Talk:Heroes of Newerth Wiki

From HoNWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

[edit] Main Page Discussion

[edit] Main Page Suggestions

List suggestions for main page:

  • weekly or daily featured image
  • next item on my list is integration with the forums, not 100% sure how that will work while it is beta, but I'm sure I can figure something out -Wylker 15:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • fix featured articles where heroes have more than 4 abilities, example: Deadwood. -Lukian 03:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article Suggestions

Post suggestions for potential Featured Articles here, along with a brief reasoning/explanation:

[edit] Hero Skills Revamp Underway!

--Workdawg 18:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC) - We are using IcePhoenix's fancy new skill template Template:Skillinfo and creating pages for all skills. He's also worked out a fancy DPL function to pull all the hero skills into the hero pages. We've (mostly him) been working through the heroes, starting a the top of the grid updating them. It'll be a longish process, but it'll be awesome when it's done.

--Workdawg 03:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC) - I updated Template:Skillinfo with the standard documentation and stuff. I also created a new template, Template:Hero Skill List which automatically pulls in a hero's skills based on pagename, so that it can be dropped on any hero page and it will pull in their skills (already put it in the updated hero pages)... no longer needs to have the hero name added to the DPL. Lastly, I updated Template:Hero to reflect the changes to the hero skills setup. I'm pretty beat, otherwise I'd work on converting more heroes, maybe tomorrow.
--Workdawg 01:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC) - So, I was thinking... do we want to move/rename all the skill images to appropriate names? (skillname).gif, instead of Heroskill#.gif? We probably don't really NEED to do it before we redo all the hero's pages are reworked. This kinda ties in to IcePhoenix wanting to change over to .png files instead. I don't think we necessarily need to rename all the images first, because we could code the name of the file into the template the same way the item and heroboxes work now. It's just heroname.gif, or whatever. I suppose we can do that next. Just some food for thought I guess.
--Ice Phoenix 12:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC) - My vote is to work on getting the hero and skill pages up first. Skill images can and should be named relative to the skills instead of the heroes, but this is something that can be done when resources are imported as .pngs (which is a big project in and of itself). For now I'd say don't waste the time changing image locations, as the skill template can be changed to automatically pull images based on the skill name, deprecating the imagepath= parameter in the Skillinfo template and making things a lot easier on us once the .pngs are imported. Again, let's focus on getting hero and skill pages up first. :)

--Ice Phoenix 12:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC) - All agility heroes done!

--Ice Phoenix 05:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC) - One aspect of the new Skillinfo template that should be discussed is the duration column. I didn't notice until now but all the durations for non-channeling skills have been removed. Take Andromeda's Comet and Aurora for example. The playdota.com layout includes the stun and debuff durations in the duration section of the skill tables. This allows a user to tell at a glance whether a ability is an instant-effect only or lasts a period of time, without having to read through the ability effects.

I personally think that it is advantageous to include stun and debuff durations in the duration section of the table, especially since the room is already set aside. If there are reasons to not include standard stun and debuff durations in the table, I would move to eliminate the "Duration" column in the skills table, as I don't think it makes much sense to have a column full of "N/A"s for 95% of hero abilities.

I appreciate the consideration. /endrant

--Workdawg 06:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC) - I actually went through and removed the "duration" for a lot of the skills because, IMO, it's a bit misleading if read literally. Your examples, Comet and Aurora don't actually have durations. They are just spells that are cast. Their EFFECTS certainly have durations, but not the skills themselves. That's why I removed them. Unholy Expulsion, on the other hand, does actually have a duration.
--Ice Phoenix 07:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC) - I do see what you're saying. While I agree that Comet and Aurora abilities don't have ability durations themselves, the effects (stun and debuff) do have set duratiosn that are the same every time the skill is cast. Playdota includes stun and effect durations in a duration column, and I think that this is advantageous. I could add an optional modifier to the Skillinfo template, durationtype, that allows us to enter values such as "Channeling," "Stun" or "Effect," changing the misleading "Duration" column to a more unambiguous "Channeling Duration," "Stun Duration" or "Effect Duration" respectively. Would this be something you would consider? See my examples for Comet and Aurora.

--JohnAnon 03:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC) - Proposal: Add durations for skills that applies buffs/debuffs directly (i.e. Grave Silence) and skills with an actual duration (i.e. Wind Control) i.e. Just copy what playdota.com does.

--Ice Phoenix 04:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC) - Well, playdota.com does durations of effects (direct buff/debuffs), skills that last a certain period of time, as well as channeling and stun durations. See Dragon Tail and hoof stomp. So its either only buff/debuff and "actual" durations, or do it like playdota and post all durations. Again, the "Duration" in the header could easily be changed like so to say "Stun Duration" so there is no potential for confusion.

--JohnAnon 07:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC) I think having a separate section for stun is kind of redundant. Anyway, what about skills with multiple "durations"? For example, Acid Cocktail stuns creeps for 5 seconds and heroes for 1 second.
--Ice Phoenix 17:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC) - See playdota equivalent, Paralyzing Cask, here. I still really like the idea of having stun durations in that duration column.

[edit] Localization

--Wylker 14:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC): Well, we're getting a pretty good number of hits, but all from NA and Australia. Does anyone know anything about wiki localization? I'd be neat if we could get the wiki with portugese, spanish, vietnamese, etc translations.

--Wylker 21:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC): I have been approached by someone saying they are trying to put a russian language wiki together and has asked for copies of our DBs. I am both reluctant to do this but also willing to consider it as all wiki information is public anyway. Thoughts?
--Ku3mi41 07:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC):I tried to create a copy of this wiki at wikia.com, for to translate into Russian (I used Export (this is very not convenient for full damp;)) but at wikia.com need should request the administration to include DPL support. So I started looking for another solution. In the end, I decided to borrow a solution mediawiki.org and added a {{languages}} template to display the translation in the bottom of the page (I hope you will not beat me:))). See how it works can be here. Now I'm trying to lure Russian community here. Sry for my bad English.
--Wylker 21:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC):I really like that, good work!

[edit] Skins

--Wylker 17:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC) - Please make a list here of skinning errors you see (white text on white backgrounds or anything awful) and/or suggestions.

--Wylker 18:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC): All issues so far resolved. The IE tab looks a teeny bit funky when you hover over the already selected tab, but it's going on my "good enough" list for now.

[edit] Guides

--Workdawg 17:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC) - What do you guys think about people editting guides? The guides were written by people, and likely not meant to be changed. Some of the guides have been modified recently, by people other than their authors. As much as the intentions are good, I don't think this should be allowed since the authors name is clearly on the top of the page, it should remain their work. Should these be protected, or maybe we just need to patrol changes (I usually do anyways) and rollback things not made by the author? I would encourage people to bring up their thoughts on the talk pages, instead of making changes to the guides.

--Ice Phoenix 19:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC): While I agree in some cases, in other cases I think that guide editing can be a very good thing. Take Nome's ward guide for example: While he has some very good ward spots, there are others spots I use that I would like to introduce and discuss. Another idea is to add "Advantages:" and "Disadvantages:" below each ward location. In this case I, along with others in the community, may have valuable things to add to the article. That's the advantage of a wiki; instead of being limited to one person's input, the wiki benefits from the collective intelligence of all contributors.
Granted, this editing must be done in a strictly informational way, and contributors should not add personal opinions into the mix, only present facts (ie, advantages/disadvantages of a certain build). I also can see that certain guides may curtail to an author's opinion more so than a factual analysis of the "best" way to play a hero. Or, if a highly debated guide keeps getting changed because there is no "best way." In these cases, I think applying protected status would be appropriate. Authors should be able to ask that their guides go unchanged, and in a debated topic an admin can make cases for both arguments in the article before protecting.
That's my two cents.
--Wylker 15:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC): Guides are pretty much intellectual property. What we should probably do is look into some kind of rating system for the guides where people can "vote" or something. Then make the guides themselves locked to edits except by the author and admins (for fact repair) and then allow people to add comments to the page. How does that strike people?
--Ice Phoenix 16:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC): The more I think about it the more I'm open to author "ownership" of guides here on HoNWiki. While I prefer collective contribution I can see a place opinion-based guides, and the need for them to be locked. I'd personally still like to see discussion pages open for potential suggestions/comments and author feedback. The only issue I can see is giving the right person access, as a guide author may or may not have a HoNWiki account, and the guide uploader may not be the original author either.
--Workdawg 20:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC) - The guides are intellectual property of their authors, it's no different from posting a copy of some book on a wiki. We have permission from the authors to post their work. This isn't a matter of the wiki being public domain in most cases (nearly all the guides are copied from the official beta forums). I do like the idea of locking them down to only the authors, but allowing for a rating/commenting system for them.
--Wylker 20:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC): As far as I'm concerned, whoever uploads the guide here can have "authorship" of it. They are responsible for the content and should be the one's able to access it. I can make guides restricted to account holders I think, the comment/rating thing would have to be coded from scratch unless there is an existing mod for it. If a situation came up where an original author threw a fit about the content in a guide they authored somewhere else we can deal with that on a case by case basis.
--Ice Phoenix 15:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC): The Rating Bar mediawiki extension looks promising. The author's main page is here.
--Destriot 12:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC) // I tend to disagree, the point of wiki's like this is to provide in game info, as far as gameplay, stratagems etc. guides should be changed and evoldev, since skills get changed and everything. But not out of the blue, there should be an active discussion on said guide and if a change reaches consensus it should be implemented. As for guides that other people would not like to be changed, post them on your userpages. I was a long term GWwiki and PVXwiki user, and this is how we handled things. Hope it helps.

[edit] Older Info

I've updated all the hero guides, to use the modules, new modular format; and the {{Hero Guide}}. The modules are (in order of usage):

Link to the HONWiki post on the HON Forums... http://forums.heroesofnewerth.com/showthread.php?t=6473


Guides that aren't posted yet, but we have permission to use:

[edit] DPL Extension

--Workdawg 17:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC) - I've got some basic demos of DPL going... User:Workdawg/Sandbox3
I envision creating basic pages for ALL SKILLS and categorizing them appropriately (Category:Skills, Category:(heroname} Skills). If all skills are categorized with (heroname) Skills, we can use DPL to populate the hero pages skill list, and can also use that to pull skill info for guides. The skill info pages *should* include all the game stats for the skills, preferably exactly as it appears in the skill info. We can trim that info back for skill info listings on the hero pages though to only the important stuff. Thoughts on this? Where/how can we access game data and is there a way to auto-create/populate basic info pages from it?
I envision creating basic pages for ALL SKILLS and categorizing them appropriately I disagree. There's no re-use advantage in doing it like that, and if anything you'll just make it more confusing for people. --Niightblade 03:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
--Workdawg 03:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC) - There is solely between the heroskills list and showing them in the guides. Plus, then people can search for skill names and get exact info on them. In the event that mods are created for HON (which will happen) people might need specific skill info, not related to the hero it comes on. Danite's Hell, in ROC dota was a version in which you picked a hero, and got 4 random skills. That's a perfect example of a mod that this would apply to.
Good points. --Niightblade 03:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Would it not be simpler just to have DPL read the Hero page and pull the required skill out of the transclusion? --Niightblade 04:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
--Workdawg 13:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC) - That would probably work, but I'd really like to see a more thorough skill info page, with exact info as worded in the game. Some of the skills we have are missing ranges or other tidbits.
-- Workdawg 01:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC) - I created a demo of the skill page like discussed above, it's in User:Workdawg/Sandbox4/Smoke_Bomb
-- Ice Phoenix 12:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC): DPL seems to be working like a charm to the extent that I've used it (see Template:Latest patch and Game patches)
--Wylker 15:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC) DPL is actually the main reason I've not actively pursued porting us to the official wiki that S2 is hosting. It was a pita to get working, and I don't think they'll give me the DB access necessary to make it do what we've done here.

[edit] DPL TO DO

  • Stores could be populated, but DPL returns info in alphabetical order... so we'd need a parameter to indicate the order within the store, maybe not worth it?

[edit] Todo list:

  • Credits/Thank you page
  • Set up system for guides - only authors can modify but others can rate / comment
  • integrate hon forums with front page (on hold till live)

[edit] Patch Changes

I added patch notes for 1.66 and 1.66.1 but haven't done the actual page updates yet. --Wylker 16:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] DB reset

  • Had to rebuild the DB today so some stuff may be wonky, let me know if you find anything weird. --Wylker 16:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://honwiki.net/wiki/Talk:Heroes_of_Newerth_Wiki"
Personal tools
Google AdSense