Talk: Fluxflashor

Player pages

A few small suggestions for layout ;)

Firstly, I notice the Infobox Player template is currently putting the player's name in bold in the top-left corner (eg. Artosis). Since the player's name is already written large directly above that, and again in the first line of each page, this seems a bit redundant; I'd suggest removing it.

I'm also not sure about the placement of the introductory sentence in the Biography section. The general format for wiki pages is an introductory sentence (at least), before then adding section headings and more detailed info. Compare Artosis and Dan Stemkoski - it looks nicer (in my opinion) and separates the data neatly. I'd also suggest making "In beta" a sub-section of Biography; with Hearthstone's long and very open beta (months still to come) it seems more of a sub-section than a separate topic in itself! Finally, I'd suggest switching 'Biography' for 'Career' - 'Career' tends to be the word used for what we're aiming to describe, while 'Biography' tends to refer to the person's childhood, education, etc. This is also the convention on wikipedia, eg. Sean Plott and Mike Lamond.

I hope you don't mind my suggestions, and sorry for picking at your very good work! :P -- Taohinton (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Nitpick away! I haven't been editing wikis for a few years, and I must say, I've lost my touch. It's great to get feedback!

Firstly, I've fixed the error with the Infobox Player template, definitely not intended! I still have to go through it and remove some of the League of Legends specific stuff, but at least now it isn't outputting that name.

I completely agree with everything you've said about formatting of the player pages. Career headings followed by in beta / release + year (maybe?) subheadings is the way to go. I'll start switching this around today, and hopefully get some more players added. Fluxflashor (talk) 14:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Phew - glad you don't mind! I never like fiddling with other people's work :P -- Taohinton (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I've added a handful of quotes and trivia bits to a few player pages, just as I'm watching them. I don't want the pages to get swamped with too much of that kind of thing, but I think a little bit adds character and can be fun. -- Taohinton (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I like it! -- Fluxflashor : (Talk) 14:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You've probably already noticed, but if you haven't - one remaining bug for Infobox Player is with |favhero, as seen on Noxious. -- Taohinton (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Community, categories, and Infobox League

I've been wanting to create a Community page, listing major resources for various areas of the Hearthstone universe. I've posted my current draft here. Similarly to how Hearthpwn regularly features certain shows, I thought a list of some of the major resources/features could be neat. It would also be a place to provide links to competitive info/pages, which is kind of orphaned at present. Ideally, we'd find a way to link to this page from the front page, linking it all up. However, part the reason I'm thinking this page would be useful to provide is that I tend not to be aware of popular stuff out there! So if you like the idea and would like to contribute some links, that would be great.

Also, it seems like you might want to add a Category:Tournaments and a Category:Team; while we have things like Category:European Team and Category:Online Tournament, it seems like we could do with a mother-category to encompass all of those. This would also make it easier to link to those categories from pages such as Community.

Finally, {{Infobox League}} is adding itself to Category:Competitions, which may not be intended? -- Taohinton (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Loving the idea of a community resource page. I do have one concern though with the currently design. HearthPwn has its own heading. I feel it would be more appropriate to have a fansite heading and then either a table which we could list sites and links to all their different site features, or possibly, subheadings. I think subheadings would get messy though should there be too many fansites listed, unless of course, you think it would be better to limit it to the top fansites? I would consider something like Wowpedia's Fansites page for the sites. Thoughts?

Also, for the streamers section, I think that it should be limited to the people who can pull in x amount of viewers that stream on a regular basis to prevent spam.

Finally, on the subject of categories, it was intentional for the League Infobox to contain Category:Competitions, however, maybe a better word to use for that would be tournaments considering the previously stated Category:Online Tournament which the template includes. This template was brought in from Leaguepedia without changes, and it boggles me why they used Competitions instead of Tournaments. Category:Team will be added to Template:Infobox Team. Fluxflashor (talk) 14:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia's Naming Conventions, I've gone ahead and made some changes to category names from the infobox templates so they are pluralized. Category:Players, Category:Teams, Category:Tournaments. Fluxflashor (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely, I was hoping to find a way to make the page look better than just a list of section headings and regular links, but hadn't seen Wowpedia's page before. That format looks like a good one to emulate.

Limiting links provided, specifically streamers, was one of my concerns with the idea of the page. I'd agree that setting a threshold for viewers would work, although I'd have no idea what kind of number would be appropriate! I suppose we could state a rough minimum number above the table, assuming people could find/source a verifiable number for current, regular viewers.

Putting Hearthpwn under its own heading was to do with my uncertainty regarding neutrality on the site. I know this site is part of Curse, you guys are employees, and obviously we link to Hearthpwn from every Infobox Card, so I wasn't sure what the deal was for linking to alternate resources, eg Hearthhead. Putting it in a general fansite section is fine with me, anyway. On a related note, I noticed that Team Liquid has its own Hearthstone wiki, which is linked to from their pages; this raised the question of where we draw the line of saying that sites are essentially alternatives to this wiki, and therefore don't need to be listed by us, since we're already doing that job (Wikipedia has a similar guideline about not linking to "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article."). Obviously I don't think we need to list straight wikis, but I'm not sure where we'd draw the line.

Regarding categories, I was only questioning that the template itself got included alongside the actual tournaments, but I had noticed the variance in terms. The only reason I can see for using 'Competitions' over (or in addition to) 'Tournaments' would be if there were types of event you'd like to include that aren't strictly tournaments? If not, Tournaments should suffice. Also, you've resolved my uncertainty over the correct convention for pluralization of categories, so thanks! -- Taohinton (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

As far as streaming goes, the only metric I know of that is tracked by an external site somewhat reliably is follower counts on SocialBlade (example). Maybe we could just link to streams based on which players have a profile on the wiki? It's likely that the most popular Hearthstone streamers will be listed on the wiki, and if there's someone who isn't, we can always add them :D.

Even though this site is under the Curse banner, if this wiki is going to be at the center of the community, I believe it should remain fairly unbiased. If other Hearthstone sites have great resources, they should be linked to on a community page the same way that HearthPwn is. The card links to HearthPwn on the card templates I would attribute to the fact that HearthPwn provides the Wiki with the generated cards, and the card data. I wouldn't like to additional wikis for the reasons you've already stated, plus, I haven't see a wiki that's taken off as much as this one has - even if we're lacking in the editors deparment =(. I'll poke Smokie on the neutrality issue though. -- Fluxflashor : (Talk) 14:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow, you've got quite a few followers! Although, the first time I read that, I thought it said you had 67,963 followers… so not quite that many ;) Linking to players with profiles sounds fine to me. In general I'd think a rule of thumb will suffice, as long as we have some standard for what can and cannot be added to those sections. For the admins I think that would be fine, more just a concern for people adding smaller streamers/themselves.

Unbiased sounds good to me. I mostly come from editing wowpedia, where they link to wowhead, wowdb and the official armory (at least) at the bottom of each relevant page, which I think is nice and open for people to browse using their preferred site. I didn't know the data came direct from Hearthpwn, although I wasn't at all challenging the primary focus on that site from this wiki.

I'm assuming editorship will pick up once the game goes open and then full release, although I'm thinking that in comparison to something like wowpedia, this is likely to remain a reasonably small wiki - once all the structural/big content stuff has been established, and all the card pages sorted, it should mostly come down to adding strategy/tips, updating for patches, and ongoing stuff like tournaments, players, etc.

While we're on the subject of followers, I was wondering if there's a good way to see viewer numbers for the site. Alexa doesn't list them, and Quantcast has data 'hidden by the owner'. If it's all under wraps at the moment, that's okay, and I'm sure they're pretty low so far anyway, but I'd be very interested to see them if/when they're available. -- Taohinton (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the super delayed response. To keep it brief, community site directory listing is totally a go - add everyone! We won't go crazy like Wowpedia though and link to every card database out there on card pages since it really isn't necessary.

I propose for Twitch stream listings that we go with a number of followers, AND the person streaming has to stream Hearthstone a majority of the time. It doesn't make too much sense to me to fill the stream listing with League of Legends players just because they went through a three-day Hearthstone hype stream. Maybe require 1,000 followers?

I don't know of any public methods of obtaining site data for the wiki, and I don't have access to it either. If you're really interested, I'd try poking one of the wiki admins. -- Fluxflashor : (Talk) 16:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

CSS testing

If you're going to do a fair bit of testing on an active wiki's CSS or JS, it's usually better to use your personal stylesheets (Special:MyPage/common.css and Special:MyPage/hydra.css) and scripts (Special:MyPage/common.js and Special:MyPage/hydra.js). This avoids making users download experimental changes and is also generally easier for you as these personal pages are much quicker to recache. OOeyes (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, I'll do that from now on. -- Fluxflashor : (Talk) 18:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)