Ok I realized yesterday night that it's a waste not using the wiki for guides. I have a new suggestion for how this could work.
I'll go ahead and create a small notice to be used for guide pages, similar to this notice from the wowwiki: http://www.wowwiki.com/Template:Silly
Our template will say that this is a gudie article, and that it belongs to whomever started writing it. We'll also give that user the right to undo edits that doesn't fit with his idea of how the guide should look.
That way, everyone can still edit, but the original writer can still get credit for his work, and can choose to keep those edits which he thinks works for his own guide.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
Hmm, I tested this, and it doesn't work. Apparently we are missing an extension. I'll see if we can fix that for our wiki.
Quote from "Seth" »
Yeah, I'm kind of pissed off at the moment and probably shouldn't be posting. I think I'm going to take a break for the time being after I finish posting this.
Not because of this thread I hope?
Quote from "Seth" »
Say someone invents a build. A specific build. If people go in and change stuff in it they will be changing what the build is and it will no longer be what it claims to be.
For instance, what if someone goes up to my article and changes the heavy investment in Energy to a heavy investment in Vitality? It will no longer be an ES build, a build focused around the use of ES as a shield against damage, it will be the typical tank build for the Sorceress. It will no longer be what the article claims to be.
Yes, obviously it wouldn't be the same build.
But let's say you quit playing Diablo II, and right after that 1.13 is released. What if the game changed in patch 1.13, and the guide no longer worked. It would have to be updated, but when do we reach the point where we can say "This is no longer a guide written by Magistrate?".
Or in another scenario, let's say the facts remain the same, but another user comes in an formats everything on an entirey different way for the better. You will still have written everything, but the guide won't be yours anymore.
Someone might even edit the article and add equipment advice before you've finished that part of it. Who is the author then, and more importantly, will you have the right to remove what the other user added simply because you wrote most of the article?
This a problem that we can run into with every new guide that is posted. And the solution is to not make it anyone's guide at all.
That is why a guide forum could complement the wiki. You can then put up your guide entirely as you see fit, and then the concept of that guide can be uploaded into the wiki.
For example, let's take your lightning sorceress as an example. Let's propose you post your guide in a future forum here at Dfans. We can then create a wiki page based on that, explaining pretty much the same concepts, but also taking in info from other future guides on the same build.
Quote from "Seth" »
Furthermore, if you created that build, wrote the meat of the article, got all the figures on your own, and tested it yourself, then what's wrong with puting your name here and there? I realize that you answered it in practical terms because anyone can edit the page, but that doesn't solve it on a moral level. Why can't it be locked? The front page of the Wiki is, isn't it? Is it just an issue with locking it and only letting a specific user edit it?
On the technical level, the frontpage is locked so only registered users can edit right now. Those are the three levels that exist: Anyone can edit, registered users can edit, and admins can edit. That's it.
And sure, it could be locked so only admins can edit. But that creates a useless situation, with sysops having to make edits for regular users in an ever-expanding ocean of guides. It's simply not effective, or even possible to carry out in a good fashion.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
But I wrote it and gathered all of the information myself? That would be like saying a research paper isn't mine and I shouldn't receive a grade for it.
Not really. See, that's the problem we have here with this being a wiki used as the medium.
Before the wiki started, I remember arguing for the inclusion of a feature that would allow us to lock articles for specific users, meaning only a select few (and admins) would be able to edit it. This was to ensure that people could write guides, and upload them into the wiki easily without running the risk of having them rewritten by other people, as only they would have the editing privileges of the guide article they originally created.
However, as it turned out, that wasn't possible to do, and it might have been a good thing. As it stands now, the wiki is open for editing, and it's supposed to be edited by anyone. If the guide is expressively written as if one person wrote it, it doesn't make any sense for someone else to edit it. It will appear as if the original author has made all edits, which he hasn't, and it's hard for another writer to keep continue writing on an article that is written from a personal perspective. In fact, they shouldn't, which is why the wiki is written in a more database-like manner.
Please tell me I explained that in a good manner.
Quote from "Seth" »
It's there so that people know I didn't just make stuff up. It's critical to having a valid argument in any respect and respectable data.
Well, generally you would expect someone to write a guide from their own experiences. It's hard to do anything else.
If a guide's validity is to be proved, it will do so in it's structure. By reading a guide, you will figure out whether the person who wrote it knows his stuff or not. If it is detailed and extensive, then the author has put in a lot of time. A guide is genuine by how it's written, not by the sources it puts out.
If sources are to be put in however, then it makes much more sense to include them as footnotes anyway in the wiki, and not as a section of it's own.
Quote from "Seth" »
If you're saying I can't take credit for the massive amount of work that I put in to it, that's alright.
Sarcasm? :rolleyes:
What I'm saying is, you can't take credit for it inside the article in the wiki. That's why we probably should have a guide forum as well. That way, we all win. Guide-writers can take credit for their work and keep it their own, and the wiki gets material to draw from to include in it's pages.
Quote from "Seth" »
I'm not getting what you're saying here. Are you telling me that I'm not allowed to put any information up but straight facts? That would completely counteract the purpose of a guide. Guides are made to illustrate someone's build. A build someone likes or made or does personally different than others. You can't have a guide without personal input.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
Your form looks very good. Only thing, I can say is maybe add a pic just so the page is a bit more colorful and nicer to look at.
Good point. What images are we going to include in build pages?
We could upload images with colored fields (as Magistrate has done it) illustrating what skills to pick, and perhaps an infobox up at the top with picture of the actual character. What other images could be included?
Quote from "Seth" »
Dunno. I just started this one yesterday: http://wiki.diablofans.com/index.php/Lightning_Sorceress. I think I covered most of that (although I still have a lot of information to actually add), but like Pjanoo said, images would probably be good for more appeal.
Your articles illustrates a problem with guides and the wiki. We can't have personal work put up there in personal form. What I mean is, you can't claim a written article as yours.
The opening paragraph is a great opener for a guide, but that's not a format we can use. An article, although it may well have been written by one person, cannot be claimed by that person just because he wrote it. That's a problem with the Smiter guide as well, which needs to be changed.
I also question the Version history and the Critical Notes section.
The version history doesn't make much sense, first because the history of the page is always kept in the history tab of the page, and second because there's no telling who will do the updates. neither does it make much sense to clutter up a build page with, eventually, increasingly long bits of text that do not actually add value to the article itself.
The General information is similar. Sources feels a bit out of place; it's not as if the factual content is questioned or as if you're going to check the validity of the build.
Similar is the disclaimer. It is a wiki, and it is indended for the articles to be mutilated by whomever wishes to, which doesn't exacly make it your guide, even though you have written in.
In essence, your guide is very good, but it isn't formatted for the wiki. I can understand your wishing to keep the guide yours, but if that's the case, then we need to set up a guide-forum here on Diablofans where you can put it up proper. The wiki is supposes to only contain the essence, the relevant information from the game.
The abbreviation section is a good addition however to the guide format.
Quote from "Seth" »
I really think an in-depth guide on how to do one would be beneficial, maybe put it in the main builds page. What's there isn't all too helpful, really. Maybe a generic structure or something.
A guide for how to write class builds you mean?
Quote from "Seth" »
Also, I think it would be pivotal to include tons of links to other Wiki pages, like skill pages and item pages, where applicable. It will be nice once more of the item pages are finished.
Yeah, definately do this whenever possible. It doesn't matter that the article doesn't exist yet, it will eventually
Quote from "kefka666333abc123" »
Some of you may disagree but if you want to see how a good D2 character guide is put together then go check out the ones on jsp. Many of them are made by pro duelers and HC players and they have very extensive guides
They all pretty much had the same info already detalied here, except for hirelings, which I added.
There's quite lot of guides though. Did you have an particular in mind which was excellent?
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
Honestly, they all look pretty bad. Apart from the Blizz Sorc, which isn't even complete or formatted, there's just a shitload of links and bullet-points and lists all through. We should clean these up, and establish a standard which all builds can adhere to.
I'm thinking something along these lines:
1. General description of the class, similar to what is seen in the Smiter. In a nutshell, it's a short description of the class detailing what it is good at, what it's not so good at, and if it's expensive. A quick notice that lets people know if the class is something they want to build or not. This is the part that appears at the top prior to the table of contents.
2. Abbreviations. Lists the abbreviations used in the article.
3. Attribute allocation. Explanation where stats should go. Often just dump into Vitality, but if there is a deviation, it should be mentioned here.
4. Skill distribution. A list of what the character will look like at lvl 99. No explanation here, just a list available for a quick overview. If there are multiple ways to make the build, all versions should be listed. I could make a template for this so we can easily get them side by side. Prereqs should not be included here.
5. Skill explanation. A detalied explanation of why each and every skill included in the build is favorable for this paticular build. This part will also explain why different build variations deviate in their reasoning. Example, here it would be explained why some Summonancer builds favor only regular skeletons, while some alsoinclude skeleton magi's.
6. Skill progression. An outline to in which order skillpoints should be spent as a character levels up.
7. Hireling. Explains which hireling, if any, is best used for the build.
8. Equipment list. This should be a list, similar to the skill list, with the ultimate gear for each variation of the build (including the Hireling). Two items should be included, the very best item, and the poor-mans choice, in case you don't play on Ladder or B.net.
9. Equipment justification. Explanation of why each slot should have that particular item, why certain stats are favored above others for this build. Differences between builds should be pointed out.
10. ?. Playing tips perhaps? How to utilize the character best etc.
Does this look like a solid form to develop, or have I missed something crucial that makes this format less than optimal to use? I could also make tables to be used as templates for all of these sections. I think it could look pretty good, so just give me some pointers if this format needs to be changed first, and then I can get to work.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'll go ahead and create a small notice to be used for guide pages, similar to this notice from the wowwiki: http://www.wowwiki.com/Template:Silly
Our template will say that this is a gudie article, and that it belongs to whomever started writing it. We'll also give that user the right to undo edits that doesn't fit with his idea of how the guide should look.
That way, everyone can still edit, but the original writer can still get credit for his work, and can choose to keep those edits which he thinks works for his own guide.
Thoughts?
EDIT: I've finished a small abnner that can be used at the top of guide articles. It's located at http://wiki.diablofans.com/index.php/Template:Guide and this is what it looks looks like implemented http://wiki.diablofans.com/index.php/Energy_Shield_Lightning_Sorceress
Hmm, I tested this, and it doesn't work. Apparently we are missing an extension. I'll see if we can fix that for our wiki.
Not because of this thread I hope?
Yes, obviously it wouldn't be the same build.
But let's say you quit playing Diablo II, and right after that 1.13 is released. What if the game changed in patch 1.13, and the guide no longer worked. It would have to be updated, but when do we reach the point where we can say "This is no longer a guide written by Magistrate?".
Or in another scenario, let's say the facts remain the same, but another user comes in an formats everything on an entirey different way for the better. You will still have written everything, but the guide won't be yours anymore.
Someone might even edit the article and add equipment advice before you've finished that part of it. Who is the author then, and more importantly, will you have the right to remove what the other user added simply because you wrote most of the article?
This a problem that we can run into with every new guide that is posted. And the solution is to not make it anyone's guide at all.
That is why a guide forum could complement the wiki. You can then put up your guide entirely as you see fit, and then the concept of that guide can be uploaded into the wiki.
For example, let's take your lightning sorceress as an example. Let's propose you post your guide in a future forum here at Dfans. We can then create a wiki page based on that, explaining pretty much the same concepts, but also taking in info from other future guides on the same build.
On the technical level, the frontpage is locked so only registered users can edit right now. Those are the three levels that exist: Anyone can edit, registered users can edit, and admins can edit. That's it.
And sure, it could be locked so only admins can edit. But that creates a useless situation, with sysops having to make edits for regular users in an ever-expanding ocean of guides. It's simply not effective, or even possible to carry out in a good fashion.
Before the wiki started, I remember arguing for the inclusion of a feature that would allow us to lock articles for specific users, meaning only a select few (and admins) would be able to edit it. This was to ensure that people could write guides, and upload them into the wiki easily without running the risk of having them rewritten by other people, as only they would have the editing privileges of the guide article they originally created.
However, as it turned out, that wasn't possible to do, and it might have been a good thing. As it stands now, the wiki is open for editing, and it's supposed to be edited by anyone. If the guide is expressively written as if one person wrote it, it doesn't make any sense for someone else to edit it. It will appear as if the original author has made all edits, which he hasn't, and it's hard for another writer to keep continue writing on an article that is written from a personal perspective. In fact, they shouldn't, which is why the wiki is written in a more database-like manner.
Please tell me I explained that in a good manner.
Well, generally you would expect someone to write a guide from their own experiences. It's hard to do anything else.
If a guide's validity is to be proved, it will do so in it's structure. By reading a guide, you will figure out whether the person who wrote it knows his stuff or not. If it is detailed and extensive, then the author has put in a lot of time. A guide is genuine by how it's written, not by the sources it puts out.
If sources are to be put in however, then it makes much more sense to include them as footnotes anyway in the wiki, and not as a section of it's own.
Sarcasm? :rolleyes:
What I'm saying is, you can't take credit for it inside the article in the wiki. That's why we probably should have a guide forum as well. That way, we all win. Guide-writers can take credit for their work and keep it their own, and the wiki gets material to draw from to include in it's pages.
Ignore that sentence, it didn't make any sense.
We could upload images with colored fields (as Magistrate has done it) illustrating what skills to pick, and perhaps an infobox up at the top with picture of the actual character. What other images could be included?
Your articles illustrates a problem with guides and the wiki. We can't have personal work put up there in personal form. What I mean is, you can't claim a written article as yours.
The opening paragraph is a great opener for a guide, but that's not a format we can use. An article, although it may well have been written by one person, cannot be claimed by that person just because he wrote it. That's a problem with the Smiter guide as well, which needs to be changed.
I also question the Version history and the Critical Notes section.
The version history doesn't make much sense, first because the history of the page is always kept in the history tab of the page, and second because there's no telling who will do the updates. neither does it make much sense to clutter up a build page with, eventually, increasingly long bits of text that do not actually add value to the article itself.
The General information is similar. Sources feels a bit out of place; it's not as if the factual content is questioned or as if you're going to check the validity of the build.
Similar is the disclaimer. It is a wiki, and it is indended for the articles to be mutilated by whomever wishes to, which doesn't exacly make it your guide, even though you have written in.
In essence, your guide is very good, but it isn't formatted for the wiki. I can understand your wishing to keep the guide yours, but if that's the case, then we need to set up a guide-forum here on Diablofans where you can put it up proper. The wiki is supposes to only contain the essence, the relevant information from the game.
The abbreviation section is a good addition however to the guide format.
A guide for how to write class builds you mean?
Yeah, definately do this whenever possible. It doesn't matter that the article doesn't exist yet, it will eventually
They all pretty much had the same info already detalied here, except for hirelings, which I added.
There's quite lot of guides though. Did you have an particular in mind which was excellent?
Blizzard_Sorceress
Hammerdin
Poisonmancer
Smiter
Honestly, they all look pretty bad. Apart from the Blizz Sorc, which isn't even complete or formatted, there's just a shitload of links and bullet-points and lists all through. We should clean these up, and establish a standard which all builds can adhere to.
I'm thinking something along these lines:
1. General description of the class, similar to what is seen in the Smiter. In a nutshell, it's a short description of the class detailing what it is good at, what it's not so good at, and if it's expensive. A quick notice that lets people know if the class is something they want to build or not. This is the part that appears at the top prior to the table of contents.
2. Abbreviations. Lists the abbreviations used in the article.
3. Attribute allocation. Explanation where stats should go. Often just dump into Vitality, but if there is a deviation, it should be mentioned here.
4. Skill distribution. A list of what the character will look like at lvl 99. No explanation here, just a list available for a quick overview. If there are multiple ways to make the build, all versions should be listed. I could make a template for this so we can easily get them side by side. Prereqs should not be included here.
5. Skill explanation. A detalied explanation of why each and every skill included in the build is favorable for this paticular build. This part will also explain why different build variations deviate in their reasoning. Example, here it would be explained why some Summonancer builds favor only regular skeletons, while some alsoinclude skeleton magi's.
6. Skill progression. An outline to in which order skillpoints should be spent as a character levels up.
7. Hireling. Explains which hireling, if any, is best used for the build.
8. Equipment list. This should be a list, similar to the skill list, with the ultimate gear for each variation of the build (including the Hireling). Two items should be included, the very best item, and the poor-mans choice, in case you don't play on Ladder or B.net.
9. Equipment justification. Explanation of why each slot should have that particular item, why certain stats are favored above others for this build. Differences between builds should be pointed out.
10. ?. Playing tips perhaps? How to utilize the character best etc.
Does this look like a solid form to develop, or have I missed something crucial that makes this format less than optimal to use? I could also make tables to be used as templates for all of these sections. I think it could look pretty good, so just give me some pointers if this format needs to be changed first, and then I can get to work.