Achievements, Template Size and StrategyEdit
So a few things I wanted to run by you:
1. I was thinking of making another article for achievements, right now we've lumped a lot of the general, feats of strength and arcade achievements into Wings of Liberty or into their own articles. I was thinking of adding a sixth category just for the "other" achievements so it's easier to navigate, and that way we can also do away with all those dangling achievement articles. I was torn between StarCraft II multiplayer achievements (which is more intuitive, but less accurate and technically would encompass co-op) or StarCraft II general achievements (which is less intuitive but more accurate).
2. Right now on some of some mission pages like The Spear of Adun (mission) it's giving errors that the template size is exceeded, and so it won't display the campaign template. I was thinking it had to do with the size of our achievement template, but I admit my knowledge of wikia formatting isn't the best. Should we do away with the achievement template on mission articles?
3. I asked PsiSeveredHead about this, and he told me to rope you in on the discussion, but I feel like our strategy and esports sections have always been really behind. We really don't have anyone who both knows enough about that side of things and is active enough to keep it updated with the meta, and even if we did it'd be hard to match the info on that side Liquidpedia has. I was debating just axing a lot of our strategy and esports articles (like Zerg vs. Terran (StarCraft II)), and when necessary linking to Liquidpedia. We'd keep stuff like ladder maps, basic unit use and some of the absolute major players like Slayers_Boxer, but things like tournaments and builds we could just link to their site if that becomes necessary. That'd be a pretty big shift in wiki policy though so I wanted to clear it with you before I did anything.
Should be it, still got the category thing we discussed earlier on my radar but I wanted to get that done on a day I just sit down and knock most of them out at once. Subsourian (talk) 15:59, July 19, 2016 (UTC)
- So actually going through the achievement articles I've noticed we had more group articles for achievements then I first thought. We have a lot that line up with the actual listed categories of achievements beyond just the campaign ones, like combat and exploration. So since we have that in place I was thinking of just making article for each achievement tab in the battle.net profile (Multiplayer, Feats of Strength and Arcade are the ones we need). This'll be a bit weird since some categories have changed between games though, I think FFA is out now. Also, we seem to be housing a bunch of removed achievements scattered around, do you think a "removed achievements" article would be useful for that?
- Ah ok, just fixed it, seems to be working now. Just wasn't sure the root of it was all.
- I wouldn't necessarily say that weakens our wiki, just plays to our strengths of focusing on the game itself rather then the scene surrounding it. The= difference I see with co-op vs. the actual ladder is the concept of a shifting metagame, where co-op only really gets shaken up during balance patches (and we're the only place that seems to have co-op content). But I see your point and agree, as we are the more general wiki so we should be self-sufficient in that regard. Subsourian (talk) 13:43, July 20, 2016 (UTC)
Hey Hawki, long time no talk.
Sorry for (slightly) spamming the admins, but I was wondering if I could borrow one of your wiki's templates for my own? The AchieveBox one in particular.
Terran Confederacy state atheismEdit
From what I've gathered the Terran Confederacy adopted it's state atheistic polices from the United Powers League. Technically speaking only Albania is the only state atheistic country on earth because it was the only one to ban organized religion. Other countries are called state atheist, but only repressed not banned it (Soviet Union, China). Terran Confederacy matches the Soviet Union, China model perfectly. Simpsonsfan1992 (talk) 06:27, August 4, 2016 (UTC)
Covert Ops Edit
Being we did the same with the campaigns, I'd like to make a page documenting the various upgrades available to Nova's army. However, I'm not sure what to call it. DrakeyC (talk) 08:25, August 7, 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't, no. Griffin was my best guess as well. I'll whip it up shortly and add it to the page. DrakeyC (talk) 09:09, August 7, 2016 (UTC)
Heroes of the Storm: Where's the LineEdit
So taking a second to catch my breath from these announcements; I've been adding a good amount of mounts/psionic abilities/units that show up in Heroes of the Storm for StarCraft characters, figuring they'd be ok as long as we flag them as ambiguously canon (stuff like devouring maw, for example).
Of course as I do this they announce we're officially getting two StarCraft maps for HotS, full of SC related bits, I'm wondering where the line is on what's too HotS related for this wiki. Do we want to have short articles related to those maps since they are StarCraft, or do we just want to have the relevant unit articles reflect their appearance on those maps? On that note, should we make articles for things like "infested goliath" and "infested archangel," or is even articles for things like devouring maw too much?
Also on that same topic, do we still want to put the HotS tag on every article that shows up in HotS? With these maps we may be reaching the point where that encompasses most unit articles.
Also completely unrelated question, I've been adding in weapon articles for each faction, mostly just things referred to as a proper noun. I noticed that we have a category for terran weapons but protoss just have protoss technology. I could see why since most protoss tech isn't designed for war, but with the influx of protoss weapon articles can I make an infobox/category for protoss weapons similar to the terran one? Subsourian (talk) 18:18, August 16, 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah I could imagine the timezone difference kinda sucks for these big announcements, thanks for getting back so quick though.
- Using the Eternal Conflict maps as a base I'm just confused as to what we'd categorize them as, they seem to take place in actual SC locations (one seems to be near Braxis) but in isolation from the SC universe. So would they be treated like how we treat co-op missions? Or would we just flag it as Heroes of the Storm and do a very brief summary? And would, say, the Braxis article get its own Braxis section or a Heroes of the Storm subsection? Probably better to ask these when the maps actually come out.
- For devouring maw the description seems to be "Summon a Devouring Maw," which I took to mean it was a separate creature, especially since nydus worm is her other ult.
- Yeah I'm rewatching the trailer and I think I agree with you on "infested ____," especially since they seem to deinfest upon capturing the camps. An interesting point on the skins though, would that mean something like spectre Tracer and Illidan would be worth an article, since they seems to be written in an SC lore context? I figured crossover skins fell into the realm of silly.
- Ah yeah I was worried where the line was when it came to weapons, probably should have checked. The way I was doing it was if it was a proper noun or weapon that was exclusive to the SC universe and not something like "claw" or "shotgun." That said a lot of these got info thanks to the unit science pages and the field manual, but some stuff like the three WoL hero mothership auto-attack weapons I could see being a problem. And yeah next big thing I'll do is run through the unit articles and link them together, right now not a lot do. Subsourian (talk) 23:05, August 16, 2016 (UTC)
Too many motherships Edit
I added a few mothership links recently but they were removed. There have been at least X Tal'darim motherships in the game - the one you can control in Legacy of the Void campaign, the one that attacks you in Wings of Liberty, a named one in Nova Covert Ops... each with somewhat differing abilities. The one in Trouble in Paradise has startlingly different abilities. I don't think a generic description such as Tal'darim mothership is enough, nor do I think having two or three units in an article is enough. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs 23:58, August 23, 2016 (UTC)
So, since we are not sure if the names of some Tal'darim units is actually canon, I asked in a private message Phill Gonzo about this (since sometimes I ask things to him when I have some doubts for my SC1 remake), when he will answer do you want a screen about the message? So we can consider the information 100% canon?--PRISON KEEPER (talk) 01:36, September 12, 2016 (UTC)
Co-op Units and Administrative questionsEdit
There's some ambiguity of when we want to include the co-op template in an article, specifically for units. Do we want to have it for everything co-op related, even base units such as the marine or zergling, for just units specific to co-op like the shadow guard and supplicant, or co-op specific units and also repurposed units that function differently from how they normally do, like the laser drill?
Second question, and this is something I've seen come up a few times, do we have any rule against using this wiki to circumvent blocks on other wikis? It's something a few other wikis have as a rule but I don't think we laid out anywhere on ours. If not is it something we want to start doing? Just want to make sure before I start enforcing a rule that doesn't exist. Subsourian (talk) 13:00, September 14, 2016 (UTC)
- To clear up the second point, I meant when someone gets banned from another wiki goes on here and uses the talk page of someone (usually an admin of the wiki they got banned from) to talk to them and get around the block, usually asking to revert the ban. Like this from this morning. Not the it's pressing or gets in the way or anything I just wasn't sure where we stood on that. Subsourian (talk) 03:31, September 15, 2016 (UTC)
Mutators on the Front PageEdit
Just a thought I had given the popularity of co-op, but I wanted to run it by you and Psi before I did anything with the front page. I wanted to add a section on the front page that shows the mutator for the week, since we seem to be the one place regularly keeping up to date in co-op content I think making that information more instantly available will help people just browsing around for that info and maybe make more people use us regularly for co-op content. Also maybe add a section on the front page listing the co-op commanders/maps.
- I agree with the idea. It helps make the front page current. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs 23:39, September 21, 2016 (UTC)
- It would depend partially on how we looks. I think it might be better to have a link to the current mutation rather than writing it out twice - it would save space at least.
- On the subject of the main page, something that's been bugging me for awhile is that we have a list of SC2 units, but not a list of SC1 ones. SC2 is of course more current, but SC1 could get some love. If anything, we could base it on the Borderlands wiki, keeping the most recent list up top (in this case, SC2), then making our way down (to SC1).--Hawki (talk) 11:58, September 22, 2016 (UTC)
- For the mutator depends on how we do it. I think we could fit a small box with the name of the current mutator linking to it and maybe a list of the names of the mutations it uses (though not the descriptions). I'll whip up a quick thing in the sandbox. Mostly it's more about making the information more open, so linking twice wouldn't be a big deal. But we should probably also have a section in contents linking to co-op commanders.
- I agree on SC1 units, but would we then link to the unit article or lore articles for units that cross over between two games? Or would we link to the lore article for both since it serves as a kind of hub.
- If possible I'd also like to make the divisions between things in "content" clearer but that'd just be a line. Also how specific do we want to be with characters, mostly seems ok for now but given what we know of the trilogy Tychus seems out of place, probably less important than Valerian or Zagara. Not sure if in that case we'd want more or less characters. Subsourian (talk) 15:42, September 22, 2016 (UTC)
- Link to units I think. The idea of a 'list of units' only has relevance in a gameplay sense. Also, inclined to agree with Tychus being removed.--Hawki (talk) 09:27, September 25, 2016 (UTC)