EPTThanks sunhay
Liquipedia Feedback Thread - Page 2
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
GHOSTCLAW
United States16963 Posts
Thanks sunhay | ||
|
GHOSTCLAW
United States16963 Posts
On June 08 2009 14:48 jingXD wrote: Would it be possible to have a dedicated link in the sidebar for a "progamers" section in addition to all the strategy links? I think it would be nice to include info a la http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=33197. Yes, but the progamers section isn't yet filled out enough yet to merit the sidebar link. That's next on the list after we get the strategy section to a satisfactory level. Also, I think the http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Suggestions_for_Content link should appear in the sidebar with the link to this feedback thread. We have a to-do list for this, so I deleted the article. | ||
Plexa
Aotearoa38209 Posts
On June 08 2009 15:07 Kau wrote: Is there any unit page with "everything" in it that I can use as a template to make all other unit pages alike? The best two, in my opinion, are the Carrier and the Arbiter http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Carrier http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Arbiter On June 08 2009 14:48 jingXD wrote: Would it be possible to have a dedicated link in the sidebar for a "progamers" section in addition to all the strategy links? I think it would be nice to include info a la http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=33197. Also, I think the http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Suggestions_for_Content link should appear in the sidebar with the link to this feedback thread. We'll end up putting progamers up when we have a few more done. Not quite sure what your mean by your last comment though? | ||
|
Abydos1
United States832 Posts
On June 08 2009 15:40 GHOSTCLAW wrote: Yes, but the progamers section isn't yet filled out enough yet to merit the sidebar link. That's next on the list after we get the strategy section to a satisfactory level. We have a to-do list for this, so I deleted the article. You can view the players category for now: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Category:Players | ||
|
Highways
Australia6080 Posts
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Starcraft_Players_(Korea) | ||
NeverGG
United Kingdom5399 Posts
On June 08 2009 18:06 Highways wrote: Or you can even start on this page. http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Starcraft_Players_(Korea) Um - I thought it was agreed we'd be using my photos for this. The Bisu and Luxury articles are using Fifo/Fomos work. | ||
|
Highways
Australia6080 Posts
| ||
|
NeverGG
United Kingdom5399 Posts
On June 08 2009 19:31 Highways wrote: lol those articles were made last year :p Oops I totally didn't notice. Well I think it's already been agreed on that due to Fomos/Fifo permission rules etc my photos will be used for the new ones. | ||
|
liquorice
United States170 Posts
On another note, is there going to be a style guide for talk pages? The original wikipedia has little sections in them, which really helps in keeping it organized, rather than just having a wall of text. EDIT: nevermind, I found it! (The talk pages thing, not punctuation.) | ||
Empyrean
16833 Posts
| ||
|
GHOSTCLAW
United States16963 Posts
On June 08 2009 22:17 virLudens wrote: argh! I've been going through articles fixing minor things, and I'm at a loss about what to do about punctuation. In build orders, it seems but that it would be frivolous to add periods behind every step, but then longer sentences have them. The style guide only says that proper punctuation should be used. On another note, is there going to be a style guide for talk pages? The original wikipedia has little sections in them, which really helps in keeping it organized, rather than just having a wall of text. EDIT: nevermind, I found it! (The talk pages thing, not punctuation.) There is no talk page punctuation/style guide, as we haven't really figured out how to use it yet. We were kind of expecting one of a few things to happen: 1) talk pages work themselves out, and then suddenly everyone can use those to discuss things (community development) 2) the strategy section gets used to talk over the modern variations of the specific builds (at a high level hopefully). We haven't really figured out the interplay between the strategy section and liquipedia 3) people just make edits, and never use the talk pages. If the mods/admins see an edit war and/or get a PM about it, we protect/lock the page, and then pm chill/ver/oystein or start a strat forum thread about it. One of the above will happen I think - everyone is just figuring it out. If you use wikipedia as an example, their talk pages tend to be disorganized as well (although to be fair, overall they're also covering slightly less technical topics). | ||
|
lgd-haze
Sweden530 Posts
Initial Build Order The initial build order listed here is the most common 9 Pool Build 9 - Overlord 9 - Spawning Pool 8 - Drone 9 - Extractor 8 - Drone 9 - Cancel Extractor @100% Spawning Pool - 6 Zerglings Is this really the correct BO? Since if you Overpool the overlord usually finishes right after you've build the 9th drone after placing the Spawning Pool. | ||
|
GHOSTCLAW
United States16963 Posts
On June 09 2009 00:19 lgd-Haze wrote: In the Zerg vs Terran page under the first branch I saw Is this really the correct BO? Since if you Overpool the overlord usually finishes right after you've build the 9th drone after placing the Spawning Pool. A) the talk/discussion pages are good for this B) uhhh..dunno about the correctness >.> Go ahead and fix it if you think that it should be fixed, and hopefully someone more knowledgeable about zerg than me will review it. | ||
|
SonuvBob
Aiur21525 Posts
--~~~~ shows your username, there's a button to add it == Issue 1 == Point 1 --~~~~ :Reply 1 to Point 1 --~~~~ :Reply 2 to Point 1 --~~~~ Point 2 --~~~~ :Reply to Point 2 --~~~~ ::Reply to reply --~~~~ Point 3 --~~~~ == Issue 2 == etc edit: Fixed | ||
|
liquorice
United States170 Posts
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Help:Discussion_Pages I've been using this for the discussion pages, it looks like it'll work out fine | ||
|
liquorice
United States170 Posts
Right now the formatting of lists (of maps, of counters, etc.) is unclear, and it would be nice to have a solid thing to reference to, specifically periods at the ends of sentences. | ||
|
GHOSTCLAW
United States16963 Posts
On June 09 2009 02:14 virLudens wrote: Can I add a section about lists to the style guide? Right now the formatting of lists (of maps, of counters, etc.) is unclear, and it would be nice to have a solid thing to reference to, specifically periods at the ends of sentences. IRC channel #liquipedia riptide, mikeymoo, and aesop are the point guys for the style stuff. If you don't want to ask them on IRC, PM them - they'll be happy to help. | ||
|
AeTheReal
United States108 Posts
Unlocked Tech vs Upgrades Available These should be separate listings for buildings right? Some buildings have units that they unlock and upgrades that can be researched there listed together under Unlocked Tech. I think they should be separated out. The way I see it, Unlocked Tech should be units, buildings, and upgrades (at other buildings) unlocked by having this building. Upgrades Available should be all upgrades researched at this particular building. Basic Upgrades Prerequisites Also, tech requirements for level 2+ upgrades for weapons and armor is mentioned for Protoss upgrades but are not for Zerg or Terran upgrades. Is mentioning tech requirements for this necessary? Regardless, I'd recommend removing that info from the infobox area since it adds clutter. Units/Buildings Infobox Data ...should probably both be updated so they can display supply provided and attack data. Overlords don't display that they provide 8 control in the infobox and photon cannons and such don't display their attack data there either. | ||
|
mikeymoo
Canada7169 Posts
On June 09 2009 03:13 AeTheReal wrote: A few things... Unlocked Tech vs Upgrades Available These should be separate listings for buildings right? Some buildings have units that they unlock and upgrades that can be researched there listed together under Unlocked Tech. I think they should be separated out. The way I see it, Unlocked Tech should be units, buildings, and upgrades (at other buildings) unlocked by having this building. Upgrades Available should be all upgrades researched at this particular building. Basic Upgrades Prerequisites Also, tech requirements for level 2+ upgrades for weapons and armor is mentioned for Protoss upgrades but are not for Zerg or Terran upgrades. Is mentioning tech requirements for this necessary? Regardless, I'd recommend removing that info from the infobox area since it adds clutter. Units/Buildings Infobox Data ...should probably both be updated so they can display supply provided and attack data. Overlords don't display that they provide 8 control in the infobox and photon cannons and such don't display their attack data there either. Yes, yes, and yes. Fix what you can, and any infobox stuff we'll take a look at. Use the talk pages if you want to talk about specific articles. | ||
|
AeTheReal
United States108 Posts
On June 09 2009 03:35 mikeymoo wrote: Yes, yes, and yes. Fix what you can, and any infobox stuff we'll take a look at. Use the talk pages if you want to talk about specific articles. Roger that. Wikia.com has a Starcraft wiki if anyone doesn't know already. I like how they show that an attack is which attack type by a single letter. This is probably the most elegant way of conveying damage type info. Writing the entire word "Explosive" or "Splash" in the infobox is too messy. See link below for example. http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Siege_tank_(StarCraft) | ||
| ||
