Quote from Lanthanide

There are 92 pages in that wiki including everything, and about 20 of them are fairly useless pages that describe single buildings or units (pointless). The last update was back in June.

The best way to make that wiki better is to add to it. We were testing wiki templates with those "useless" pages on units and buildings, but for the most part we were trying to bring the oldwiki stuff to the new one. We don't really need a script to automatically do it as you can just copy/paste the text and do some minor formatting. That's how I did it when I originally started to copy them over, at least, and that seemed to be fine. The only really time-consuming articles are the ones with a ton of images. Eventually there will be a link to the new wiki, so there is no "if" about it.

Nude also brings up a good point, people wont even look at the responses in this thread if they assume everything is in the OP.

Quote from NudeRaider

Whereever it goes I think an Index topic is about the worst place to store actual content because most people won't bother reading the posts when they're looking for something.
For now the best place would be http://www.staredit.net/starcraft/List_of_StarCraft_quirks_and_nuances . Do you think you can add it there? You don't even have to worry about formatting.
I'll see if I can get Devourer to hack it into the actual oldwiki content.

Yes, that would be the best place for it, but as I can't edit that page, posting in this thread was my only (reasonable) alternative.

Also people might find it in this thread, if they:
1. Remember seeing my post next time they want to deal with powerups
2. Search for 'powerup' in this thread incase there is a wiki page called 'powerup' that they want to read. Although probably my post has slipped onto the 2nd page of the thread by now (I have my default posts per page set to the maximum).

There are actually some other things I'd like to add to the Q&N page, as well as fix a few errors on it and add some clarifications.

Quote from DevliN

Eventually there will be a link to the new wiki, so there is no "if" about it.

You could start by adding a link to the new wiki at the very top of the OP.

Quote from Lanthanide

Quote from DevliN

Eventually there will be a link to the new wiki, so there is no "if" about it.

You could start by adding a link to the new wiki at the very top of the OP.

There is a link in the OP.

EDIT:
Nevermind, Nude deleted it when he copy/pasted the organized list into the OP. Re-added.

Quote from DevliN

Nevermind, Nude deleted it when he copy/pasted the organized list into the OP. Re-added.

ooops

is awesome:
http://www.staredit.net/?p=oldwiki&s=142

Actually the way I always find SC1 new wiki is as follows: I go to this thread and navigate through the link in the head post. Though, it's a shame how we don't still have a link to the SC1 new wiki in the navbar. There are 2 buttons to switch between SC1 and SC2 layouts, just make the navbar wiki link context sensitive or make a dropdown menu with 2 items... I believe it's not really *that* hard to do. Since we still have got exported wiki articles which are inconsistent with the new SC1 wiki and this thread serves a kind of navigation panel for that content it might be an idea to add the link of this thread to the site navbar too.

Then Lanthanide, thank you very much for documenting information about powerups! But... IMO the thread isn't really a good place to store all of the actual content... Exported wiki is a vivid example of what happens when we start doing this. We *may* put this kind of info there, but an admin should then add the information to the exported wiki and mark it as "already added" at this place. However I don't see a point in contribution to exported wiki articles since we have got an SC1 new wiki, let's be consistent. In my opinion contribution to knowledge base consists of two essential parts 1) finding a place for the new information and 2) putting information there. If we want to move forward we need to keep everything organized in the first place. I thought this thread served the purpose to discuss organization means but not the content itself, but whatever.

Then about this wiki article: Quirks and Nuances. Lanthanide, I don't have problems with accessing and modifying it, but I think you must register to be able to do it. I really don't know what was your problem. This article contains some great info, but I recall it was a bit inaccurate at places. I actually have an extended version of it which I've written around a year ago in Russian. Still can't find a moral strength to translate it and put it there though

A little about the content. I think the "useless" pages that describe such well known things as units, spells, triggers actions and conditions are in fact an essential part of the knowledge base, they give a solid ground to build the more advanced stuff. Then these basic pages may in fact contain some important information. For example an Enshare spell page could contain information about spell duration (off the top of my head I don't know where to look this kind of info if I needed it). Or as the other example a "useless" Restoration spell info page besides it's general description may contain information about that it can't target stasised units that were made vulnerable by triggers. On the other side the same information is connected with the Stasis spell page and even with Invincibility unit property and Set Invincibility trigger action. That way this piece of information makes up it's own nuance page which is linked from the both places. That way trigger actions and conditions pages may also contain a list of quirks and nuances links associated with the appropriate entries.

Also as stated by Lanthanide there are two sorts of articles: those that simply state information about game mechanics (or SC engine), and articles that are effectively tutorials about how to achieve a particular goal. Articles of the second type use information of the first type articles as building bricks to build something that we call a system. In my opinion it is very important to distinguish between these two kinds of articles. Articles of the first type should only contain a reference information as a solid and can be used with more experienced mappers, while articles of the second type may provide deep explanations on how to do this or that kind of thing for the rest. For instance the article about hyper triggers is an article of the second type, because it explains how to build upon the side effect of the wait action to achieve the certain effect. If there was a page about the wait action itself explaining it's behavior, it was the article of the first type.

I guess you may see my view of categorization now. The idea behind this is to split everything on the very small basic information bricks and interconnect them together so that each piece of repetitive information is put onto it's own page and isn't duplicated anywhere in the wiki.

The quick organizational questions are:
1. Are we going to support Starcraft 2 in the SC1 new wiki? I would say no, right?
2. Is it possible to delete a category page?

1. Nope, we have the GalaxyWiki for our SC2 stuff. Unfortunately, we're basically either waiting for Devourer to change the navbar so it includes the SC1 Wiki link, or we're waiting for Cecil to start and finish the new version of the site (which will take a long, long while).
2. Sort of, but it would be easier to just not use the Category.

Why I am wondering about categories is because their current naming conventions contradict with the fact that wiki isn't going to be used as a source of information related to SC2. I also can't find a distinct explanation of the intended purpose of the wiki. You of course know, there is already a comprehensive wiki resource about StarCraft universe at http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/StarCraft_Wiki and we can't embrace the whole thing in our wiki. But that is not needed. My vision of the purpose of the new wiki is that it may become a comprehensive storage of all the invaluable information about game mechanics and common mapping practices and methods we have at our disposal.

That way, when trying to make several new categories and put some order I've immediately encountered the following conventions dilemma: should I continue to use the useless StarCraft prefix for new categories or we should review articles naming conventions. Because since wiki is devoted solely to StarCraft and StarCraft: Brood War all the StarCraft prefixes for articles seem at least redundant, cluttering and confusing.

Been working on the new wiki since my last post. Got something to discuss there: Wiki discussion page.

Another quirk worth recording:
When units are ordered to JYD, if they start attacking a unit that becomes unattackable but has not died, they will cancel the JYD and move back to their original spawn locations on the map. In my case it was spider mines that were created and mutalisks set to JYD would attack them until the mines burrowed and then they'd fly back to their original spawn spot. I really had no idea wtf was going on but eventually found it. Not sure if setting units they were attacking to invulnerable would cause the same effect or not.

Interesting piece of info. Please put it there as well.