Re: Ability Numbers/Testing
What's the protocol for getting additional testing for an ability's description, specifically pertaining to numbers? Because Hanzo's Scatter Arrow in particularly is definitely not fully fleshed out - current description says 75/arrow, but that's only with full pullback; as much as people are 9/10 times going to do it that way, the current description implies that firing at the ground with no pullback doesn't decrease the damage of it. SirBread (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- For cases like this one, do it like it's done for any other charged weapon; just give the value at no charge and at fully charged. See Symmetra's orbs or Hanzo's regular attack.
- As for actually finding the exact value, that you'll have to figure out yourself. Myself I take data from OverSheet, so whatever isn't in there I usually can't fill in. --Krupam (talk)--
Map pages
Currently we have a tendency for map pages such as Numbani to first of all be about the lore location, and secondly about the game map, with info related to the game map confined to a sub-section. My feeling is that the existence of the location as game map should be the primary focus of the pages.
While the setting is relevant and of interest, background lore is always going to be secondary to actual gameplay. When the beta and later full release progress, these pages will fill up with information about the game maps themselves, their layout and levels, where the healing packs are, what are good strategies, what are dangerous choke points/good sniping points, good heroes and comps for the map, and so on. It is my opinion that the majority of players searching for the page will be seeking this kind of information. The current design means all of this information would be confined to a single subsection, a fair ways down the page (especially as we get more lore information to fill in above it). By placing all game map info within a single subsection, this also prevents us from having level 2 headers for game map subsections such as "strategy", "heroes", "key locations", etc; these will only have level 3 headers, which are far weaker.
While the lore is definitely valuable, it should fit perfectly well within its own subsection rather than as the primary focus of the page. I would suggest having the lead section contain mention of the location as both a game map and a lore location, and then having lore information below that. This matches the layout for all our hero pages, e.g., Junkrat, Tracer, Soldier: 76, as well as that for pages on other Gamepedia wikis such as Wowpedia, Hearthstone Wiki and Leaguepedia, and works fine. -- Taohinton (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- While I'm aware that most people are interested in gameplay first, I'd argue that it's better to have lore at the start of an article rather than gameplay for a few reasons:
- In the long run, the amount of gameplay information will generally outstrip the amount of lore information. Lore, by its nature, is limited to what the developer/author/whatever gives out, and is inherantly finite in its nature. The Numbani lore info begins and ends with what's been doled out, and any expansion can only come when new material is released. Gameplay, on the other hand, doesn't really have the same limit. While official info gets passed out, gameplay material is far more player-driven. There's no right or wrong strategy for instance, so in theory, gameplay info can expand ad infinitum.
- This is a more subjective point, but I'd contend that lore compliments gameplay far more than gameplay compliments lore, at least in article structure. If anything, the Swain link makes this point, as do other gamepedia articles. Lore provides the intro, gameplay provides the meat. In contrast, per the Malygos link, lore coming after gameplay feels like more of an afterthought. It can't enrich the experience at this point, and in Hearthstone, lore is academic anyway, since far more detailed info is available on WoWpedia anyway. Now granted, the LoL and Strife examples are in the position of not trying to do anything with the lore or correlating it, but are simply repeating blurbs (part of why I prefer(ed) the wikia versions of both games), but the principle remains the same.
- In terms of structure, it's a fair point that the heroes pags are in the position of gameplay>lore, but even then I feel the same way. The gameplay section is liable to increase substantially over time, and with the same potential for information that lore can't match. Also, concerning points about design, I don't think that's necessarily an issue. As it currently stands, both the lore and gameplay sections get a level 2 header each. I'd imagine that it would be a case of "game map," with level 3 headings for sub-elements of gameplay. At the end of the day, if it's consensus that lore should come after gameplay I won't fight it, but I'll let the above points speak for themselves.--Hawki (talk) 23:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Re: the first (and second?) point/s, I agree. I wasn't necessarily suggesting moving the lore down to the bottom of the page, although maybe I didn't make that clear. That's what I meant when I said "I would suggest having the lead section contain mention of the location as both a game map and a lore location, and then having lore information below that." Then gameplay info, below that. This ensures readers browse past the lore before hitting the gameplay, which is generally a desirable thing. I do think it's a somewhat subjective point, though, and does depend on the game, but in this case I can see that working fine. I don't agree that the lore will necessarily stay tiny though, especially with claims that they will be fleshing out the lore... this could lead to a lot of notes and details far beyond the official blurb.
- The point I was making was concerning the lead section emphasis and the headers. The first is mostly a matter of wiki priorities and approach to articles. A page like Numbani is about both a lore city and a game map. My feeling is the map has to trump the lore city in terms of priority. I really don't think you'll get a fraction as many people looking up the page searching for the lore as you do searching for map details; we could certainly compare hits for non-map city pages with those for map city pages. Partly because of this, and partly because of the nature of the game itself - the the maps are at the end of the day for playing on; the lore is backstory for flavor - it feels right to describe them as maps set in cities, rather than cities which also feature as maps. For me, this should be the priority for the wiki in general. That is for instance why the front page features a list of playable maps and heroes, and not a list of known lore locations and key figures in the Overwatch universe. Gameplay is the priority, not backstory.
- Regarding the headers, I have to disagree that it's not an issue. If the gameplay info does get as sprawling as we both seem to expect it to, the lack of level 2 headers will make the page a lot less clear. Dividing the bulk of the entire page's content into a single sub-header might pass while it's small, but when it gets larger my experience tells me the page will be the poorer for it, in terms of presentation and readability. Intellectually it might be correct to break it down that way, but mediawiki can only match that so far before it gets silly, and we run out of header sizes. Conceptually, this isn't a problem if we consider the page to primarily be about the game map rather than the lore city, which was my original point. -- Taohinton (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm okay with the idea of "map first, city second." Since we're on Numbani, I'd be fine with "Numbani is a (map type) map in Overwatch" as the opening blurb, and moving the current intro blurb into a lore section. As in, "story" (or I'd argue, "overview" is preferable in this case) would be a level 2 heading, then make "history" a level 3 heading.--Hawki (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- Edit: I've edited the King's Row page as an example. Start with the map blurb, move all in-universe info to a single section, then move onto gameplay.--Hawki (talk) 01:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- Looks good! I was going to say we could either do it as in your example, or keep a brief intro to the setting in the lead section; this can get a little clumsy with phrasing like "The city of X itself is..." but if done right brings the setting into things a little more. The former is fine, though, and is certainly easier to write.
- I'm not sure if 'Overview' is the best title for the header; I feel this might be better for official blurb which will probably appear before too long. The section also comprises an overview of the map's lore, not an overview of the map itself (or map + lore), which makes the header feel a little misleading. 'Background' more clearly defines the purpose of the section, or I would say 'Lore' but I'm not sure that sounds very Overwatch-y. I've changed it to 'Background' in the example - let me know what you think. -- Taohinton (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- I know I'm a bit late to the discussion, but I do agree with the style proposed here. I think having a generic lead that describes what the map is like is still a good idea though. I've edited King's Row as an example as well. Let me know what you think of this change. -LastTalon (talk) • (contribs) 20:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Abilities and images
General status update and image questions. I went through the recent livestream hero screen images and copied all the official tips that appear there; I've added them to pages as "Official tips". Probably in the future they'll either be able to complement (or get merged into) a larger official summary of the hero and its play style, but in the meanwhile it's very nice succinct info on what each hero is like to play, so it's good to have it up on the pages.
In doing this I noticed that some of the abilities have been renamed, and more importantly a new category of passive abilities has emerged since whenever the abilities were previously done. This includes several new abilities not extant on the site until now. I've therefore created new pages for these abilities, as well as Passive ability itself, and added them to hero pages. However, I don't have any images to go with these abilities, and I don't really know how I might go about getting them. I've gone through the official press content (much of which could do with finding its way onto the wiki at some point) but there are no ability icons there, predictably enough. A couple have also changed their images; this is far less of a concern, although obviously at some point we'll want to correct them to the modern versions.
This brings up the whole question of obtaining high quality assets; is there a source we editors can access ourselves, or are we limited to asking the Curse admins for assistance? Obviously it's best to do as much as we can ourselves, and this also allows a lot more customisation and perfectionism. However, it's a great-looking wiki at present, and we should aim to keep the same high standard (and matching style) for new assets. Either way, we need some icons. -- Taohinton (talk) 22:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Suggestion: New infobox just for animations
Currently the animated shorts are using the infobox game template. The infobox game template is, obviously, made with games in mind and not animated shorts. I think that the shorts need their own infobox template, with more animation-specific parameters like running time and a link to the transcripts (which aren't linked from anything at the moment). --TheModster (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Now that The Last Bastion has been announced, I'm bringing this up again. I was thinking of something like this:
{{Infobox video
| name =
| image =
| date =
| runtime =
| transcript =
}}
I'm also considering making transcript work similarly to the Quotation page link in the character infobox template. --TheModster (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Achievements on hero pages
I'd like to propose adding hero-specific achievements to character's hero pages. I think it might be a useful section to have. --Stevoisiak (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)