|
Canada7169 Posts
On June 09 2009 03:55 AeTheReal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2009 03:35 mikeymoo wrote: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. 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)
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Unit_Statistics
EDIT: Oh okay, my bad. I thought you meant shorthand notation in general.
|
I meant on the individual unit pages. o_0
|
On June 09 2009 03:55 AeTheReal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2009 03:35 mikeymoo wrote: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. 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)
I'd argue against this, on the basis that single letters are ambiguous, and the full words don't take up that much space.
|
On June 09 2009 07:29 virLudens wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2009 03:55 AeTheReal wrote:On June 09 2009 03:35 mikeymoo wrote: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. Really? It looks okay on attacks that have one descriptor but on attacks for units such as the 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) I'd argue against this, on the basis that single letters are ambiguous, and the full words don't take up that much space.
Really? It looks ok when there's only one descriptor for the attack but on units like the Siege Tank, it looks really long and somewhat confusing. Using a single letter might be a bit ambiguous at first but it'd be easier on the eyes in the long run. Plus, I figure they'd be linked to a damage type page so if you hover over the letter, the tooltip will read "explosive" for "e" and "splash" for "s" anyways.
|
I looked at a random page, to see if I could help out. Sair Reaver came up and it didn't have anything in the 'Notable Games' section. I'd like to know what constitutes a 'Notable Game'. A game between high profile players, an important starleague game, or just any game that prominently features that style of play? To that specific article, I suggest adding Bisu vs Jaedong on Andromeda, and I suggest attempting to find the VOD where Sair Reaver was first used. I'd do that myself, but I don't know what should be considered for notability.
|
Can I point out that everyone should be using the spell checker in their browser when they edit Liquipedia? There seems to be many instances of "harrass" 
Grammatical errors also seem to be rife in many of the pages.
|
Also, how do I add pictures to a player page?
|
I've got a couple suggestions:
It seems a little strange to allow all users to upload media and create pages without approval, but require approval for regular edits. Perhaps it should be the other way around. It's not causing problems, but it would be less busywork for the admins, and I highly doubt vandalism will be a problem.
A page on covering some general wiki-editing guidelines would be useful. Some things are already covered, but others aren't. (e.g. when edits are 'minor' , when to make changes vs. when to discuss, general formatting)
But all-in-all, it's really great so far! It meshes very nicely with the main site.
|
On June 09 2009 09:34 LxRogue wrote:
I've got a couple suggestions:
It seems a little strange to allow all users to upload media and create pages without approval, but require approval for regular edits. Perhaps it should be the other way around. It's not causing problems, but it would be less busywork for the admins, and I highly doubt vandalism will be a problem.
A page on covering some general wiki-editing guidelines would be useful. Some things are already covered, but others aren't. (e.g. when edits are 'minor' , when to make changes vs. when to discuss, general formatting)
But all-in-all, it's really great so far! It meshes very nicely with the main site.
New pages and media need approval just like any other edit.
|
|
|
|
|
United States16959 Posts
I wasn't even aware we had a tsld >.> put it in the talk page, and if it becomes a bigger problem, ping sonuvbob or Masterofchaos
|
United States16959 Posts
On June 09 2009 09:34 LxRogue wrote:
A page on covering some general wiki-editing guidelines would be useful. Some things are already covered, but others aren't. (e.g. when edits are 'minor' , when to make changes vs. when to discuss, general formatting)
Um. we aren't really using the minor edit feature, the general formatting thing is covered in the help section, and discussion occurs whenever you're not sure you should make the change and/or you have a question.
|
United States16959 Posts
On June 09 2009 08:58 CDRdude wrote:
Also, how do I add pictures to a player page?
dunno if this still needs to be answered, but click the "upload file" link on the left sidebar, and then you link to it using the same notation that the other pages use.
|
|
|
United States16959 Posts
On June 09 2009 12:22 Cali wrote:
Need a discussion on format of Bo's pages
I was going though them and just about all of them seemed to have been done by 3-4 with different formats I was thinking of going though and making them all
{{Infobox_Strategy
|name=
|race=
|type=Opening Build
|image=
|caption=
|matchups=
|creator=
|popularized=
}}
==Overview==
==Build Order==
==Build Order Clarification==
==Mentality==
==Transition==
==Countered By==
===Hard Counters===
===Soft Counters===
==Counter To==
===Hard Counters===
===Soft Counters===
==Notable Maps==
===Strong===
===Weak===
==Notable Games==
===Replays===
===VOD's===
[[Category:Strategies]]
I thought that this order would be best; as most put mentality at the bottom but my guess it would be best after the Bo explanation or after overview.
The thing not being consistent is pissing me off.
Ironic, as all of our work was trying to get this stuff consistent. The actual guides thing should be in the help pages.
the strategy guide should be:
{{Infobox_Strategy
|name=
|race=
|type=Opening Build
|image=
|caption=
|matchups=
|creator=
|popularized=
}}
==Overview==
==Build Order==
===Build Order Clarification (if necessary, optional section)===
==Mentality==
==Transition==
==Countered By==
==Counter To==
==Notable Maps==
===Strong===
===Weak===
==Notable Games==
[[Category:Strategies]]
The above is the most recent iteration, but we didn't have time to really get all of the articles exactly consistent. This is what I spent most of my time on, so PM me if you have any more structure questions.
|
is awesome31375 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
United States13893 Posts
I'm starting to edit player articles now, and I just have to say it feels strange that the articles are titled according to their gaming ID's. Especially if we're going to be fleshing out the player bio sections, it feels like the articles should be titled by their Romanized Names. For example, BoxeR's page, linked above, first establishes BoxeR with his Romanized name, then says he is "known by the pseudonym SlayerS_`BoxeR`."
|
|
|
|
|
|
WCS
