|
Germany2687 Posts
On November 26 2012 06:14 Robotix wrote:There is an error on the Liquipedia page for the Raven's Seeker Missile. It says the radius of effect for Seeker Missile is 2 when it is actually 2.4 both in game and in the map editor (with Liberty Multi (Mod) dependency, of course). http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Seeker_Missile
Hey,
I've fixed it, thanks for the feedback!
Do you know that you can actually change stuff like this yourself? It's pretty easy, you just log in on the top right with your TeamLiquid.net account and click edit on the top.
Cheers!
|
On November 26 2012 06:33 shz wrote:Hey, I've fixed it, thanks for the feedback! Do you know that you can actually change stuff like this yourself? It's pretty easy, you just log in on the top right with your TeamLiquid.net account and click edit on the top. Cheers!
Thanks!
It appears I missed that edit button in my once-over.
|
France1887 Posts
On November 26 2012 06:14 Robotix wrote:There is an error on the Liquipedia page for the Raven's Seeker Missile. It says the radius of effect for Seeker Missile is 2 when it is actually 2.4 both in game and in the map editor (with Liberty Multi (Mod) dependency, of course). http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Seeker_Missile
Nice catch, thanks! Pretty nice to know, it had been previously changed from 2.4 to 2.0 in patch 13 (during beta), but the change back to 2.4 hasn't been documented by Blizzard.
+ Show Spoiler [Code from LibertyMulti.SC2Mod] +<CEffectDamage id="SeekerMissileDamage">
<AreaArray index="0" Radius="0.6" Fraction="1"/>
<AreaArray index="1" Radius="1.2" Fraction="0.5"/>
<AreaArray index="2" Radius="2.4" Fraction="0.25"/>
<ExcludeArray Value="Target"/>
<SearchFlags index="SameCliff" value="0"/>
</CEffectDamage>
|
Throughout my limited amount of time that I have dedicated to making Liquipedia (LP) a better archive, I've come with a few suggestions to further improve it. I may come across as unknowledgeable of the inner workings of LP and how the Mods want it to be run, but I hope my suggestions will be well received.
1. More community involvement
I think that the strategy section of the SC2 LP is in a pretty bad state now. For Terran, there are only 2 builds which are listed as not needing polishing up or not outdated. Although the Protoss and Zerg sections are well and healthy, but I feel that LP will benefit from more community involvement.
We should invite authors of great guides in the SC2 strategy section, like Tang, RemarK, and StimmedProbe to write LP articles of their own builds.
Of course, I understand that community strategies may not have any real potential and may not be valid sometimes, but perhaps if we added a "Community Builds" section we can inspire more TLers to participate in editing LP? Maybe we can even work with .monk to host a monthly "Best Community Build" event, where the winning build (to be voted by forum-goers), will be placed on LP by one of our own team. I feel that this will promote community action and ingenuity, and will make TeamLiquid a better place as a whole.
2. Homogeneity
This is pretty big topic, but I'll do my best to make it quick and simple. Some player pages have an "About" section in place of "Biography", while others have "Biography" in place of "About". The use of contactions and writing style is part of homogeneity as well. Some articles are written like "You can construct additional bunkers if you scout an all-in." while some are written like "The Terran may construct additional bunkers if he/she scouts an all-in."
I am in favour of a more formal LP, and as such support the use "Biography" instead of "About", and the latter in the example given above.
|
On November 26 2012 10:47 Azera wrote:Throughout my limited amount of time that I have dedicated to making Liquipedia (LP) a better archive, I've come with a few suggestions to further improve it. I may come across as unknowledgeable of the inner workings of LP and how the Mods want it to be run, but I hope my suggestions will be well received. 1. More community involvement I think that the strategy section of the SC2 LP is in a pretty bad state now. For Terran, there are only 2 builds which are listed as not needing polishing up or not outdated. Although the Protoss and Zerg sections are well and healthy, but I feel that LP will benefit from more community involvement. We should invite authors of great guides in the SC2 strategy section, like Tang, RemarK, and StimmedProbe to write LP articles of their own builds. Of course, I understand that community strategies may not have any real potential and may not be valid sometimes, but perhaps if we added a "Community Builds" section we can inspire more TLers to participate in editing LP? Maybe we can even work with .monk to host a monthly "Best Community Build" event, where the winning build (to be voted by forum-goers), will be placed on LP by one of our own team. I feel that this will promote community action and ingenuity, and will make TeamLiquid a better place as a whole. 2. Homogeneity This is pretty big topic, but I'll do my best to make it quick and simple. Some player pages have an "About" section in place of "Biography", while others have "Biography" in place of "About". The use of contactions and writing style is part of homogeneity as well. Some articles are written like "You can construct additional bunkers if you scout an all-in." while some are written like "The Terran may construct additional bunkers if he/she scouts an all-in." I am in favour of a more formal LP, and as such support the use "Biography" instead of "About", and the latter in the example given above.
There are plans to run certain things to encourage quality community contributions. However they were only discussed yesterday, so I'm not sure if they will actually go through. About your second point, it is a very good one! I have been changing some of the player pages since you mentioned it on IRC. I agree with you about the formality, and the way some articles are written. The trouble is its's very difficult to go through every single article that needs changing, and change it.
|
Yeah it's a lot of work! Just gotta keep ploughing at it I guess :D
Edit: 2 coins!
|
Sweden5554 Posts
About Point 1: if a build is used competitively we can have it up on the wiki. regardless of who created it. but that's for it to be listed on the "terran strategy" page, if you wish you're more than welcome to create a "strategies for non-competitive play" article (or however you wish to word it) which lists a lot of builds that work for people on ladder in whatever league they are.
And this article can in turn be linked to from the main strategy pages. (and internally between themselves with say a navbox)
I might be wrong but I assume the People who write on the strategy section know they can write their guide on Liquipedia but choose to write it on the forum, for whatever reason.
The focus for Liquipedia SC2 and Dota2 is on the strategies used in competitive play, like it was/is for SC:BW.
Point 2: You're welcome to go over articles and change the about to biography, (at first we had both an about and a biography section, I think that might be the issue, but the true about section is the first section without a header really. so about is never needed.
You can also formalize the language and make it not directed to one person of any strategy article you wish, the more encyclopaedic language is the preferred language.
If you think there's a line that can be added to one of the style guide pages or something let me know and I'll see what we can do and how to word it etc.
|
Thanks for the reply salle 
|
The only edge Teamliquid's DotA 2 wiki seems to have over dota2wiki is the breadth of information provided regarding the pro scene (ie SingSing's page on TL vs d2w). With that in mind, do you think it might be a good idea to include links to players who have used certain heroes to great effect in historic games, ie the International finals, etc?
tl;dr Let's include links to pro players (and VODs?) in hero articles, yeah? A wiki that might lack in other areas (see: d2w's article on Rubick vs tl's wiki) could do with slapping a link to Dendi on Rubick's and Pudge's pages.
edit: same goes for items, ie a link to that one game where someone uses a hotd to dominate a creep that's about to kill them mid-projectile, resulting a deny? or then again that might be a bit too gimmicky / not representative of its typical use
|
Sweden5554 Posts
On December 04 2012 06:50 .Aar wrote:The only edge Teamliquid's DotA 2 wiki seems to have over dota2wiki is the breadth of information provided regarding the pro scene (ie SingSing's page on TL vs d2w). With that in mind, do you think it might be a good idea to include links to players who have used certain heroes to great effect in historic games, ie the International finals, etc? tl;dr Let's include links to pro players (and VODs?) in hero articles, yeah? A wiki that might lack in other areas (see: d2w's article on Rubick vs tl's wiki) could do with slapping a link to Dendi on Rubick's and Pudge's pages. edit: same goes for items, ie a link to that one game where someone uses a hotd to dominate a creep that's about to kill them mid-projectile, resulting a deny? or then again that might be a bit too gimmicky / not representative of its typical use
Short answer: Yes!
Long answer: Hell yes! Linking this from both the hero/item and player page (and perhaps even tournament page) should be fine. As long as the link is explained well enough, and perhaps also links to the player from the hero/item pages.
|
Netherlands6142 Posts
On December 04 2012 06:50 .Aar wrote:The only edge Teamliquid's DotA 2 wiki seems to have over dota2wiki is the breadth of information provided regarding the pro scene (ie SingSing's page on TL vs d2w). With that in mind, do you think it might be a good idea to include links to players who have used certain heroes to great effect in historic games, ie the International finals, etc? tl;dr Let's include links to pro players (and VODs?) in hero articles, yeah? A wiki that might lack in other areas (see: d2w's article on Rubick vs tl's wiki) could do with slapping a link to Dendi on Rubick's and Pudge's pages. edit: same goes for items, ie a link to that one game where someone uses a hotd to dominate a creep that's about to kill them mid-projectile, resulting a deny? or then again that might be a bit too gimmicky / not representative of its typical use
Sure, something like this right? http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Ghost#Notable_Games Sounds good.
|
For KESPA players I think it would be a better idea to use the IDs they're most famous for than react to their - let's call them quirky - ID changes all the time. This used to be a norm during Brood War as well (hence we mostly never had Ty, P7GAB, NoNge, Never, etc in LR threads, Liquipedia or TLPD).
I don't know about you, but I can barely tell who any of the guys on the left are:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FQpyl.png)
|
Hyrule19215 Posts
I also support that idea but there are some who do not, and would rather use the name as displayed in the VODs or used by the casters.
|
|
|
Germany2687 Posts
|
On December 10 2012 00:08 tofucake wrote:
I also support that idea but there are some who do not, and would rather use the name as displayed in the VODs or used by the casters.
How about we use same nicknames as fantasy proleague uses.
|
The thing is that using their current IDs conflicts with TLPD, FPL, Live Reports, and even official TL articles (so far), which is really where most people that would want to look up a player get their information from.
Although I can see how it becomes even more inconvenient if (now English) casters also use the new IDs. =/
|
|
|
Oh good, we didn't have to link the morpheus pic at you :D
|
Germany2687 Posts
Great, thank you for that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
