where 27 heroes are recommended for this item. People new to the game might get the impression that they're playing the game wrong if they don't get a blink dagger.
Sections would clear this stuff up I think.
That's exactly what the current system has. Starting, early, core and luxury items? ^^;
I think you're talking about the recommended items provided in the actual game that have been transposed to LP under the hero section.
I suppose these are similar to what I'm suggesting. I guess at the heart of my question I'm just wondering where we draw the line between what goes on the page of the item as opposed to the page of the hero. Related to this: how much strategy/discussion belongs on the hero page before you're making an entire guide?
As a contributor I'm just not sure and there aren't guidelines yet.
On September 25 2012 08:27 galtdunn wrote: Ok got a suggestion for all item pages. Currently there is a section called "Recommended Heroes". I think this should be eventually upgraded to have 3 sections, being
1. Necessary on these heroes every game.-----ex: blink dagger in ES 2. Viable on these heroes every game not necessarily optimal ---------------------------------- ex: desolator on mirana 3. Situational on these heroes, not necessary and even bad some games ------------ex: shadow blade on tiny
Because right now there are items like blink dagger where 27 heroes are recommended for this item. People new to the game might get the impression that they're playing the game wrong if they don't get a blink dagger.
Sections would clear this stuff up I think.
That's exactly what the current system has. Starting, early, core and luxury items? ^^;
I think you're talking about the recommended items provided in the actual game that have been transposed to LP under the hero section.
I suppose these are similar to what I'm suggesting. I guess at the heart of my question I'm just wondering where we draw the line between what goes on the page of the item as opposed to the page of the hero. Related to this: how much strategy/discussion belongs on the hero page before you're making an entire guide?
As a contributor I'm just not sure and there aren't guidelines yet.
i think the idea is good. one of the reasons i havent touched any of the recommended items is theres no guidance on it
i think guides are personal opinions, recommendations are more widespread behavior that you see in random games besides your own
On September 25 2012 08:27 galtdunn wrote: Ok got a suggestion for all item pages. Currently there is a section called "Recommended Heroes". I think this should be eventually upgraded to have 3 sections, being
1. Necessary on these heroes every game.-----ex: blink dagger in ES 2. Viable on these heroes every game not necessarily optimal ---------------------------------- ex: desolator on mirana 3. Situational on these heroes, not necessary and even bad some games ------------ex: shadow blade on tiny
Because right now there are items like blink dagger where 27 heroes are recommended for this item. People new to the game might get the impression that they're playing the game wrong if they don't get a blink dagger.
Sections would clear this stuff up I think.
That's exactly what the current system has. Starting, early, core and luxury items? ^^;
I think you're talking about the recommended items provided in the actual game that have been transposed to LP under the hero section.
I suppose these are similar to what I'm suggesting. I guess at the heart of my question I'm just wondering where we draw the line between what goes on the page of the item as opposed to the page of the hero. Related to this: how much strategy/discussion belongs on the hero page before you're making an entire guide?
As a contributor I'm just not sure and there aren't guidelines yet.
i think the idea is good. one of the reasons i havent touched any of the recommended items is theres no guidance on it
i think guides are personal opinions, recommendations are more widespread behavior that you see in random games besides your own
I agree, but then I would say that you should attempt to explain the widespread behavior through analysis. But there's that line again of how much is too much.
On September 25 2012 08:27 galtdunn wrote: Ok got a suggestion for all item pages. Currently there is a section called "Recommended Heroes". I think this should be eventually upgraded to have 3 sections, being
1. Necessary on these heroes every game.-----ex: blink dagger in ES 2. Viable on these heroes every game not necessarily optimal ---------------------------------- ex: desolator on mirana 3. Situational on these heroes, not necessary and even bad some games ------------ex: shadow blade on tiny
Because right now there are items like blink dagger where 27 heroes are recommended for this item. People new to the game might get the impression that they're playing the game wrong if they don't get a blink dagger.
Sections would clear this stuff up I think.
That's exactly what the current system has. Starting, early, core and luxury items? ^^;
I think you're talking about the recommended items provided in the actual game that have been transposed to LP under the hero section.
I suppose these are similar to what I'm suggesting. I guess at the heart of my question I'm just wondering where we draw the line between what goes on the page of the item as opposed to the page of the hero. Related to this: how much strategy/discussion belongs on the hero page before you're making an entire guide?
As a contributor I'm just not sure and there aren't guidelines yet.
i think the idea is good. one of the reasons i havent touched any of the recommended items is theres no guidance on it
i think guides are personal opinions, recommendations are more widespread behavior that you see in random games besides your own
I agree, but then I would say that you should attempt to explain the widespread behavior through analysis. But there's that line again of how much is too much.
nothing in dota is too much really, unless you make it overly verbose
On September 26 2012 14:29 galtdunn wrote: Well its not exactly practical to write up a guide's worth of info for each hero and item.
Maybe not in time vs. gain - but why not?
Well maybe I'm wrong, but I see it as more useful to just link to existing guides. People like Flamewheel have already done guides.
I feel like Liquipedia was designed to be quickly accessible and cogent. Not long guides with tons of analysis. But like I said before, this begs the question of how much is too much and where you draw the line before just linking a guide.
And I'll say it again: maybe I'm wrong. I don't know what Salle and Blahzor and others have in mind for long term goals.
On September 26 2012 14:29 galtdunn wrote: Well its not exactly practical to write up a guide's worth of info for each hero and item.
Maybe not in time vs. gain - but why not?
Well maybe I'm wrong, but I see it as more useful to just link to existing guides. People like Flamewheel have already done guides.
I feel like Liquipedia was designed to be quickly accessible and cogent. Not long guides with tons of analysis. But like I said before, this begs the question of how much is too much and where you draw the line before just linking a guide.
And I'll say it again: maybe I'm wrong. I don't know what Salle and Blahzor and others have in mind for long term goals.
Or we could just copy+paste our guide into Liquipedia. It takes some formatting change work but it doesn't take too long. That's what I did with my guide, at least.
I'm just wondering where to put it in Liquipedia, at the moment it's just rotting under my username.
Firstly I think we want guides on the wiki, eventually. But I also think we need to have some kind of additional editorial processes for guides as they will end up having many non-sourced statements that are the opinions of the author(s), one way to do this is to first post the guides to the TeamLiquid Dota 2 strategy forum and if it survives that trial by fire then it could be time to put onto the wiki.
Also we need to think about how to do the formatting of guides. Doing them exactly like a forum post is not good, it doesn't utilize much of the potential of the wiki.
On September 27 2012 01:55 salle wrote: Firstly I think we want guides on the wiki, eventually. But I also think we need to have some kind of additional editorial processes for guides as they will end up having many non-sourced statements that are the opinions of the author(s), one way to do this is to first post the guides to the TeamLiquid Dota 2 strategy forum and if it survives that trial by fire then it could be time to put onto the wiki.
Also we need to think about how to do the formatting of guides. Doing them exactly like a forum post is not good, it doesn't utilize much of the potential of the wiki.
Well I definitely think that guides should be linked to on the wiki, without a doubt. There are some great and comprehensive guides out there that we'd be fools to just ignore.
But I agree with Salle in that they could become really opinionated, and that we have to have some way to guard against that. I can't really come up with a way on the top of my head.
Yeah linking to guides is completely okay, doesn't just have to be to guides on TL.net either. And to fix opinionated issue, one solution is to have a group of people who are fairly quite high skilled and very knowledgeable about the game to read guides and "correct" them and/or to write guides.
On September 27 2012 16:20 salle wrote: Yeah linking to guides is completely okay, doesn't just have to be to guides on TL.net either. And to fix opinionated issue, one solution is to have a group of people who are fairly quite high skilled and very knowledgeable about the game to read guides and "correct" them and/or to write guides.
On September 27 2012 16:20 salle wrote: Yeah linking to guides is completely okay, doesn't just have to be to guides on TL.net either. And to fix opinionated issue, one solution is to have a group of people who are fairly quite high skilled and very knowledgeable about the game to read guides and "correct" them and/or to write guides.
And how would you judge this?
How you'd find a group of people who are very knowledgeable about the game? One way is to ask pro players to review what someone writes in their guides and ask them if the person who wrote this knew what s/he was talking about or not.
On September 27 2012 16:20 salle wrote: Yeah linking to guides is completely okay, doesn't just have to be to guides on TL.net either. And to fix opinionated issue, one solution is to have a group of people who are fairly quite high skilled and very knowledgeable about the game to read guides and "correct" them and/or to write guides.
And how would you judge this?
How you'd find a group of people who are very knowledgeable about the game? One way is to ask pro players to review what someone writes in their guides and ask them if the person who wrote this knew what s/he was talking about or not.
Means we need nice pro players then that are willing to donate some of their time for free. Also, some ideas in pub-oriented strategy guides will obviously not work in pro games, and vice versa.
Just a small thing, in the tooltip of items it would be nice to include the cost. ie http://wiki.teamliquid.net/dota2/Drum_of_Endurance in the recipe part, knowing the prices without having to click the items would be good imo.
On September 28 2012 21:09 MrCon wrote: Just a small thing, in the tooltip of items it would be nice to include the cost. ie http://wiki.teamliquid.net/dota2/Drum_of_Endurance in the recipe part, knowing the prices without having to click the items would be good imo.
I assume you mean in the box with all the item's basic stats and abilities; the branched recipe tree? I do like that idea of having the cost show up as well. Right now hovering over it only shows the name of the items because it links to a tiny png file that's only a picture.
I'm not sure how to do a tooltip, but I definitely advocate that idea if someone else knows how to do it.
Well right now in the programming of the page that box is set up like this (within the bigger box):
|bottomitems=3 |bottomitem1=bracer |bottomitem2=robe of the magi |bottomitem3=recipe
So I assume they set it up so that the word would link to the item page. Gotta get either Salle's or Blahz0r's input on if it would be possible to somehow have it show the price.
Alternatively, the price can be listed under "general," but I know that isn't as convenient.
Forgive me if this is already present on the wiki, I poked around a bit and didn't see. I'd be interested in lane creep/jungle creep stats being on the wiki. They do change from time to time and there is also various abilities that they have which would be useful to look up. playdota has a bunch of info which I have no idea if it's accurate or up to date http://www.playdota.com/mechanics/unitstats#i I'd start adding this stuff myself if I had time! In any case, the wiki overall is really great.
On September 29 2012 01:10 GogoKodo wrote: Forgive me if this is already present on the wiki, I poked around a bit and didn't see. I'd be interested in lane creep/jungle creep stats being on the wiki. They do change from time to time and there is also various abilities that they have which would be useful to look up. playdota has a bunch of info which I have no idea if it's accurate or up to date http://www.playdota.com/mechanics/unitstats#i I'd start adding this stuff myself if I had time! In any case, the wiki overall is really great.
Oh. That's a great idea. In fact, I think a "creeps" section under "General Info" would be great. It could have ancients stats, creep stats, etc. I personally don't know them but the playdota has them. We aren't supposed to copy from that website though so I don't know what to do about that.
On September 29 2012 01:10 GogoKodo wrote: Forgive me if this is already present on the wiki, I poked around a bit and didn't see. I'd be interested in lane creep/jungle creep stats being on the wiki. They do change from time to time and there is also various abilities that they have which would be useful to look up. playdota has a bunch of info which I have no idea if it's accurate or up to date http://www.playdota.com/mechanics/unitstats#i I'd start adding this stuff myself if I had time! In any case, the wiki overall is really great.
Ho, on this page
"At 999, 1999, and 2999 seconds from the first wave, one additional melee unit will begin to spawn." I thought it was every 10 minutes :O
Wanted to say thank you for updating liquipedia, you're doing a great job especially for updating the tournaments. It's so useful and easy at the same time to keep with them. Again thank you
Recommended items: do we want to be copy-pasting Valve's defaults, or shall we try to improve them? There's very few heroes where I actually like the default recommendations, but there's also a lot of room for opinion here...
Rather than just lists I'd like to see some kind of rhethoric for starting items. Multiple possible of course. Preferably with a link to where you got the idea.
I assume some items are role dependant. And it could be a good idea to try and make that more clear than what the valve copy-paste currently does. Do you have any suggestion for how to do that, while perhaps still keeping the valve suggestions on the page, even if in a collapsed table?
How about something like this where it tells you what you can buy with your beginning gold? We can keep this as a separate page and link in in every hero page while keep Valve's default recommendations.
On October 08 2012 06:46 Pholon wrote: Rather than just lists I'd like to see some kind of rhetoric for starting items. Multiple possible of course. Preferably with a link to where you got the idea.
I like this idea, especially on heroes that can viably play a lot of roles. Furion lane =/= furion jungle =/= furion ganker jungle. Same idea Invoker.
Aren't there builds for heros out there, which suggest what to buy, what to skill etc.? I think this would be a better idea, to have builds für hero (and link them from the heros page). I it's kinda like the "good against/bad against" thing from Blizzard, which aren't always right, especially as the game evolves.
On October 09 2012 17:30 shz wrote: Aren't there builds for heros out there, which suggest what to buy, what to skill etc.? I think this would be a better idea, to have builds für hero (and link them from the heros page). I it's kinda like the "good against/bad against" thing from Blizzard, which aren't always right, especially as the game evolves.
Guides can be found on playdota but quite a few of them are outdated (or at least haven't been updated in months). The most reliable way to get skills orders and item builds would be asking pro players or someone with a lot of experience.
On October 10 2012 10:43 myopia wrote: I ask for my login to be remembered (for up to a day), but it resets every time I close my browser. Is this intended behavior?
Not sure, I'll kick the question up the chain. However the frequent log-ins is intended (to keep the stress on the servers to a minimum) and thus part and parcel of being a contributor of Liquipedia.
I'm finding errors in the right hand stat boxes (or whatever they're called) but don't see a way to edit them. How should we address them? I've just been making comments on the relevant talk page.
and as I post this I finally figure it out. nevermind.
Infoboxes, they are found if you click the edit tab at the top of the page, (soon we'll also put in an edit link on the box in question itself). Taking Ethereal Blade as an example, this is what the input code looks like for that template.
{{Infobox Item |itemname=Ethereal Blade |itemcost=4900 |itemicon=ethereal blade |itemtext=A flickering blade of a ghastly nature, it is capable of dealing damage in both magical and physical planes. |str=10 |agi=40 |int=10 |hp= |mana= |hpregen= |manaregen= |armor= |evasion= |resistance= |damage= |attackspeed= |movespeed= |use= |active=Ether Blast |passive= |category= |itemtype=Weapon |shop=Main Shop |recipe={{Recipe |item=ethereal blade |topitems= |topitem1= |topitem2= |topitem3= |topitem4= |topitem5= |topitem6= |bottomitems=2 |bottomitem1=eaglesong |bottomitem2=ghost scepter |bottomitem3= |bottomitem4= |bottomitem5= |bottomitem6= }} }}
Right now heroes have sections for external links, and sections for guides. Since guides are always external links*, should we combine these two sections?
On October 13 2012 08:37 myopia wrote: Right now heroes have sections for external links, and sections for guides. Since guides are always external links*, should we combine these two sections?
*unless creating guides pages is in the works?
Yeah you can make the Guides a sub header of external links so == External Links == === Guides ===
On October 13 2012 08:37 myopia wrote: Right now heroes have sections for external links, and sections for guides. Since guides are always external links*, should we combine these two sections?
*unless creating guides pages is in the works?
I had ideas regarding this but haven't really put in the work to see how it would end up or discussed with others to see which option would be best. A while back I wanted to put someone's guide on the wiki but didn't have enough time to implement it properly so I ended up just putting a link in the end. =x
Tabs with guides
A guide section towards the bottom of the hero pages separated by another level of header
Just posting a simple link to the guides written on TL
Those would be options I would do for having guides for hero/item pages.
I think it makes more sense to keep guides external. People in general spend more time browsing TL than they do LP, so posting guides here nets more exposure. Plus, TL being a forum and all, it encourages feedback and discussion of these guides. Then there's the rest of the non-TL world writing their own guides, that we'd only be able to link to. May as well keep them all as links.
On October 13 2012 08:37 myopia wrote: Right now heroes have sections for external links, and sections for guides. Since guides are always external links*, should we combine these two sections?
*unless creating guides pages is in the works?
I had ideas regarding this but haven't really put in the work to see how it would end up or discussed with others to see which option would be best. A while back I wanted to put someone's guide on the wiki but didn't have enough time to implement it properly so I ended up just putting a link in the end. =x
Tabs with guides
A guide section towards the bottom of the hero pages separated by another level of header
Just posting a simple link to the guides written on TL
Those would be options I would do for having guides for hero/item pages.
I vote the option where you just have a subsection on the right for 'guides on TL' where they are all linked. Makes it easier for authors to maintain just one guide rather than have to maintain both a bb-code format and a liquipedia format of guide. It took some effort for me to convert mine.
What are the criterias to be accepted as a liquipedia person so you don't have to wait for verification?
After enough edits, you will be automatically promoted to editor and your edits will be auto reviewed (I ve personally seen it happen between 4 bronze coins and 2 silver coins most of the time)
You can also be promoted by someone but only in very special occasions
What are the criterias to be accepted as a liquipedia person so you don't have to wait for verification?
After enough edits, you will be automatically promoted to editor and your edits will be auto reviewed
You can also be promoted by someone but only in very special occasions
I think it is edits and time. I know a guy who didn't even have a silver and got autopromoted. I also know people who have got 2-3 silver coins in a couple weeks of editing and not get editor as well.
On October 18 2012 19:18 Dattish wrote: Is there any Double Elimination bracket templates with both 4 slots for WB and 4 for LB round 1? Can't seem to find any and one is needed for G-1 Champions League, unless I misunderstood LDs post.Page in question
No they use a weird format which is never used in sc2 and therefore we have no brackets for it... yet I'll see if I can fix it tomorrow
I started doing hero updates with the latest patch and I'm wondering: IceFrog's post on the dev forums labels this whole patch as 6.76b, but liquipedia has a page for 6.76 with all the balance changes, and 6.76b with a single bugfix. How should we be labeling the version history on hero pages? 6.76 or 6.76b?
On October 26 2012 04:00 myopia wrote: I started doing hero updates with the latest patch and I'm wondering: IceFrog's post on the dev forums labels this whole patch as 6.76b, but liquipedia has a page for 6.76 with all the balance changes, and 6.76b with a single bugfix. How should we be labeling the version history on hero pages? 6.76 or 6.76b?
6.76. its a parity patch and i dont think he put too much thought into the meaning of his words
I was starting to make pages for all the neutral mobs, I know that copy/pasting text from Dota2wiki is bad, but about just stats like bounties and xp? Is there an official Valve site to source that information from?
In hero pages under the "Overview" section, it lists the lore for that hero, which isn't a really good overview of how the hero is played and what they can do. It's just flavor text. I looked at dota2wiki.com and they have general descriptions of each hero as well as the lore in a separate section. Shouldn't that be how Liquipedia is?
On October 31 2012 01:11 pullarius1 wrote: I was starting to make pages for all the neutral mobs, I know that copy/pasting text from Dota2wiki is bad, but about just stats like bounties and xp? Is there an official Valve site to source that information from?
On November 02 2012 01:24 eng.nayR wrote: In hero pages under the "Overview" section, it lists the lore for that hero, which isn't a really good overview of how the hero is played and what they can do. It's just flavor text. I looked at dota2wiki.com and they have general descriptions of each hero as well as the lore in a separate section. Shouldn't that be how Liquipedia is?
Yes. Ideally, play and common uses (in pro play more, so than for all levels) should be the top priority.
On October 31 2012 01:11 pullarius1 wrote: I was starting to make pages for all the neutral mobs, I know that copy/pasting text from Dota2wiki is bad, but about just stats like bounties and xp? Is there an official Valve site to source that information from?
stats about the game as you state above are publicly-accessible knowledge and should be good to go; ideally they come from the game itself or the devs, and not another wiki.
On November 04 2012 21:14 Dattish wrote: So, anyone wanna make a Triple Elimination bracket for It's Gosu Asia Madness? :D. Qualifiers are finishing up, so I'm adding that result when it's done. But I'm completely clueless when it comes to brackets.
Won't it just be some groups going into a double elimination? How else are you gonna start with 10 teams? after the first round you'll have 5 teams left.
On November 04 2012 21:14 Dattish wrote: So, anyone wanna make a Triple Elimination bracket for It's Gosu Asia Madness? :D. Qualifiers are finishing up, so I'm adding that result when it's done. But I'm completely clueless when it comes to brackets.
Won't it just be some groups going into a double elimination? How else are you gonna start with 10 teams? after the first round you'll have 5 teams left.
It's Gosu announcement Starting this weekend with our first and only qualifier, followed by a one-month main event where the winner of the qualifier along with nine invited teams will play not in a single or a double, but a TRIPLE elimination bracket. Yes, you read it right, this is indeed MADNESS!
I doubt they'd phrase it like that if they meant the old groups into DE.
I can try to make brackets on liquipedia, but only after they are released. For now I have no idea how 10man, TE bracket looks like
On November 12 2012 23:02 tauon wrote: It would be good if we could indicate on the hero pages which spells go through BKB/Linkens. Is there some mechanism or convention for doing that?
I created stub, but it's imba hard to get something about it. Page on asus-open you linked is more then half-year old, many could change in unstable ESPORT world since then. Anyway there is something to feed information into, as they (hopefully) come. http://wiki.teamliquid.net/dota2/ASUS_Open_2012
I created stub, but it's imba hard to get something about it. Page on asus-open you linked is more then half-year old, many could change in unstable ESPORT world since then. Anyway there is something to feed information into, as they (hopefully) come. http://wiki.teamliquid.net/dota2/ASUS_Open_2012
Yeah I know. Took me a while to gather all info. Thanks for making the stub, it will make it easier to collect the information. Also tomorrow more news should be published.
Yeah the TL Dota 2 wiki is lacking a lot of tournament information. For example: Big Points Battles, Ezio Cup, and other minor tournaments that still have top tier teams playing. Basically it needs the staff to make sure the upkeep is there ala SC2 wiki.
I've commited to updating the defense 3 almost immediatelt after they play. I can maybe pick up one more tourney but I can't do em all. Work and payin the bills and all that...
On February 28 2013 11:00 Avs wrote: Yeah the TL Dota 2 wiki is lacking a lot of tournament information. For example: Big Points Battles, Ezio Cup, and other minor tournaments that still have top tier teams playing. Basically it needs the staff to make sure the upkeep is there ala SC2 wiki.
Basically, out of all the LP staff a very small percentage of them are apart of the Dota 2 LP. And they do more template type stuff, help other people, review edits, etc. However, there are many contributors who do the bulk of the work on the Dota wiki, but still not enough to keep up with everything.
I took the liberty to finally update the recent results page to the current week. I don't know shit about editing wikis and templates and stuff so I mostly copy & pasted and tried to work it out from there Then I noticed that the dota2 wiki apparently doesn't have the ability to collapse tables. Can some of the more knowledgable users add that functionality?
EDIT: Nevermind, tried to copy straight from the SC2 wiki :S. Haven't figured out yet how those collapsible match tables on the tournament pages work... will work on it tomorrow.
EditEdit: Or maybe the preview just can't show it??? EditEditEdit: Yes, that was it.
I will probably start contributing a lot more concerning the recent results since neither the wiki nor the tournament pages (sadly) provide complete, up-to-date information
EDIT2: while trying to add some recent results from the D2L I noticed that the chronological order of the matches on the D2L Season 2 wiki page is pretty confusing. Apparently matches on March 4 are in Week 7 AND Week 8 / matches from February 28 to March 10 are in Week 9...... What the hell??
Edit 3:Awww man seriously? Team Liquid does not have a team template? Nvm... I think I figured out how this works.
Edit4: Is there a convention on which day a week starts? On SC2 wiki it seems to be Monday, but some dota2 tournament wiki pages group their weeks starting by Sunday (e.g. TPL)
Also: What is the Standard Time zone for determining which day it is? GMT? KST (would make less sense than in SC2 wiki))?
Lots of pages don't seem to be properly linking to one another. For instance, in the player page, Blowyourbrain doesn't link to his page properly. On top of this, some pages containing a link to BKB don't go anywhere, even though there is a Black King Bar page. Is there any reason for this?
On March 05 2013 22:17 Pholon wrote: Lack of redirects probably. We still need a bunch of them...
How do you go about making them?
Sign in to the DotA 2 LP using your TL information, go to the page you want to fix, click edit in the section, insert redirects where you can, preview to see that everything is correct on page, then submit and wait. I recently just started doing things on there myself after seeing some of the lack of information in a few sections.
I'm not sure if anybody still reads this, but for the longest time I thought the time/length in the bracket match summary was the score of the game (as I'm sure a lot of other people probably do as well). So I guess what I'm trying to say is why do we have the length of the game in the first place? Seems so irrelevant especially compared to the game score.
On July 13 2013 04:00 Julmust wrote: yeah I was actually thinking the same thing yesterday. I think that, in most games, the end score is more important then game time.
Both are kinda misleading. What'd I really rather know is the point at which the outcome of a game is decided. That's a judgment call of course, but game stats stop mattering once one side has clearly won.
On July 12 2013 07:50 Burpies wrote: I'm not sure if anybody still reads this, but for the longest time I thought the time/length in the bracket match summary was the score of the game (as I'm sure a lot of other people probably do as well). So I guess what I'm trying to say is why do we have the length of the game in the first place? Seems so irrelevant especially compared to the game score.
Don't some tournaments still use game time as a tiebreaker? In that sense it might be relevant.
Hi, can someone teach me how to create a team, logo and a play-off bracket, especially the latest one, for Dota 2? I mean, I wish to add new styles of brackets but Liquipedia doesn't recognize them, possibly because they are not registered as templates. I'd be glad if someone gave detailed information here or you can simply send me PM or e-mail (industrieerfolge@gmail.com).
I've been involved in an amateur tournament and more are likely to come especially in EU region. So, I'd like to add new tournaments with more formats and enrich Liquipedia's non-pro section. Now, I just have to copy what has been used so far just because I don't know how to create new ones.
Bringing more and more faces into Liquipedia would also provide us with many more people contributing and knowing about the community.
Out of curiosity, has liquidpedia ever considered being one of the more comprehensive amateur tournament listings in the scene? I feel like it's a necessary feature that other sites like dotapedia have forgetten about completely (see this link and I'd be grateful for it.)
On December 09 2013 01:47 epok wrote: Out of curiosity, has liquidpedia ever considered being one of the more comprehensive amateur tournament listings in the scene? I feel like it's a necessary feature that other sites like dotapedia have forgetten about completely (see this link and I'd be grateful for it.)
The focus is on the pro-scene because of few reasons.
A: Pro-scene is what is most visible part of competitive gaming. This means more interest for pro tournaments -> demand for info about pro-scene.
B: Pro-scene is global, many amateur tournaments are very local and including them in globally distributed and aimed wiki does very little good.
C: Regulating what to include and how would be very hard if we were to include every LAN tournament someone holds in their basement. (or even small regional or city-wide tournaments)
D: Sourcing info for amateur tournaments would be a nightmare, it is hard enough for what is currently included
E: In general quality would suffer with lots of event pages that might or might not be kept up to date and would end up being rather irrelevant and useless for most wiki-users.
Do note that I'm not an official authority of this matter though, Salle is the head of LP and you could ask this questing for example in the Ask TL Staff Anything thread.
Alright thanks, thats good to know. It's just annoying that there is no definitive online tournament portal to list all tournaments including open ones and I think you guys are the most diligent in that regard. I'll hit up that ATLA thread!
On February 06 2014 17:12 Coledash wrote: Hey is it just me or is the wiki mostly dead? I was thinking of contributing, but dont want to waste my time if this is lost cause.
On February 06 2014 17:12 Coledash wrote: Hey is it just me or is the wiki mostly dead? I was thinking of contributing, but dont want to waste my time if this is lost cause.
If people start creating pages for cosmetics I'm sure someone will gather them all in a portal sooner or later. Problem is that you need someone to do all the grunt work and actually add a shitload of cosmetics.
It is very doable yes, but sounds like massive amounts of work. The cosmetic items will need to be added on a per hero basis, categories for their rarity, date added to the game etc. etc. will need to be included too. All information can be gather here: http://dota2.gamepedia.com/Equipment
Gathering all of the aforementioned information about the items is easy enough, but adding them and sorting them on pages is the long and hard part.
Adding to all that, the importance of cosmetic items compared to detailed info about pro tournaments/teams is benign. Don't get me wrong, I love ogling and beautiful item sets and to see which items I need to complete a certain set but it is a superficial issue when there is so much more important stuff going on.
So we've tried some new things for the TI4 qualifying pages, if you guys have any feedback I'd like to hear it and we can try to improve. Also if you want to help out obviously we'd be more than happy to help you along to get started.
On February 09 2014 04:21 Julmust wrote: If people start creating pages for cosmetics I'm sure someone will gather them all in a portal sooner or later. Problem is that you need someone to do all the grunt work and actually add a shitload of cosmetics.
Although I've not really edited the wiki before, I wouldn't mind giving it a go and trying to put the information there for cosmetics, as I noticed a lot of heroes are missing the information.
Also a huge thanks to anyone who has contributed to the Dota 2 Liquipedia. This Friday we set a new record for pageviews in a day on the dota2 wiki specifically with over 1 000 000 hits. Then on Saturday we spiked with over 40 000 users within one hour for Dota 2. These numbers rivals some of the other top events for us. (MLG Providence 2011 and DreamHack Summer 2013)
Even Valve were/are using Liquipedia to find information about the players and teams (our sources tells us).
So we hope more of you will want to help out in making it an even greater resource for all dota fans.
That's great to see it's active and being used a lot.
Regarding cosmetics, I've done Sand King's so far, working on Slardar at the moment, at some point I'll get round to doing the pictures, but I'm mostly doing this at work and sorting the pictures out is a bit too much hassle there, so I'm not too sure when the pictures will be sorted.
I have a little suggestion, regarding the cosmetics part of the website, it would be nice if custom animations/particle effects could be added to the template, ideally we could just put a yes for the ones that do have effects and leave the option out for ones that don't.
Hi guys. I've recently been keen to contribute to the liquidpedia dota 2 wiki page and I was wondering whether if I could show a summary of a tournament such as the Manila Major into subheadings such as day one, day two etc?
On May 19 2016 23:11 aether_fzn wrote: Hi guys. I've recently been keen to contribute to the liquidpedia dota 2 wiki page and I was wondering whether if I could show a summary of a tournament such as the Manila Major into subheadings such as day one, day two etc?
Sorry to revive a 2 year drought
i've noticed a couple of your additions to some player/team pages. they're good, except the language can be a little too flowery at times. imo, text on wikis should be quite neutral in tone, and a lot of the adjectives such as "picturesque tournament EPICENTER" or "pulsating series" are out of place. just my opinion, otherwise keep at it
yeah I also noticed the picturesque thing, I'm not even sure if it's a good adjective for epicenter since it usually means something that is charming or quaint
Yeah the reason I used those adjectives because I wanted to describe the event in a different way, but I do realise why you have to be neutral. I probably shouldn't have used the word picturesque as it was a silly mistake but yeah I only started about 4 hours ago. It’s 2.30am here and I had fun learning how to format on wiki pages. Difficult at first but i get the jist of it (probably need to learn more on citation) ^ _ ^ Probably another difficult thing is to write in a non biased way since I don't want to cause trouble.
But in the future I'll be working on most teams and players dota career info and filling in gaps if I see any. Happy to take any suggestions or advice.
On May 20 2016 01:41 aether_fzn wrote: But in the future I'll be working on most teams and players dota career info and filling in gaps if I see any. Happy to take any suggestions or advice.
Feel free to join our IRC chat whenever you feel like talking about esports or want advice
I want to write a paper on professional jargon in Dota. For that I need like two Vods of the same Event, preferably big like TI or smth, one in english and one in chinese.
As of yet I tried scooping around YT, but rly without any big success. Does anybody know, where I could find this kinda stuff?
I want to write a paper on professional jargon in Dota. For that I need like two Vods of the same Event, preferably big like TI or smth, one in english and one in chinese.
As of yet I tried scooping around YT, but rly without any big success. Does anybody know, where I could find this kinda stuff?
Certainly not in a topic about something not really connected with VoDs.
But your question is not really Liquipedia-specific. Liquipedia usually doesn't link to non-English VODs, unless there is no corresponding English VODs.
The latest videos, which show at the top left of each page, are the finals of the 2015 Dota 2 International. There are more videos that should be the earlier stages if that is not enough.
On August 03 2016 07:13 HammerKick wrote: Hey, with TI6 starting, I realied that a caster I like, AnneeDroid had no page, so there you go : http://wiki.teamliquid.net/dota2/Anneedroid
If you have anything to contribue that would be cool.
On August 04 2016 00:35 Gamerhcp wrote: We don't generally have (or need) a page for every caster but hey, thanks.
More information never hurts. The more we add in the better of a resource it becomes.
I'm planning to write a few paragraphs of most of the players after Ti6 and the shuffle. Since I'm still new to editing compared to others here, I'm just wondering how to become an 'authorised user'. Thanks.
After a time you will get automatically promoted to "editor" as we call it, when you do edits and they get approved. Editor rank means that your edits will no longer have to be approved. If Liquipedia staff notices that your contributions are good, each staffer can promote people to editor rank whenever said staffer thinks is good.
it can take some time to become automatically authorized, personally I think it helps a little bit to give you the security to just go ahead and try something, if you break anything it is not going to ruin the wiki for other visitors, and hopefully the people looking at your edits will catch them.
The downside to this security blanket is obviously that it does take time for your contributions to be reviewed and then displayed.
I would say that this approach allows you to seek out constructive criticism. Say that you see the same editor reviewing your pages you can reach out to them and ask them if they have any feedback on your edits. (Or if you look at the pages after they've been reviewed if the person reviewing them did any edits of their own to correct or change anything about what you did.) Both these things can help you grow much quicker in your wiki contributing skills.
On August 16 2016 05:18 salle wrote: it can take some time to become automatically authorized, personally I think it helps a little bit to give you the security to just go ahead and try something, if you break anything it is not going to ruin the wiki for other visitors, and hopefully the people looking at your edits will catch them.
The downside to this security blanket is obviously that it does take time for your contributions to be reviewed and then displayed.
I would say that this approach allows you to seek out constructive criticism. Say that you see the same editor reviewing your pages you can reach out to them and ask them if they have any feedback on your edits. (Or if you look at the pages after they've been reviewed if the person reviewing them did any edits of their own to correct or change anything about what you did.) Both these things can help you grow much quicker in your wiki contributing skills.
Of course. I'm currently slowly learning as I go and becoming an 'editor' is not a priority, what's more important for me is to produce articles to the liquidpedia page in a way that readers want to find about a person, team or anything dota related and feel satisifed from reading it. So far it's been a good journey as I've been getting help from the Liquidpedia staff from the IRC chat and making PM's about a question I don't know. I still have lots to learn and feedback is one of the most important voices in a person's career., I've been noting the feedback from other staff and it has helped me well to become a better contributor and further develop my skills contributing to the liquidpedia page.
I've been editing other liquipedias as of late, I feel I'm neglecting my passion for Dota. It seems Dota has everything you could ask for. Is there type of content on the Dota 2 liquipedia thats lacking/ we could use more of?
Well, gameside content is basically always needed, more information about heroes, strategy etc. We excel at tournament coverage, we could be better at gameside stuff.
We have gotten better at Game stuff thanks to Aeroblaster mainly (who has done the biggest individual contribution to this but it is of course thanks to multiple people) http://wiki.teamliquid.net/dota2/Portal:Game_Mechanics But sure more work on heroes is not a bad thing.
We also need player and team histories written out more, not just for the absolute top teams and top players. But so there's something to read (prose) on all of the potential wild card teams.
The absolute top teams aren't even a bad place to start. Evil Geniuses has no history, Natus Vincere and has very little history, OG, EHOME, and Team Secret have no citations and very little history, Vici Gaming needs to be divided into sections / organized, Newbee has no citations, etc. Even something as simple as "Natus Vincere is known for having reached the finals of the three first Internationals," (Edit: I just added this.) would be very useful to the reader. Liquipedia is good at tracking individual events and transfers, but can sometimes forget broader stuff like that.
If you want to write about your favorite team, chances are it won't go unappreciated. Just try to stay concise and make sure to cite what you say.
Hi, I have a few questions about the liquidpedia page and still learning how it works. Possible feedback on my work if possible.
1. Can I add a legacy/controversy sub section in a player's or team page if they reach retirement? What I mean is that generally most team and player pages have a biography, Dota 2 career etc. If one has made great impact to the game can I add a legacy or a controversy section?
2. What makes a caster/observer/production crew be featured in a Dota 2 tournament liquidpedia page? Do they have to cast on the main stage or any event? Does the group stage of a premier event/major event count?
3. If there are local tournaments in my area, am I able to make a tournament page out of it? They are not big at all, but it's something that I wish to do.
4. How am I going so far? Any mistakes or things I shouldn't be doing?
1. If you can source it you can even add controversy sections to active players and teams, just make sure they are written objectively and add good sources.
2. Usually we have people there that work important events. If you work TI or a Dota Major, you can probably have a page. If you work something similarly big as EPICENTER or DAC, we can probably talk about that. We are talking about Onscreen-talent and observers here though, not about cameramen.
3. Usually we have a limit of at least 50$ on SC2. For a 5 player team we can probably go with 200$. So if the prize pool of the tournament exceeds that, feel free to add a page. We only count cash prizes though, no hardware or the likes.
4. I am not the most active in the Dota wiki, but if you were horrible i probably would have heard about you, so most likely you are doing fine
If you are looking for more detailed feedback, feel free to visit our chat at http://webchat.quakenet.org/?channels=#liquipedia The people there won't bite and enjoy chilling there and having fun together, as well as helping people edit the wiki.
On August 28 2016 16:51 aether_fzn wrote: Hi, I have a few questions about the liquidpedia page and still learning how it works. Possible feedback on my work if possible.
1. Can I add a legacy/controversy sub section in a player's or team page if they reach retirement? What I mean is that generally most team and player pages have a biography, Dota 2 career etc. If one has made great impact to the game can I add a legacy or a controversy section?
2. What makes a caster/observer/production crew be featured in a Dota 2 tournament liquidpedia page? Do they have to cast on the main stage or any event? Does the group stage of a premier event/major event count?
3. If there are local tournaments in my area, am I able to make a tournament page out of it? They are not big at all, but it's something that I wish to do.
4. How am I going so far? Any mistakes or things I shouldn't be doing?
Thanks aeth
I've seen you around a bit, so I'll just quickly add to what FO said: - First, THANK YOU for adding written content with cited sources. - You should be a bit more careful about making broad statements. For example, statements such as "Purge is widely accredited for his contribution to the growth and success of Dota 2." should not be made without at least one citation showing a significant observer crediting him for this. - Minor thing: The first mention of the article's title is bolded (For players, it's also put in quotation marks.), future mentions are plain text. You don't need to bold the player's name or put brackets around it or anything like that in future mentions. - That said, especially with written content, even flawed additions help. The first step is the most difficult; it's easier to correct things than it is to add them. If you want to improve, one of the best ways to do so is to pay attention to what other users do to the page after you edit it. I spent most of my first edits doing things 50% correct at best then trying to figure out how tehh4ck3r was fixing them (That's what many of my current edits are too, only maybe closer to 75% ).
On August 29 2016 10:08 FO-nTTaX wrote: 1. If you can source it you can even add controversy sections to active players and teams, just make sure they are written objectively and add good sources.
2. Usually we have people there that work important events. If you work TI or a Dota Major, you can probably have a page. If you work something similarly big as EPICENTER or DAC, we can probably talk about that. We are talking about Onscreen-talent and observers here though, not about cameramen.
3. Usually we have a limit of at least 50$ on SC2. For a 5 player team we can probably go with 200$. So if the prize pool of the tournament exceeds that, feel free to add a page. We only count cash prizes though, no hardware or the likes.
4. I am not the most active in the Dota wiki, but if you were horrible i probably would have heard about you, so most likely you are doing fine
If you are looking for more detailed feedback, feel free to visit our chat at http://webchat.quakenet.org/?channels=#liquipedia The people there won't bite and enjoy chilling there and having fun together, as well as helping people edit the wiki.
On August 28 2016 16:51 aether_fzn wrote: Hi, I have a few questions about the liquidpedia page and still learning how it works. Possible feedback on my work if possible.
1. Can I add a legacy/controversy sub section in a player's or team page if they reach retirement? What I mean is that generally most team and player pages have a biography, Dota 2 career etc. If one has made great impact to the game can I add a legacy or a controversy section?
2. What makes a caster/observer/production crew be featured in a Dota 2 tournament liquidpedia page? Do they have to cast on the main stage or any event? Does the group stage of a premier event/major event count?
3. If there are local tournaments in my area, am I able to make a tournament page out of it? They are not big at all, but it's something that I wish to do.
4. How am I going so far? Any mistakes or things I shouldn't be doing?
Thanks aeth
I've seen you around a bit, so I'll just quickly add to what FO said: - First, THANK YOU for adding written content with cited sources. - You should be a bit more careful about making broad statements. For example, statements such as "Purge is widely accredited for his contribution to the growth and success of Dota 2." should not be made without at least one citation showing a significant observer crediting him for this. - Minor thing: The first mention of the article's title is bolded (For players, it's also put in quotation marks.), future mentions are plain text. You don't need to bold the player's name or put brackets around it or anything like that in future mentions. - That said, especially with written content, even flawed additions help. The first step is the most difficult; it's easier to correct things than it is to add them. If you want to improve, one of the best ways to do so is to pay attention to what other users do to the page after you edit it. I spent most of my first edits doing things 50% correct at best then trying to figure out how tehh4ck3r was fixing them (That's what many of my current edits are too, only maybe closer to 75% ).
Yeah when I made that sentence about Purge, I forgot to remove it after reading my edits I've been looking at how others edit to see what I can do to improve and it's a learning process for me, but thank you for replying.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/J2DBW.jpg)
Player Template and 
