• Greetings!

    Well, as you may or may no be aware, I did recently start a project meant to add small, short descriptions at the top of champion's pages. The descriptions are meant to be short (about six/seven lines), and convey a mix of flavour and gameplay details, for the enjoyment of both newbies and veteran players alike. Since apparently there were some issues with this project, let's talk it here.

    Some examples of these would be:

    "Ahri, the Nine-Tailed Fox is a wily mage-assassin who elusively darts around her foes, seducing choice targets out of safety and finishing them off with her array of spells. Playful, yet deceptive, Ahri constantly skirts the edge of battle, carefully waiting for the right chance to draw out her prey, swiftly dive in for the kill and then make a quick escape before her opponents can retaliate. Though rather short-ranged for a mage, Ahri possesses unparalleled in-combat mobility, allowing her to easily evade would-be captors and gracefully flit towards her victims from large distances."

    "Kog'Maw, the Mouth of the Abyss, is a fragile but deadly marksman-mage who functions akin to an artillery cannon, dishing out extreme damage from a very long range. What he lacks in speed and survivability, Kog'Maw more than makes up for in reach and sheer damage output. Not even the toughest foes are safe from him, as his corrosive attacks easily melt through their defenses. While he may be vulnerable on his own, when protected by his allies Kog'Maw becomes a force to be reckoned with, raining down a deadly acid onslaught that few can hope to endure."

    I know it's not exactly "official" information, since it doesn't come from Riot, but I think it would be fun, flavorful, let the wikia distinguish itself from merely "listing information". The project apparently also had a pretty good welcoming by a sizeable portion of our more faithful users.

    So, yay or nay.

      Loading editor
    • Yay.

        Loading editor
    • Yay! Now that this is on official channels, carrying out this project in conformity with the wiki's rules shouldn't be a problem.

        Loading editor
    • I'm 100% in this project. YAY

        Loading editor
    • Yay.

        Loading editor
    • yay! :D

        Loading editor
    • RammusSquare OK

        Loading editor
    • I'll go with nay. It's subjective information that will always have to adapt to whatever changes the champions go through, thereby demanding constant revision. Not to mention champions are played differently by different people. Opinions will differ and that will not lead anywhere good. I'm not outright against it, I just don't find it necessary.

        Loading editor
    • Except these descriptions aren't based on the champions current standing in the meta, nor buffs or nerfs? The only need for changes would be if the champion got reworked.

      Also, yes, you can play Ahri as an ADC, but that doesn't change her theme, niche or intended feeling.

        Loading editor
    • An interesting detail to note is that this was atempted several months ago with prototype descriptions for Karthus and Aatrox, who still have them in their champion pages, yet for some reason was not continued to other champions. Besides this project is not meant to tell people "how" to play their champion, it's a small description that's part flavour/part gameplay details (not so different from Riot's champion spotlight descriptions), that's meant to give people a general idea of how the champion works beyond simply reading the ability details.

        Loading editor
    • Although Feirund does make a good point that I strongly agree with, I feel that such a description would help newer players know what to expect from said champion description they're reading. True, champions can be played differently be different people and opinions may differ, but such people who have a general idea of what they want to do need not read the description in the first place. If the descriptions are able to help newer players get to know a champion better, that they may know how to play said champion/what they're looking for in said champion, I'm all for it. Also, if this means that we'll get more editors to constantly manage the information on the page as the game constantly changes, all the better.

      TL;DR, this ninja says yay.

        Loading editor
    • Agree with Feirund.

      The Wiki should be a place for official information. Flavourful content subject to personal bias should, at the very least, be posted on the Trivia section or something equal to it in terms of relevancy.

      As for the argument that this flavour text helps new players quickly understand what a Champion does, well, we have Champion Spotlights for that; they're more effective than what we could ever condense into 4~5 lines of fancy text, and if I'm not misinformed, they're also official content from Riot.

      If anything is insusceptible to personal bias in this subject, it would have to be the fact that this whole project isn't worth the effort.

        Loading editor
    • GutsyTick wrote:
      Agree with Feirund.

      The Wiki should be a place for official information. Flavourful content subject to personal bias should, at the very least, be posted on the Trivia section or something equal to it in terms of relevancy.

      As for the argument that this flavour text helps new players quickly understand what a Champion does, well, we have Champion Spotlights for that; they're more effective than what we could ever condense into 4~5 lines of fancy text, and if I'm not misinformed, they're also official content from Riot.

      If anything is insusceptible to personal bias in this subject, it would have to be the fact that this whole project isn't worth the effort.

      As a first time player, when i started using this wiki as an information source i struggled initially with understanding the workings of champion kits, because there was no introduction to how they worked. It's one thing to read each ability and what they do, another thing is to read them after reading an initial text that explains what the champion is all about, what's the feel/fantasy to him/her/it...the pages simply give the straight information and that's it...it's a missing link that can be added without disrupting anything. 

      Now you may disagree with that, it's a completely valid stance you can take. But when a project brings over 130 comments from a dozen or so more editors in 4 or so days, then the project IS WORTH the effort, so that last claim of yours is in itself very biased at best and extremely disrespectful at worst due to that fact that this involved so many people, so quickly who put in alot of good ideas and we're having fun while at it and is especially disrespectful to the maker of this project who wants to improve the wiki and had an awesome idea to do so. If you want to disagree, disagree, but be respectful about it and don't arrogantly brush off the impact it already had.

        Loading editor
    • Darksusanoo wrote: As a first time player, when i started using this wiki as an information source i struggled initially with understanding the workings of champion kits, because there was no introduction to how they worked. It's one thing to read each ability and what they do, another thing is to read them after reading an initial text that explains what the champion is all about, what's the feel/fantasy to him/her/it...the pages simply give the straight information and that's it...it's a missing link that can be added without disrupting anything.

      I completely agree with this. As much as I adore numbers and intricate mechanics, when I first went on the wiki to look at champions' kits, I was at a complete loss. I remember looking at VladimirSquare Vladimir and SwainSquare Swain's kits, which are both pretty simple in-game but loaded with different numbers on paper, and having no understanding of what it is they did, what they were meant to do or how they functioned in a match. Though we've gone a long ways towards making ability pages more readable, we're still not going to inform new users as much as we should be by omitting a short overview of each champion.

      GutsyTick wrote: If anything is insusceptible to personal bias in this subject, it would have to be the fact that this whole project isn't worth the effort.

      I agree that this is disrespectful and, more importantly, blatantly wrong. If you want to argue on consensus, then you'd be in the overwhelming minority, and irrespective of consensus many people here have provided ample reason to construct these bios for every champion. Not only is this project worth the effort, it's an effort many different people are willing to make and fully commit to.

        Loading editor
    • Well, I couldn't have said it better than Will or Darksusanoo so...

      I understand that, at first, it might seem scary to introduce something that's not "official" or "canon" to the wikia, but we must ask ourselves one thing. What is the purpose of this wikia? To merely note down information that can be found somewhere else? Or to actually inform and help both new and old players? Because if the case was the first, there would be no point in actually having a Strategy page.

      This project is two-pronged. On the one hand, it is for new players to understand champions better. Not just their mechanical details, but also the fantasy and the feeling their kits carry. Yes, it is somewhat "embellished" with flavour, but only so it doesn't read just as a simple listing of their abilities. On the other hand, it's also a project for old players to see themselves reflected in these descriptions.

      So yes, I can see how at first adding these may seem overstepping out of the "official" Riot canon. However, it is, as far as unofficial things go, pretty harmless, and has good potential to satisfy both new and old players alike.

        Loading editor
    • How is it worth the effort when we already have Champion Spotlights, in which do the exact thing you guys are trying to achieve, but in a more effective way, whilst also being official content in which Riot has made themselves?

      You willing people never addressed this point.

      Also the majority of the public agreeing on a moot in no way proves that it's worth the effort. I never stated that this whole project should not be carried forward, I just stated that it's not worth the effort, as in the benefits this will produce does and will not, even marginally, break-even with the sheer amount of work required to fully employ this project.

      If you also wish to take this post in a negative stance whilst burying you heads against my most valid point, then I do sincerely feel sorry for you.

      EDIT: @Kind-Hearted-One I agree that it's satisfying. Back when I wrote Karthus' description I thought it was a nice change of pace to add a tasty description above the wall of text and numbers; it was concise, descriptive, and whilst it may've not been the most well written or non biased piece of information available, it never did harm to anyone in anyway. But due to the inconsistency this would have with other pages, I never continued editing or improving it, as I was almost certain that it would get edited out for the sake of consistency.

      Point here is that it should be obvious that people do not visit this site for strategy guides nor their description; they come here for the cold and static stats, discussion, and maybe the lore. The Wikia is a place for official content, not some flavour text snippets which are at best abbreviated and less effective Spotlights; and at worse just another component of the Champion Pages available for the deliberate kill-joys, trolls, and disgustingly opinionated people.

        Loading editor
    • GutsyTick wrote: How is it worth the effort when we already have Champion Spotlights, in which do the exact thing you guys are trying to achieve, but in a more effective way, whilst also being official content in which Riot has made themselves?

      By that reasoning, we wouldn't even need champion pages or a LolWiki in the first place. This line of argumentation has no value.

      GutsyTick wrote: Also the majority of the public agreeing on a moot in no way proves that it's worth the effort. I never stated that this whole project should not be carried forward, I just stated that it's not worth the effort, as in the benefits this will produce does and will not, even marginally, break-even with the sheer amount of work required to fully employ this project.

      Well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

      That aside, you may want to dial it down a little. You're coming off as extremely condescending, holier-than-thou and generally hostile in this conversation, and if you keep up at that pace you're going to start a flame war, which is not the intent of this thread.

        Loading editor
    • GutsyTick wrote:
      How is it worth the effort when we already have Champion Spotlights, in which do the exact thing you guys are trying to achieve, but in a more effective way, whilst also being official content in which Riot has made themselves?

      Here's the kicker then...by your line of reasoning why aren't champion spotlights displayed front and center in the initial champion page where their abilities are listed and are instead buried at the bottom of the third section of the champion page? It's about as counter intuitive as it can possibly be for an information based website. Also to note there's are several Champion Spotlights listed here that are outdated as hell. Off the top of my head, Ashe, Viktor, Maokai and Cassiopeia still have their pre-rework champion spotlights, which are beyond out-dated to the point of being hilarious. Champions like Kassadin don't even have a spotlight listed here. And these are just the ones that i can remember.

      GutsyTick wrote:
      If you also wish to take this post in a negative stance whilst burying you heads against my most valid point, then I do sincerely feel sorry for you.

      With that valid point answered and out of the way let me ask you. What do you propose to fill that void? Since you feel that this project won't justify the effort to fix/improve a flaw in several of the champion pages, then you give an idea for a better project.

        Loading editor
    • Take what you will from what I've said then; I've no intentions of starting a flame war either, and arguing against your points won't do anything positive for this project.

      EDIT: @Darksusanoo I don't have a proposal for what may be able to sufficiently fill the void, nor do I intend on coming up with one. This is your project, and I've just stated what I think of it. Do not push the work in which you have so willingly taken up onto me.

        Loading editor
    • GutsyTick wrote:

      EDIT: @Darksusanoo I don't have a proposal for what may be able to sufficiently fill the void, nor do I intend on coming up with one. This is your project, and I've just stated what I think of it. Do not push the work in which you have so willingly taken up onto me.

      It's actually KHO's project and one i've been very much enjoying so far in assisting with. Nor was it my intent to involve you since you are so against it. I was pointing out the simple facts that both your arguments are very flawed and that you simply took to pointing out problems without proposing a solution or even acknowledging the issue to which the project tries to address in the first place and in a very bad way. But you know what, Will is right. Further back-and-forth will simply ignite a flame war and i don't wish that to happen.

        Loading editor
    • Only if the person who requested this change will do the initial job of adding in all 156 champion descriptions by himself/herself. 

        Loading editor
    • Tesla Effect wrote: Only if the person who requested this change will do the initial job of adding in all 156 champion descriptions by himself/herself. 

      ... why? There are over a dozen volunteers for this project.

        Loading editor
    • I am of mixed (mostly negative) opinion regarding the additions.

      I agree with Feirund's point about (possibly) the tedium of having to constantly revise the descriptions as time goes on and more importantly I am concerned about its subjectivity and what happens when an editor will inevitably come in and have strong disagreements about the content of the paragraph. Runeglaive is released and Ezreal suddenly becomes perfectly usable from a kitey AD marksman to an uncatchable AP sniper - suddenly we have two equally valid descriptions, so which is used and why?

      I would not say the comparisons being made to the DotA wiki are quite applicable in this case as while they have flavour texts, there also exist usage tips that explain how the kit functions on the same page. A short paragraph may work as a snapshot, but ultimately without any more detailed supplements a reader still isn't really going to be any the wiser on how the kit itself fulfils the stated playstyle.

      I still have a mixed opinion despite these concerns because I feel that while this sort of flavour text would be better suited for something like the Strategy pages, said pages themselves have fallen into heavy disrepair, and I myself am not sure what to think about attempting to take disjointed steps to alleviate it.

      Such a project, in my opinion, would be best suited when accompanied an overhaul of the page layout similar to what was demoed by Emptylord a while back with Azir and Fiddlesticks', but that doesn't seem likely to happen any time soon.

        Loading editor
    • i say yes.  Please note the descriptions shouldnt be going into so much depth that different build paths start to portray inaccuracy.  You're ezreal arguement isnt that strong.  It clearly states on his page that he is a marksman mage.  So, what we focus on is the fact that he is "slippery" not that he is an AD or AP champion.  state he focuses on kiting, in and out fighting, and poking not on heavy engage.  No matter how you slice it a hecarim ult is heavy engage.  Even if you go full assassin that's not changing.  AP Jax still does great sustained damaged even if he is more focused on burst.  ekko full tank or damage still skirmishes better than he outright team fights.  If not entering into meta builds paths is important, then we only need to focus on strong points of the kit itself and not the build paths that are coming up.  it'll be more difficult but could become a worth while opportunity for noobs and veterans alike to learn about champions they are thinking about picking up from a feel perspective.

        Loading editor
    • Re: updating descriptions over time, I don't think that's an issue. From the bios I've worked on, the goals were to a) describe how a champion works, b) describe their theme and c) describe their gameplay fantasy. All of these are independent of meta, items, and the like, and would only change if the champion received a (substantial) rework, which would involve updating their page anyway. With well-constructed enough descriptions, updating them over time should require minimal effort.

        Loading editor
    • I always is for this project

        Loading editor
    • I do not feel that champions with particularly divergent build paths can always be sufficiently described in a single homogeneous paragraph. Tank Cho'Gath doesn't play anything like AP Cho'Gath; Ekko is in the same boat. There's Critplank, APlank and Tankplank. Lulu has her Machine Gun, AP and support playstyles to consider. Bruiser Nidalee focuses on close-range brawling over AP Nidalee's javelin poke. And these are just the off-the-wall examples as opposed to more unconventional off-builds like ADC Ahri. It seems idealistic to say you can accommodate any and all situations without being vague.

      You're welcome to prove me wrong, of course, and I'm not strictly giving this a thumbs down, but it just feels to me like a bandaid fix to the problem that's more caused by an outdated page layout. :V

        Loading editor
    • Yay! Can I do Ziggs?

        Loading editor
    • This kind of thing should be on the strategy page, rather than the champion page. More than just new players use the champion page, and it shouldn't be bogged down with potentially subjective information. Meanwhile, subjective content is expected in the strategy page. It would also give the page a good opening for players looking for advice, rather than it immediately diving into tips and information. There could even be multiple descriptions, for different play styles, without disrupting the page and potentially distracting people from the reason they went to it.

        Loading editor
    • Nay.

      About this, do you have actual permission to add those? Cause I don't want to get a warning for vandalising when I remove them.

      Why am I against this you'd ask?

      What is the purpose of this wikia? To merely note down information that can be found somewhere else? Or to actually inform and help both new and old players? Because if the case was the first, there would be no point in actually having a Strategy page.

      The purpose of this wikia IS to merely note down information. Riot should be worring about informing and helping both new and old players. There is a point in having the Strategy page: to note down the official strategic information Riot posted. Why is there also flavour content on those pages? I couldn't know, but I'm FOR removing it.

      What if I propose we, the users of this wikia, come with new champion spotlights for those champions with outdated spotlights? Why? So we help and inform both new and old players! See? It's the same thing as what you're trying to do.


      I'll now wait for Willbachbakal and Darksusanoo to accuse me of wanting to start a flame war or to dismiss my argument as flawed and with no value, because they're the judges here and we shall no oppose them. Really guys? You should be ashamed.

        Loading editor
    • Tesla Effect wrote:
      Only if the person who requested this change will do the initial job of adding in all 156 champion descriptions by himself/herself. 

      Which is the intended idea, yes. With help from other users, yes, but I'd write everything.

        Loading editor
    • I'll give my personal view of the subject.

      It is indeed true that the purpose of a Wikia is to "provide factual information to people visiting this site". This is undeniable and we can all agree to that.

      However, this being a game (and a socially massive game at that), I would agree that presenting user-friendly information is okay for League of Legends. This isn't Nuclear Physics Wikia or Pure Mathematics Wikia, where everything must be technical, cut and dry data only, no fun allowed. This is a game Wikia, and people are playing League of Legends for fun, not work.

      So when I view it in this way, is "Cut and dry factual data" really okay for LoL Wikia? Not that there isn't anything wrong with cut and dry, but ultimately this is still a game, where people play for fun and enjoyment.

      Adding seemingly-objective-but-still-subjective information to what the majority of the playerbase agrees on (Ahri as a mage assassin, Anivia as a champion that consumes a lot of mana) doesn't really hurt the Wikia now, does it? There's no right and wrongs on how to play your game, as even official LoL data aside from numbers is subjective by itself (Remember old AP Master Yi and AP Tryndamere? Remember AP Kog'Maw? They essentially belong into the Mage category even when official data says they aren't back then).

      I'm fine with user-friendly information as long as the bias is minimized. Interesting tidbits that are beneficial are fine. In conclusion, you have my support here.

        Loading editor
    • Shaw Fujikawa wrote:
      I do not feel that champions with particularly divergent build paths can always be sufficiently described in a single homogeneous paragraph. Tank Cho'Gath doesn't play anything like AP Cho'Gath; Ekko is in the same boat. There's Critplank, APlank and Tankplank. Lulu has her Machine Gun, AP and support playstyles to consider. Bruiser Nidalee focuses on close-range brawling over AP Nidalee's javelin poke. And these are just the off-the-wall examples as opposed to more unconventional off-builds like ADC Ahri. It seems idealistic to say you can accommodate any and all situations without being vague.

      You're welcome to prove me wrong, of course, and I'm not strictly giving this a thumbs down, but it just feels to me like a bandaid fix to the problem that's more caused by an outdated page layout. :V


      But the thing is, these descriptions are independant from build paths. Yes, Tank Cho'Gath doesn't follow the same build as AP Cho'Gath, but both follow the same theme and feeling. Same for all the champions you listed.

      As for all the "biased" concerns, these descriptions aren't going to be "Ahri is THE MOST WONDERFUL CHAMPION EVER EVERYONE SHOULD PLAY HER AND SHE'S MY WAIFU, SHE KILLS PEOPLE IN ONE SHOT AND OMG SO GUD" :v

        Loading editor
    • Mixing cut and dry with flavour is what I find wrong, get them two separated rooms, or at least note what information is official and what information isn't. I'd love to see that Talk page used for the flavour content the wikia users come with because when I 1st look up a champion, I'm interested in their mechanics, numbers, ability descriptions and in Riot's gameplay recommendations (official strategy and spotlight).

        Loading editor
    • Vsagent wrote: Mixing cut and dry with flavour is what I find wrong, get them two separated rooms, or at least note what information is official and what information isn't. I'd love to see that Talk page used for the flavour content the wikia users come with because when I 1st look up a champion, I'm interested in their mechanics, numbers, ability descriptions and in Riot's gameplay recommendations (official strategy and spotlight).

      Fair enough. Will the flavour text be acceptable (the majority census information) if it's placed at the bottom of the official stats?

        Loading editor
    • Mineko Charat Lucky wrote:

      Vsagent wrote: Mixing cut and dry with flavour is what I find wrong, get them two separated rooms, or at least note what information is official and what information isn't. I'd love to see that Talk page used for the flavour content the wikia users come with because when I 1st look up a champion, I'm interested in their mechanics, numbers, ability descriptions and in Riot's gameplay recommendations (official strategy and spotlight).

      Fair enough. Will the flavour text be acceptable (the majority census information) if it's placed at the bottom of the official stats?

      It's not "flavor" text. It's just somewhat embellished from merely "Ahri is a mobile mage assassin who uses dashes and a charm to kill people" to "Ahri is a nible assassin who darts around foes, seducing them out of safety to finish them off".

      Besides, they should definitely be at the top of the page. The idea is for the description to give a brief idea, and then you read the details on the skills and go "Ah-ha! This is why they described X as this."

        Loading editor
    • I say people must know who made that champion description, as it's not made by Riot.

      For example I put Ashe's description between " " and wrote at the end - League of Legends Wikia but I think whoever makes the description should put - Vsagent (talk) at the end.

        Loading editor
    • I think League of Legends wikia would work better. This isn't a vanity project.

        Loading editor
    • Vsagent wrote:

      I'll now wait for Willbachbakal and Darksusanoo to accuse me of wanting to start a flame war or to dismiss my argument as flawed and with no value, because they're the judges here and we shall no oppose them. Really guys? You should be ashamed.

      Not really...i atleast don't think your argument is wrong and opposition is always a key part of a discussion. Nor am i a judge. What i did was point out the heavy flaws in another user's overall atittude towards this subject and for that i'm not ashamed of anything i said here.

        Loading editor
    • Shaw Fujikawa wrote:
      I do not feel that champions with particularly divergent build paths can always be sufficiently described in a single homogeneous paragraph. Tank Cho'Gath doesn't play anything like AP Cho'Gath; Ekko is in the same boat. There's Critplank, APlank and Tankplank. Lulu has her Machine Gun, AP and support playstyles to consider. Bruiser Nidalee focuses on close-range brawling over AP Nidalee's javelin poke. And these are just the off-the-wall examples as opposed to more unconventional off-builds like ADC Ahri. It seems idealistic to say you can accommodate any and all situations without being vague.

      These flavour texts are mostly focused on the general feel of a champion not so much the painful specifics. Even most champions with diverging buildpaths will mostly play the same. AP and AD Ezreal both focus on poke, kite and global snipes. AD and AP Kog'Maw is still long range artilery damage. Lulu support and AP is still focused on early game harass and then her utility. Even Cho as a tank and AP is all about knocking people up, eating then and the growing into a kaiju. Even ADC Ahri is still all about dashing around and charming foes.

      Shaw Fujikawa wrote:
      You're welcome to prove me wrong, of course, and I'm not strictly giving this a thumbs down, but it just feels to me like a bandaid fix to the problem that's more caused by an outdated page layout. :V

      I actually completely agree with this. The page layouts have quite a few isssues, but that should be a point made (and very much made) in another forum page to try and get a new layout and update them.

      But at the same time i feel that wouldn't interfere with the goal of this project, which is to provide a short, concise and yes somewhat flavourful description of a champion to be read alongside the raw details of their abilities and give users a more comprehensive understanding of what makes X champion tick.

        Loading editor
    • Vsagent wrote: The purpose of this wikia IS to merely note down information. Riot should be worring about informing and helping both new and old players. There is a point in having the Strategy page: to note down the official strategic information Riot posted. Why is there also flavour content on those pages? I couldn't know, but I'm FOR removing it.

      I actually think it would be worth removing Strategy pages entirely, as those happen to be super-dependent on itemization, meta and heavily changeable and subjective information, none of which pertains at all to any official information given by Riot. By contrast, just because champion bios are flavorful does not mean they are not giving valuable information, nor does it mean that the flavor text is wrong: calling FizzSquare Fizz slippery or ShacoSquare Shaco a trickster is flavorful, for example, but also entirely correct, and conveys accurate information to the player beyond simple numbers. I'm a Wiki purist too, but I think our capacity to note down information goes beyond simple number-porting.

      Vsagent wrote: I'll now wait for Willbachbakal and Darksusanoo to accuse me of wanting to start a flame war or to dismiss my argument as flawed and with no value, because they're the judges here and we shall no oppose them. Really guys? You should be ashamed.

      Well, no, you're totally free to disagree, and your disagreement is a good thing, as it would help set the bounds for this project and prevent us from going too nuts. What both GutsyTick and you are saying, however, is that you don't care for any opinions dissenting with you, no matter how numerous, and you yourself specifically mentioned you'd be willing to just tear down these bios as they'd pop up:

      Vsagent wrote: About this, do you have actual permission to add those? Cause I don't want to get a warning for vandalising when I remove them.

      (We got permission from NeonSpotlight, by the way)

      It is this kind of attitude that isn't helpful to the wiki as a whole, and that simply creates unnecessary friction. If anything, you should be ashamed to think that your opinion entitles you to destroy the work of many more people. Again, you are more than welcome to disagree, and disagreement can be good for this project and the wiki (Feirund's post makes really good points that all need to be addressed, for example, and as such made a huge positive contribution to this discussion, as did Shaw's own posts), but there's a difference between disapproving of a project and going out of your own way to impede or belittle the people working on said project.

        Loading editor
    • There are certain strategies and guidelines Riot themselves put for numerous champs, so a strategy page is needed. 

        Loading editor
    • Darksusanoo wrote:
      Not really...i atleast don't think your argument is wrong and opposition is always a key part of a discussion. Nor am i a judge. What i did was point out the heavy flaws in another user's overall atittude towards this subject and for that i'm not ashamed of anything i said here.

      His attitude is no concern of yours, this other user should be able to express himself without you saying his contribution is heavily flawed.

        Loading editor
    • Personally, the wiki's objectivity has always been a source of personal pride to me (since I helped maintain it, in my own way). I could say with confidence that our is one of the closest wikis to the wikipedia.org project, which I think is the whole point.

      A point was brought up that these are to help beginners get an understanding of a champion, but I ask - how is this giving them an understanding? If you said that somebody is "mobile", how would you get a grasp of that mobility just from that description? You will still need to read the skills, watch the spotlight and above all, try the champion - there is no avoiding it. There is no knowing a champion through a single man's subjective approximation.

        Loading editor
    • I'm more on Yay to this one. Well, maybe because I like flavorful things? Though some description could be misleading if done poorly. Otherwise, I don't think this addition will be so harmful.

      Also, I kinda view this very Wikia as a community rather than just a 'factual information webpages'. Liven things up would not be very out of place.

      Lastly, Trivia pages are still full of subjective information and no one seems to mind that?

        Loading editor
    • Feirund wrote:
      Personally, the wiki's objectivity has always been a source of personal pride to me (since I helped maintain it, in my own way). I could say with confidence that our is one of the closest wikis to the wikipedia.org project, which I think is the whole point.

      A point was brought up that these are to help beginners get an understanding of a champion, but I ask - how is this giving them an understanding? If you said that somebody is "mobile", how would you get a grasp of that mobility just from that description? You will still need to read the skills, watch the spotlight and above all, try the champion - there is no avoiding it. There is no knowing a champion through a single man's subjective approximation.

      By that very definition, listing the skills is useless, because you have to watch the spotlight and try the champion, and watching the spotlight is useless because you have to try the champion, wouldn't you say :P

      This project isn't meant to be a stand-alone thing. It's precisely meant to work in-tandem with all the things you listed: first you read the description, giving you a short summary on what to expect from the champion, both in theme and gameplay. Let's take our hypothetical player, Timmy. Timmy wants to play Ahri, but knows nothing about her, so he goes onto the LoL wikia.

      First, he sees the description, in which Ahri is described as an agile seductress that darts around her foes, forcing key targets out of safety to kill them. Finding this short summary to his liking, Timmy scrolls thown, reads Ahri's skills and goes "Ah, I see why they described Ahri as mobile, it's because her first ability gives her movement speed and her ultimate gives her three dashes". Then, he thinks "Hmmm, I wonder how this Ahri champion would look like in-game?" So he goes to see the champion spotlight, or perhaps some online gameplays, and goes "I see how the playstyle that was described to me does indeed fit with what I'm seeing. This Ahri is using her mobility to dance around foes and drawing that ADC out of safety to kill him!" Finally, Timmy thinks "Well, I guess I'll try this Ahri out for myself in a game!" And he does.

      Can't you see the magic?

        Loading editor
    • Willbachbakal wrote:
      I actually think it would be worth removing Strategy pages entirely, as those happen to be super-dependent on itemization, meta and heavily changeable and subjective information, none of which pertains at all to any official information given by Riot. By contrast, just because champion bios are flavorful does not mean they are not giving valuable information, nor does it mean that the flavor text is wrong: calling FizzSquare Fizz slippery or ShacoSquare Shaco a trickster is flavorful, for example, but also entirely correct, and conveys accurate information to the player beyond simple numbers. I'm a Wiki purist too, but I think our capacity to note down information goes beyond simple number-porting.

      Then you agree with me that KHO is wrong. No, I'm not and I was not talking about the project but about his/her argument being based on the Strategy page's existence.

      Willbachbakal wrote: What both GutsyTick and you are saying, however, is that you don't care for any opinions dissenting with you, no matter how numerous

      That's what I consider having a character.

      Willbachbakal wrote:

      and you yourself specifically mentioned you'd be willing to just tear down these bios as they'd pop up:

      (We got permission from NeonSpotlight, by the way) It is this kind of attitude that isn't helpful to the wiki as a whole, and that simply creates unnecessary friction. If anything, you should be ashamed to think that your opinion entitles you to destroy the work of many more people. Again, you are more than welcome to disagree, and disagreement can be good for this project and the wiki (Feirund's post makes really good points that all need to be addressed, for example, and as such made a huge positive contribution to this discussion, as did Shaw's own posts), but there's a difference between disapproving of a project and going out of your own way to impede or belittle the people working on said project.

      You have permission, that's all I need to know. Why do you need to go on and say (like your friend Darksusanoo) that my attitude is wrong? Why do you need to make out of me the bad guy, the disturbance of this entire wiki? I didn't tear down any of these bios, did I? What are you so afraid of? You know well that me editing around, removing your precious bios won't destroy the project (you can always undo vandalising). The only threat comes from people like me who are not only in disagreement, but who oppose your project entirely and can get it rejected.

      By the way, I still think you'll find my other posts making some good points about how to mix official info with flavour one.

        Loading editor
    • Vsagent wrote:
      Darksusanoo wrote:
      Not really...i atleast don't think your argument is wrong and opposition is always a key part of a discussion. Nor am i a judge. What i did was point out the heavy flaws in another user's overall atittude towards this subject and for that i'm not ashamed of anything i said here.
      His attitude is no concern of yours, this other user should be able to express himself without you saying his contribution is heavily flawed.

      His attitude is of my concern since this a project i'm deeply involved and is being looked down upon for no constructive end. Freedom of expression is not an excuse to degrade other editors for proposing a project that you may dissagree with.

        Loading editor
    • I think it's wrong to blindly say that the information given is subjective. Is Ahri a Mage-Assassin that's supposed to lure her foes, with good mobility but a relatively short range? This is all objective and true. Same for Kog'Maw being a Marksman-Mage with very high range and tools to deal with about any tank, but having low mobility, thus being most effective in teamfights. If something subjective or a bit exaggerated gets in there (like Ahri's mobility being "unparalleled"), it could be easily taken out.

      So yeah, I'll go with yay.

        Loading editor
    • DamonDraven wrote:
      I think it's wrong to blindly say that the information given is subjective. Is Ahri a Mage-Assassin that's supposed to lure her foes, with good mobility but a relatively short range? This is all objective and true. Same for Kog'Maw being a Marksman-Mage with very high range and tools to deal with about any tank, but having low mobility, thus being most effective in teamfights. If something subjective or a bit exaggerated gets in there (like Ahri's mobility being "unparalleled"), it could be easily taken out.

      So yeah, I'll go with yay.

      Unparallaled could be easily substitued with "high" or "extreme" if it's considered to be a problem.

      That's what I'm talking about, by the way, since there seems to be a lot of problems with the supposed "non-objectivity" of these descriptions. These bios aren't meant to be subjective information based only on my opinion. I'm not going to write that Ahri is the best assassin in the game and that she should be played over every other character. I will, however, write what her mechanic and "flavorful" identity are supposed to be, and I think anyone can agree that they are true.

        Loading editor
    • Kind-Hearted-One wrote:

      Unparallaled could be easily substitued with "high" or "extreme" if it's considered to be a problem.

      That's what I'm talking about, by the way, since there seems to be a lot of problems with the supposed "non-objectivity" of these descriptions. These bios aren't meant to be subjective information based only on my opinion. I'm not going to write that Ahri is the best assassin in the game and that she should be played over every other character. I will, however, write what her mechanic and "flavorful" identity are supposed to be, and I think anyone can agree that they are true.

      Exactly what I was trying to say.

        Loading editor
    • Darksusanoo wrote:

      His attitude is of my concern since this a project i'm deeply involved and is being looked down upon for no constructive end. Freedom of expression is not an excuse to degrade other editors for proposing a project that you may dissagree with.

      I wasn't talking about freedom of expression, as you can't stop him (or me) from looking down upon your project no matter how much you'd want to.

      You're right, his attitude should be of your concern, that's if you're going to put it in balance when deciding if you're going on with the project or not. And if you're going to do that, you can't dismiss it as being heavily flawed. That would just prove that you don't really care about his attitude and that you're a hypocrite. But this is just theorycrafting, isn't it?


      On-topic, I must agree with KHO, these bios seems pretty objective, like ability details and unlike most of the strategy pages.

        Loading editor
    • I will support this so long as the descriptions remain as objective as possible. In otherwords, being able to source any statements made with factual information from the skills or Riot's champion attribute labeling, ex. tank, mage, support. The reason I'll support this is because even though items, runes, and masteries may change the gameplay of a champion; the champion is still unique in its own sense with the abilities and base stats the champion has.

      If we are able to source our statements, (like saying champions are mobile due to their multiple/frequent dashes) then I believe this project is a viable way to inform readers of the general concept of a champion. Also, if possible, sourcing Riot's Champion Spotlights to the summary may be a good idea to give an official summary of the champion.

        Loading editor
    • Vsagent wrote:
      Darksusanoo wrote:

      His attitude is of my concern since this a project i'm deeply involved and is being looked down upon for no constructive end. Freedom of expression is not an excuse to degrade other editors for proposing a project that you may dissagree with.

      I wasn't talking about freedom of expression, as you can't stop him (or me) from looking down upon your project no matter how much you'd want to.

      You're right, his attitude should be of your concern, that's if you're going to put it in balance when deciding if you're going on with the project or not. And if you're going to do that, you can't dismiss it as being heavily flawed. That would just prove that you don't really care about his attitude and that you're a hypocrite. But this is just theorycrafting, isn't it?


      On-topic, I must agree with KHO, these bios seems pretty objective, like ability details and unlike most of the strategy pages.

      Sadly no i can't stop people from being arrogant for the sake of being arrogant, that doesn't mean that it's right or that i can't call people out on it. 

      Actually pointing out a disruptive/flawed attitude or argument for what it is, isn't dismissing it, it's pointing out that it's not a positive contribution and can cause further issues with project itself. There are 100 different ways that you/whoever else can express different or contrary viewpoints (like Feirund, Shaw even DamonDraven who is in favour of the project did, with me/most of the people here actually agreeing with some of the brought up points and creating an actual debate over then with no friction between the users).

      You and GutsyTick on the other opted to assume a gratuitous and antagonizing atittude from comment one. Now that's your choice. I sadly cannot stop you from assuming such a stance, not can you stop me or anyone else from calling you out on it. You get the same as you give and if you can't take it, don't dish it. But i've had enough of this. Think as you will. I will continue to support KHO and this project and that's it.

        Loading editor
    • GutsyTick wrote:

      If anything is insusceptible to personal bias in this subject, it would have to be the fact that this whole project isn't worth the effort.

      This is what struck the blow for you. Did he had the power to nullify the project just by saying that? No! Still you got offended, you couldn't accept how can one be outright against the grand holy crusade you were a part of.

      Should I really feel ashamed that I'm not as skeptical as Feirund and Shaw are, that I know very well where I stand? Is that really called arrogance?

        Loading editor
    • I came here to read about new ideas and possible issues that may arise with this project. I did not come to read about the philosophy of debate. Please keep the topic in mind when creating a comment; otherwise, the message board becomes terribly bloated and eventually cancels the project due to the delay it takes to reach a conclusion for the project--through the long back and forth with few constructive ideas. If things get personal, take it somewhere else. The message board does not need irrelevant discussion.

        Loading editor
    • Can we volunteer to help somehow?  I've always personally needed to get a "feel" for a character before I cound enjoy playing them.  Looking at abilities like Zyra's give a basic understanding, but they don't really convey the feeling of "Trying to fight in my garden?  Silly marksman, I'll show you the error of your ways!" or how invincible champs like Galio, Singed and Swain can be and just how powerful that feels.

        Loading editor
    • Consider this, If im a first time league player and i pop on over to the wikia, which i did back then.I see 150 champion icons, which is kinda daunting because i can only pick based on which icon looks cool to me.Now once i click on a champion i would read their abilities BUT if you havent played league before you might have trouble grasping how those abilties feel in game.The description sorta gives the feel that, oh this champion is squishy and mobile...cool i kinda might like that playstyle (for example).Or they could be slow and long ranged which i feel could be a nicer playstyle.

        Loading editor
    • ShieldOfHolyShadows wrote:
      Can we volunteer to help somehow?  I've always personally needed to get a "feel" for a character before I cound enjoy playing them.  Looking at abilities like Zyra's give a basic understanding, but they don't really convey the feeling of "Trying to fight in my garden?  Silly marksman, I'll show you the error of your ways!" or how invincible champs like Galio, Singed and Swain can be and just how powerful that feels.


      Yes you can! I made a blog-post here for people to give ideas and such! Right now it's a bit... unoccupied, since I'm waiting to get more definite feedback on it here, but you can still post ideas for when I make a certain champion's description.

        Loading editor
    • Yay


        Loading editor
    • YAYY

        Loading editor
    • I commented earlier at the beginning of this thread, but it was an impulse answer; I didn't think very deeply. But I see now the nature of this project has become a topic of debate, and I feel obligated to speak more deeply. I'll give some background before I speak my mind. You may not know it, but I am the one who started all this. I didn't start this project, but I did incite it: I'm the one who wrote the first AatroxSquare Aatrox description. I visit the Dota 2 Wiki occasionally and their own hero descriptions inspired me to mimic them. I hoped to start this project myself, as a one-man endeavor, but KHO took the initiative to do it themself.

      Onto my thoughts on the project. Naturally, I like it. But as Feirund and Gutsy have stated before, a disproportionate amount of effort goes into making the descriptions. KHO and I both know how protracted their making can be; it took us a whole hour just to come to an agreement on TwitchSquare Twitch. We were exploring the directions we wanted the descriptions to take, still most of that hour was spent arguing over technicalities and semantics. It's not very conducive for the simple, clean editing the wiki looks for. Now, I will not deny that the project sparked my interest to actually editing the wiki again (the mood comes and goes). To be honest, I'm still surprised on how many editors wanted to pitch in, newer and older ones alike. Naturally though, there's a discrepancy in quality of their suggestions. And how others have mentioned before, there's a modicum of bias in each description. In the first descriptions I whipped up on the onset of the project, I tried to remain as unbiased as possible, giving only a brief description of what each champion can do. But it was seen as too cut-and-dry, too "scrolly" (needing to scroll down to the abilities anyway in order to understand). At this point, I'm uncertain which side to take.

      Some have mentioned moving the descriptions to the Strategy pages, which have fallen into great disrepair. A while ago, I considered revamping the strategy pages, again, all on my own. I'm the one who rewrote the Skill Usage section on TryndamereSquare Tryndamere's strategy page, which hasn't changed much since. I was pleased with the product, but I never went on to rewrite the entire page or even give the same treatment to other champs. Something must be done about the Strategy pages, regardless of this debate's outcome. At least those have a strong basis in the wiki's champion structure.

        Loading editor
    • I think this would be nice.

        Loading editor
    • This could be so trolly XD I mean People making these like, Teemo, the devil himself. Irelia, the nerfed child. Riven, the "mechanics" one. Yasuo, the "difficult". XD It's funny for me and I really Like the Idea of these little aspects and gameplay. Thumb up

        Loading editor
    • Dragonzzilla wrote:

      KHO and I both know how protracted their making can be; it took us a whole hour just to come to an agreement on TwitchSquare Twitch. We were exploring the directions we wanted the descriptions to take, still most of that hour was spent arguing over technicalities and semantics. 

      Oi, I was there two ya know? I feel left out. (stacks tear)

      Anyways I'm not really big on big comments, so I'll just say "yay" because I genuinely don't see a reason why not. I've read through this entire page, including the "naysayers" comments, and anything I could have said was already said, so...you got my vote. 

        Loading editor
    • I totally approves this as its reminds of the roots of the Wiki, when we would come to the Wiki to see what a champion could do and not only see his stats or some comments about meta viability.

        Loading editor
    • Dragonzzilla wrote: Onto my thoughts on the project. Naturally, I like it. But as Feirund and Gutsy have stated before, a disproportionate amount of effort goes into making the descriptions. KHO and I both know how protracted their making can be; it took us a whole hour just to come to an agreement on TwitchSquare Twitch. We were exploring the directions we wanted the descriptions to take, still most of that hour was spent arguing over technicalities and semantics. It's not very conducive for the simple, clean editing the wiki looks for. Now, I will not deny that the project sparked my interest to actually editing the wiki again (the mood comes and goes). To be honest, I'm still surprised on how many editors wanted to pitch in, newer and older ones alike. Naturally though, there's a discrepancy in quality of their suggestions. And how others have mentioned before, there's a modicum of bias in each description. In the first descriptions I whipped up on the onset of the project, I tried to remain as unbiased as possible, giving only a brief description of what each champion can do. But it was seen as too cut-and-dry, too "scrolly" (needing to scroll down to the abilities anyway in order to understand). At this point, I'm uncertain which side to take.

      Well, I am sorry if your Twitch description was changed, but it was the product of me and Will deciding that a new model of description, one that was more generic and less focused on the abilities themselves was needed. Your contibutions are still welcome, your Twitch description was very good in itself just... not exactly what we decided was best. But I'm sure you can easily adapt your content to the new model, and it'd be greatly useful!

        Loading editor
    • Kind-Hearted-One wrote:

      Well, I am sorry if your Twitch description was changed, but it was the product of me and Will deciding that a new model of description, one that was more generic and less focused on the abilities themselves was needed. Your contibutions are still welcome, your Twitch description was very good in itself just... not exactly what we decided was best. But I'm sure you can easily adapt your content to the new model, and it'd be greatly useful!

      I kinda figured changes would be made as the project advanced, and it looks like it's doing fairly well (or at least was until the standstill). I fell ill for a past few days so I couldn't really get the mental fortitude to continue helping, but if this project is approved for continuation I will surely assist as the support-main I am. 

      Anyways, in order to avoid going off topic, I'll just say that adding the champion descriptions would certainly help out people who have no idea what each champion does. I remember way back two years ago when I looked through EVERY champion page, read ALL of their ability details and lore, and then decided which Champions I liked and which I didn't. Needless to say, it was tedious. 

        Loading editor
    • Teh's opinion: Fluff and flowery descriptions are a waste of space, subjective and susceptible to personal arguments, and adds little that is not on the /Background page.

        Loading editor
    • TehAnonymous
      TehAnonymous removed this reply because:
      spam
      19:31, August 6, 2015
      This reply has been removed
    • TehAnonymous wrote:
      Teh's opinion: Fluff and flowery descriptions are a waste of space, subjective and susceptible to personal arguments, and adds little that is not on the /Background page.

      How is saying that Ahri is a mage that uses mobility to juke people and draw people out to kill them, that Kog'Maw is an extremely fragile glass cannon that rapes whole teams if properly protected or that Graves is a tough marksman that wants to get in your face and burst you down "subjective"?

        Loading editor
    • Kind-Hearted-One wrote: How is saying that Ahri is a mage that uses mobility to juke people and draw people out to kill them, that Kog'Maw is an extremely fragile glass cannon that rapes whole teams if properly protected or that Graves is a tough marksman that wants to get in your face and burst you down "subjective"?

      No need for the egregious straw man. :V

      Putting aside the technicality that they are opinions, not everyone agrees with you that champions always have the same theme and feeling regardless of how they're played, which is almost proof in and of itself.

        Loading editor
    • Kind-Hearted-One wrote:
      TehAnonymous wrote:
      Teh's opinion: Fluff and flowery descriptions are a waste of space, subjective and susceptible to personal arguments, and adds little that is not on the /Background page.
      How is saying that Ahri is a mage that uses mobility to juke people and draw people out to kill them, that Kog'Maw is an extremely fragile glass cannon that rapes whole teams if properly protected or that Graves is a tough marksman that wants to get in your face and burst you down "subjective"?

      You only choose those 2 examples, but what about Lee's description? You say his damage falls off, but I can build him like an assassin which is also his secondary role. You say he shifts to utility, when I can say: you should use his ulti only as an execute.

      Another example would be Twitch: I don't find him weak and vulnerable early on.

      Also, you have to explain why Alistar has a "gold independence" as his kit doesn't give him gold per sec.

        Loading editor
    • Vsagent wrote:
      Kind-Hearted-One wrote:
      TehAnonymous wrote:
      Teh's opinion: Fluff and flowery descriptions are a waste of space, subjective and susceptible to personal arguments, and adds little that is not on the /Background page.
      How is saying that Ahri is a mage that uses mobility to juke people and draw people out to kill them, that Kog'Maw is an extremely fragile glass cannon that rapes whole teams if properly protected or that Graves is a tough marksman that wants to get in your face and burst you down "subjective"?
      You only choose those 2 examples, but what about Lee's description? You say his damage falls off, but I can build him like an assassin which is also his secondary role. You say he shifts to utility, when I can say: you should use his ulti only as an execute.

      Another example would be Twitch: I don't find him weak and vulnerable early on.

      But Lee's damage DOES fall off, and anyone with a smudge of knowledge in the game will tell you that he's more of a utility tank later in the game. The fact is, that is his intended thing. Yes, you can build him as an assassin or only use his ult to get kills, but that is the same as building Renekton as a support or building Lissandra as an ADC: sure, it can be those, this is an open game but that doesn't change the fact that it's not what they are supposed to do.

      These guides are meant for players who are new to the champion, and thus should reflect what the champion is supposed to do; let them experiment on their own later on. By that very definition, Riot's champion spotlights are bad and subjective because they don't tell you that you can build Tahm Kench as an ADC or Soraka as a jungler.

        Loading editor
    • In fact, Riot's champion spotlights are always bad and subjective and often outdated.

      But you're not Riot. So not being Riot, you have to follow some rules Riot doesn't have to.

      P.S.: with 480% bonus AD burst you can build Lee full glass-canon and your damage won't fall off. But that's my opinion, you have yours and those bios were meant to be objective. See how easily you fail?

        Loading editor
    • It is possible to build literally anyone as a full tank or an AD carry, but that does not mean that is the primary role of a champion, nor does it necessarily reflect their main contribution. In fact, listing the possibility of that happening would be misinformation, even if it would be technically accurate. Again, you could always go glass cannon Lee Sin or AD marksman Ahri, and those builds may even occasionally see larger play, but that doesn't reflect what that champion's kit or theme does.

        Loading editor
    • And Lee SIn's theme is tank right? Wrong. Lee Sin's entire kit supports the role of assassin: big bonus ad ratios, big damage base on ulti, missing hp percent damage, extreme mobility.

      I don't see Ahri's kit having any AD ratios or AS steroids so stop mentioning Ahri adc.

        Loading editor
    • ... which is why Lee is mentioned as a fighter-assassin, but the way he's played does not conform to the way you're playing him. Ahri ADC has also seen competitive play, as has ADC Kennen (who has an AD ratio on his spells), but that does not mean we have to include those. You are clogging up a discussion thread with nitpicking on a select few champion descriptions; if you have complaints about those, go to the relevant blog.

        Loading editor
    • Willbachbakal wrote:
      It is possible to build literally anyone as a full tank or an AD carry, but that does not mean that is the primary role of a champion, nor does it necessarily reflect their main contribution. In fact, listing the possibility of that happening would be misinformation, even if it would be technically accurate. Again, you could always go glass cannon Lee Sin or AD marksman Ahri, and those builds may even occasionally see larger play, but that doesn't reflect what that champion's kit or theme does.

      In fact several of those fringe cases have been regularly weeded out by Riot, especially in this season. AP Runeglaive Ezreal, AP Runeglaive assassin Eve, Tank Ekko, Cinderhulk toplaners and those are just the ones off the top of my head. Riot did so because said fringe cases we're muddling the original identity/contribution of a champion they had envisioned.

        Loading editor
    • Willbachbakal wrote:
      ... which is why Lee is mentioned as a fighter-assassin, but the way he's played does not conform to the way you're playing him. Ahri ADC has also seen competitive play, as has ADC Kennen (who has an AD ratio on his spells), but that does not mean we have to include those. You are clogging up a discussion thread with nitpicking on a select few champion descriptions; if you have complaints about those, go to the relevant blog.

      So you agree with me? If you don't need to include Ahri adc just because she saw competitive play, you don't need to include Utility Tank Lee Sin either. Or is that just a matter of opinion? Of course, your opinion is the best! If I would dare to edit your work, you'll report me for vandalising, wouldn't you?

      I don't have complaints because your project wasn't approved yet and that's what I want to prevent. I post here because I want everyone to see how wrong you're when you say you write subjective descriptions.

      I see you'd love to be Phreak, telling lies and misinformation about champions to newbies, but you're not working for Riot, you don't have that privilege, understand that!

        Loading editor
    • Vsagent wrote:
      Willbachbakal wrote:
      ... which is why Lee is mentioned as a fighter-assassin, but the way he's played does not conform to the way you're playing him. Ahri ADC has also seen competitive play, as has ADC Kennen (who has an AD ratio on his spells), but that does not mean we have to include those. You are clogging up a discussion thread with nitpicking on a select few champion descriptions; if you have complaints about those, go to the relevant blog.
      So you agree with me? If you don't need to include Ahri adc just because she saw competitive play, you don't need to include Utility Tank Lee Sin either. Or is that just a matter of opinion? Of course, your opinion is the best! If I would dare to edit your work, you'll report me for vandalising, wouldn't you?
      I don't have complaints because your project wasn't approved yet and that's what I want to prevent. I post here because I want everyone to see how wrong you're when you say you write subjective descriptions.

      I see you'd love to be Phreak, telling lies and misinformation about champions to newbies, but you're not working for Riot, you don't have that privilege, understand that!

      Yes, clearly we're evil masterminds plotting to sell wrong information to noobs to further our ambiguous but obviously nefarious plans. Truly you are a hero to society for trying to stop us.

      Can we actually discuss things seriously, instead of... whatever it is you're talking about? Pretty plz with a cherry on top?

        Loading editor
    • You're not evil, you're just self-centric.

      Go on, make fun of my argument, that'll prove you right in everyone's eyes!

        Loading editor
    • Vsagent wrote: You're not evil, you're just self-centric.

      Go on, make fun of my argument, that'll prove you right in everyone's eyes!

      Funny words, coming from a user who's doing their very best to derail a discussion on a group project into an exercise in self-righteous navel-gazing. It would be better for all of us and for this discussion if you were to stop your little internet crusader act right now.

      In the interest of furthering this discussion in a manner that does not completely revolve around Vsagent's... interesting personality, here is another link to KHO's blog, which has expanded its list of bios. Anyone who's interested in this project (or opposed to it) should pay it a visit and review the descriptions.

        Loading editor
    • I'll assume that I'm at fault of derailing this discussion because I'm the minority.

      I accused you of being a crusader first, that's true, but why do you "go down to my level"? Unless, you were in fact always ready to charge in whoever opposes this project. You don't care about my argumentation or everyone's else so I had to went down to your level to expose you.

        Loading editor
    • Well, if you'll excuse me, I'll be on my corner working on my selfish, evil project.

      When you're interested in actual discussion instead of fear-mongering, finger-pointing and obvious baiting, gimme a call, yo.

      Toodles!

        Loading editor
    • The opposition to the project has valid points. Explaining transitions in gameplay is subject to the itemization, masteries, and runes greatly affecting the outcome. Unless there is a way we can explain the powercurve based on the champions' abilities, I believe powercurves should be ommited as they are an obstacle to creating a proper summary.

      Although, in terms of comparing the summaries to /Background, the summaries are vastly more gameplay orientated than they are about lore; so these summaries are essentially condensed versions of the Strategy section.

        Loading editor
    • Double Slap wrote:
      The opposition to the project has valid points. Explaining transitions in gameplay is subject to the itemization, masteries, and runes greatly affecting the outcome. Unless there is a way we can explain the powercurve based on the champions' abilities, I believe powercurves should be ommited as they are an obstacle to creating a proper summary.

      Although, in terms of comparing the summaries to /Background, the summaries are vastly more gameplay orientated than they are about lore; so these summaries are essentially condensed versions of the Strategy section.

      See? This is useful criticism. Perhaps we should refrain from mentioning power curves, unless they're particularly core to the character (for example, Yasuo was designed by Riot with 100% in mind to be weaker early game, a monster late game. Same for Twitch or Cassiopeia).

      Thank you for this feedback. Food for thought.

        Loading editor
    • Kind-Hearted-One wrote:
      Double Slap wrote:
      The opposition to the project has valid points. Explaining transitions in gameplay is subject to the itemization, masteries, and runes greatly affecting the outcome. Unless there is a way we can explain the powercurve based on the champions' abilities, I believe powercurves should be ommited as they are an obstacle to creating a proper summary.

      Although, in terms of comparing the summaries to /Background, the summaries are vastly more gameplay orientated than they are about lore; so these summaries are essentially condensed versions of the Strategy section.

      See? This is useful criticism. Perhaps we should refrain from mentioning power curves, unless they're particularly core to the character (for example, Yasuo was designed by Riot with 100% in mind to be weaker early game, a monster late game. Same for Twitch).
      Thank you for this feedback. Food for thought.

      And I complained about you saying Lee's damage falls off and about Twitch being weak early. Same thing, but you didn't thank me for my feedback.

      I can live with that. The question is: can you live knowing you're so hypocrite?

      No offense intended, I just want to point out how bad you're at managing this topic.

        Loading editor
    • Double Slap wrote:
      The opposition to the project has valid points. Explaining transitions in gameplay is subject to the itemization, masteries, and runes greatly affecting the outcome. Unless there is a way we can explain the powercurve based on the champions' abilities, I believe powercurves should be ommited as they are an obstacle to creating a proper summary.

      Although, in terms of comparing the summaries to /Background, the summaries are vastly more gameplay orientated than they are about lore; so these summaries is essentially a condensed version of the Strategy section.

      In fringe cases, yes explaining powercurves is more complicated, but most of the descriptions focus on the core/meta gameplay that's pretty much the one Riot enforces. Cases like say Top Morgana, assassin Lissandra, AP Runeglaive Ezreal, etc are rare and have been weeded out through the patches. 

      In a way you can say that the descriptions "toe the company line" since they focus on the core gameplay that Riot allows to exist.  Certain champions will be more difficult to explain such as Taric and Yorick due to their state of disrepair or Irelia due to her extremely generalist kit. With that being said, with the amount of reworks, champions releases and overall work that Riot has been putting out to individualize the champion roster, i'm positive those more difficult issues can be addressed over time.

        Loading editor
    • Vsagent wrote:
      Kind-Hearted-One wrote:
      Double Slap wrote:
      The opposition to the project has valid points. Explaining transitions in gameplay is subject to the itemization, masteries, and runes greatly affecting the outcome. Unless there is a way we can explain the powercurve based on the champions' abilities, I believe powercurves should be ommited as they are an obstacle to creating a proper summary.

      Although, in terms of comparing the summaries to /Background, the summaries are vastly more gameplay orientated than they are about lore; so these summaries are essentially condensed versions of the Strategy section.

      See? This is useful criticism. Perhaps we should refrain from mentioning power curves, unless they're particularly core to the character (for example, Yasuo was designed by Riot with 100% in mind to be weaker early game, a monster late game. Same for Twitch).
      Thank you for this feedback. Food for thought.
      And I complained about you saying Lee's damage falls off and about Twitch being weak early. Same thing, but you didn't thank me for my feedback.
      I can live with that. The question is: can you live knowing you're so hypocrite?

      No offense intended, I just want to point out how bad you're at managing this topic.

      When said feedback comes in the form of insulting us, calling us selfish, claiming we're trying to trick and mislead newbies and declaring your crusade to erase this project, no, I don't feel hypocritical for not thanking you for your feedback. You weren't trying to have a discussion, you were just trying to incite a flame war.

        Loading editor
    • I agree, even when accounting for runes, masteries and builds, certain champions are designed with very specific breakpoints and transitions in mind (CassiopeiaSquare Cassiopeia is an example of a champion with a very clearly-defined hypercarry power curve). Other forms of power expression also don't have that much to do with stats: SonaSquare Sona naturally transitions really well to teamfights, for example, due to the nature of her auras. I also feel that, if the Strategy section is to continue existing, it should offer guidelines on how to play a champion, and not a summary of what a champion is (which should be for descriptive pages like the main page or Background).

        Loading editor
    • Willbachbakal wrote:
      I agree, even when accounting for runes, masteries and builds, certain champions are designed with very specific breakpoints and transitions in mind (CassiopeiaSquare Cassiopeia is an example of a champion with a very clearly-defined hypercarry power curve). Other forms of power expression also don't have that much to do with stats: SonaSquare Sona naturally transitions really well to teamfights, for example, due to the nature of her auras. I also feel that, if the Strategy section is to continue existing, it should offer guidelines on how to play a champion, and not a summary of what a champion is (which should be for descriptive pages like the main page or Background).

      As I said, some champions do need to have their power curves noted because they're core to the characters. Perhaps in Lee Sin's case it was a mistake, since his damage falling off or not is, indeed, entirely dependant on build.

      I'm sorry if Lee Sin's description is a bit "meh", people, but he's a really problematic champion to describe, since he's such a generalist.

        Loading editor
    • Vsagent wrote:
      Kind-Hearted-One wrote:
      TehAnonymous wrote:
      Teh's opinion: Fluff and flowery descriptions are a waste of space, subjective and susceptible to personal arguments, and adds little that is not on the /Background page.
      How is saying that Ahri is a mage that uses mobility to juke people and draw people out to kill them, that Kog'Maw is an extremely fragile glass cannon that rapes whole teams if properly protected or that Graves is a tough marksman that wants to get in your face and burst you down "subjective"?
      You only choose those 2 examples, but what about Lee's description? You say his damage falls off, but I can build him like an assassin which is also his secondary role. You say he shifts to utility, when I can say: you should use his ulti only as an execute.

      Another example would be Twitch: I don't find him weak and vulnerable early on.

      Also, you have to explain why Alistar has a "gold independence" as his kit doesn't give him gold per sec.

      Where did I insult you in this post? Nowhere! I gave you my valueable feedback and you? Told me why I was wrong ofc. But when someone else comes with the same information, you thank him.

        Loading editor
    • Dude, seriously, it eventually reaches the point where it becomes way too obvious you're just troll baiting. Kinda defeats the purpose of baiting at all.

      And with that, this nonsense that adds nothing to the discussion is over for me at the very least.

        Loading editor
    • Now you insult me!

      Insulting and discrimination...

      And you're saying you're not evil!

      You're trying to undermine my argument saying it's trolling == worthless.

      Also you didn't answer my question: where did I insult you in that post?

      Why did you dismiss this question?

        Loading editor
    • Is it genuinely difficult to dispute without provocation? People are naturally going to be motivated by the fact that a message pops up in their notifications to participate in a discussion, there is no need to provoke people even further with statements that can potentially incite arguments. That is something a jerk would do. Last I checked, there is a specific rule stating: Don't be a jerk. I absolutely despise bringing about, even more, irrelevant conversation, but this has gone too far.

        Loading editor
    • @Double Slap, I agree, this project has gone too far.

      But you can always unfollow it!

      Don't worry! I'll stay here and make sure it fails. Because that's what the opposition should do, not just saying nay and posting the same argument. Look at them with what fervor they defend their project, it doesn't matter their arguments fail, all that matters is that their projects succeeds! I almost admire them. So of course we need someone on our side to do the same dirty job so that we can expose them and prevent their project from being approved!

        Loading editor
    • Someone must be drunk here.

        Loading editor
    • Ooo! Sounds like an article intro, this starts to look and feel like a real wiki!

      Only problem that I see with this magnificent idea is that it will move the information people are coming to read even future down. You know, future down from the present 'cool pic and some pointless stats, where the fucking real info is?' 800 px tall head section. That said, the intro could be easily merged within the (spammy/airy) head section. There is after all tons of empty space and wide bars that don't really represent anything.

      Also the text should have article hyperlinks. If you are going to point out champions abilities, then hyperlink them in the same time. Like this "as his corrosive attacks easily melt through their defenses.". That way you are directly pointing to what you are referring and reader has way to get directly to the 'oh this sounds cool ability' part.

      Good luck fighting with the windmills. If you win, please introduce the article intro (heh) into all articles. Specially items.

        Loading editor
    • Items actually sound like a natural extension of this, and I'd support adding descriptions to those, particularly since those articles are pretty bare-bones. For the time being, there's already a fair bit of work to do on these articles.

        Loading editor
    • Some new work has been done on the blog! We have added descriptions for Graves, Karma, Thresh and Yasuo

      Lee Sin's description has been edited to remove the reference to his lower damage in the late game. We have decided to refrain from mentioning power curves unless they're particularly noticeable and/or part of the champion's core concept (Cassiopeia, for example).

        Loading editor
    • Finally, four hours of scrolling down later, I say yay! I was only lvl 9 when I got my wikia account, and had a few champions. The wording was confusing, and I didn't understand half of the stuff the pages said. I was confused, but I think this would not only help new players, but give other people who have never been on the wikia a chance to see what this wikia is about: helping others by providing advice and information.

        Loading editor
    • Kind-Hearted-One wrote:
      How is saying that Ahri is a mage that uses mobility to juke people and draw people out to kill them, that Kog'Maw is an extremely fragile glass cannon that rapes whole teams if properly protected or that Graves is a tough marksman that wants to get in your face and burst you down "subjective"?

      I think that just about summarizes why this is a bad idea.

        Loading editor
    • TehAnonymous wrote:

      Kind-Hearted-One wrote:
      How is saying that Ahri is a mage that uses mobility to juke people and draw people out to kill them, that Kog'Maw is an extremely fragile glass cannon that rapes whole teams if properly protected or that Graves is a tough marksman that wants to get in your face and burst you down "subjective"?

      I think that just about summarizes why this is a bad idea.

      Actually it doesn't summarize anything, other than nit-picking and if you read the actual descriptions already written, the language is actually very straight-forward and contained. Besides Kog does destroy teams by himself if kept alive. He's the only champion in the game where you can build an entire support comp around him being the only damage threat so him being capable of destroying an entire enemy team by himself is not subjective, it's his gameplay fantasy.

        Loading editor
    • TehAnonymous wrote:

      Kind-Hearted-One wrote:
      How is saying that Ahri is a mage that uses mobility to juke people and draw people out to kill them, that Kog'Maw is an extremely fragile glass cannon that rapes whole teams if properly protected or that Graves is a tough marksman that wants to get in your face and burst you down "subjective"?

      I think that just about summarizes why this is a bad idea.

      It sure is good I didn't use that word in the description, ain't it?

        Loading editor
    • I would say yay. I'll work on a few myself if you don't mind.


        Loading editor
    • Please keep in mind our discussion policies moving forward in this, erm, discussion. I won't delete any existing offending posts as they are pretty integral to the, uh, discussion at hand at this point but moving on any post that resorts to things like attacking another user's character or motivation or just don't have anything to do with the project itself (including posts discussing this part of my post). It's one thing to play devil's advocate and another to stoop to derailing the conversation by making things personal.

      My thoughts on the project: I'm not a huge fan of this being on the main champion page, I agree that it is more of a strategy page sort of thing and I think it could be used to completely re-format strategy pages. On the strategy page they could be more subjective (tank lee vs assassin lee descriptions or mid morg vs support morg descriptions) and could be a good precursor into discussing item builds for different roles/playstyles of the champ. It just doesn't feel appropriate with what we've been doing with the main page over the years in terms of compacting the info and making it purely objective/fact based.

        Loading editor
    • NeonSpotlight wrote:
      Please keep in mind our discussion policies moving forward in this, erm, discussion. I won't delete any existing offending posts as they are pretty integral to the, uh, discussion at hand at this point but moving on any post that resorts to things like attacking another user's character or motivation or just don't have anything to do with the project itself (including posts discussing this part of my post). It's one thing to play devil's advocate and another to stoop to derailing the conversation by making things personal.

      My thoughts on the project: I'm not a huge fan of this being on the main champion page, I agree that it is more of a strategy page sort of thing and I think it could be used to completely re-format strategy pages. On the strategy page they could be more subjective (tank lee vs assassin lee descriptions or mid morg vs support morg descriptions) and could be a good precursor into discussing item builds for different roles/playstyles of the champ. It just doesn't feel appropriate with what we've been doing with the main page over the years in terms of compacting the info and making it purely objective/fact based.

      I feel like when its on the startegy page its the first thing you see...thats why i would prefer it there.

        Loading editor
    • Originally I was all for this as a description of the fantasy of playing a champion which would be helpful to a new player, and I suppose that part hasn't changed much. However, I'm starting to see some parts of the description that just don't make sense, so I fail to see how that's at all helpful for the newer players who would be using it. For example, Twitch is described as fragile with a lack of escape tools, and noted is his vulnerability early on. However, as far as defensive stats go, early on he's ahead of more marksmen than he's behind in both armor and health, and doesn't fall behind until later, at which point he's only ahead of Caitlyn and Ashe. He also has the longest lasting invisibility outside of permanent ones which have their own drawbacks (Teemo, Eve), surpassing even the duration of all invisibility-granting ultimates, and he gets bonus movement speed for that duration. I don't see how he's fragile early on or has a lack of escape tools.

      Lee Sin can "pin down enemies with crowd control," but really I don't see how. He has one form of hard-CC and it's a knockback whichs lasts only 1 second. If his strength is to pin down enemies with CC, what's Morgana's strength, who can lock down an enemy in place for 4.5 seconds? Leona's, who can chain CC to keep an enemy from moving for about 3 seconds? If his strength is outmaneveuring his foes, what's LeBlanc's strength, who has 2 dashes and 2 blinks? Ekko's, who has a skillshot dash, a targeted blink, and an instant potentially global auto-targeted blink?

      Cho'Gath is "slow and cumbersome," despite being ahead of most every other champion in terms of movement speed. Graves gets "up close and personal with his enemies," despite having projectile ability ranges of near one thousand and an ultimate with almost two thousand range (not the largest, but definitely not up close and personal), as well as being ahead of multiple other marksmen in basic attack range and only having slightly under the norm, among other marksmen.

        Loading editor
    • TehAnonymous wrote:

      Kind-Hearted-One wrote:
      How is saying that Ahri is a mage that uses mobility to juke people and draw people out to kill them, that Kog'Maw is an extremely fragile glass cannon that rapes whole teams if properly protected or that Graves is a tough marksman that wants to get in your face and burst you down "subjective"?

      I think that just about summarizes why this is a bad idea.

      This made me laugh so hard. c: Btw I don't think my comment went through before - nay.

      By pre-estabilishing the idea of a champion you prevent new players from having the experience to try new things by experimentation. You prevent them from learning the meta purely from experience and you make them have preconcieved notions on what works and what isn't. Furthermore I don't see any polls or anything of the like on the page so that the community as a whole can decide on what the accurate description is. It feels and seems like a very 3-man project.

        Loading editor
    • JasonWildBlade wrote:
      Originally I was all for this as a description of the fantasy of playing a champion which would be helpful to a new player, and I suppose that part hasn't changed much. However, I'm starting to see some parts of the description that just don't make sense, so I fail to see how that's at all helpful for the newer players who would be using it. For example, Twitch is described as fragile with a lack of escape tools, and noted is his vulnerability early on. However, as far as defensive stats go, early on he's ahead of more marksmen than he's behind in both armor and health, and doesn't fall behind until later, at which point he's only ahead of Caitlyn and Ashe. He also has the longest lasting invisibility outside of permanent ones which have their own drawbacks (Teemo, Eve), surpassing even the duration of all invisibility-granting ultimates, and he gets bonus movement speed for that duration. I don't see how he's fragile early on or has a lack of escape tools.

      Lee Sin can "pin down enemies with crowd control," but really I don't see how. He has one form of hard-CC and it's a knockback whichs lasts only 1 second. If his strength is to pin down enemies with CC, what's Morgana's strength, who can lock down an enemy in place for 4.5 seconds? Leona's, who can chain CC to keep an enemy from moving for about 3 seconds? If his strength is outmaneveuring his foes, what's LeBlanc's strength, who has 2 dashes and 2 blinks? Ekko's, who has a skillshot dash, a targeted blink, and an instant potentially global auto-targeted blink?

      Cho'Gath is "slow and cumbersome," despite being ahead of most every other champion in terms of movement speed. Graves gets "up close and personal with his enemies," despite having projectile ability ranges of near one thousand and an ultimate with almost two thousand range (not the largest, but definitely not up close and personal), as well as being ahead of multiple other marksmen in basic attack range and only having slightly under the norm, among other marksmen.

      Twitch is noted as fragile and with a lack of escape tools because of the massive delay of his stealth mechanics if he takes damage, meaning he can't use it effectively in a trade or an enemy gank unless he has foreknowledge of it. Add to that his reliance on basic attacking to deal the majority of his damage, he has to opperate in extended trades, while most marksmen outdamage/zero him out by means of sheer burst damage in lesser windows of time early on. Having good stats in the squishy category still means you are a squishy.

      While the Lee's kit is very generalistic, which makes it difficult to pin down a proper description, but locking down an opponent and outmaneuvering then isn't an inaccurate description, since his major lategame contribution is based around Insec-style kicks on enemies into your own team, which requires you to outmaneuver your foes. You mention Leblanc and Ekko, what do they have to do with this? Just because they have potent mobility doesn't invalidate Lee's major strengths in any way. You can make a similar comparison to say...Kassadin and Leblanc. Both of their strengths double down around heavy mobility, but it's still their major strength. Just because you have champions with similar styles, doesn't take away that, that's their major contribution to a game.

      Cho may have good movement speed, but he has no movespeed steroid, no dash, targeted or otherwise, meaning he has to rely in his very telegraphed CC to catch you and walk into melee range to burst you down, hence the "slow and cumbersome" definition. Graves has a resistance steroid for in battle occassions, a dash that gives attack speed and his primary nuke relies on you having to move close to his all 3 bullets. "Getting up close and personal" is pretty much what he's about.

        Loading editor
    • Well, Jason isn't that wrong about Lee Sin's crowd control though. I think replacing "pin down enemies with crowd control" with "cripple enemies with crowd control" could be more appropriate. Usually just changing a word is enough.

      (Speaking of it, if I wanted to point out other slight changes like this, should I use the original topic?) 

        Loading editor
    • Kind-Hearted-One wrote:
      I think League of Legends wikia would work better. This isn't a vanity project.

      Say, are you going to include this or are you going to trick people into believing you're working for Riot?

      http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com/index.php?title=Twitch&diff=2274862&oldid=2274738

      Or maybe Will is indeed a Riot Champion Bio Designer?


      @Damon, yes, you should use that topic

        Loading editor
    • I'd leave the League of Legends Wikia "signature". It's just a formality after all, and avoids any misunderstandings that might happen.

        Loading editor
    • Isn't assuming that any component of the wiki is a direct quote from Riot more complex than assuming that it's content written directly on-site? If you truly want to implement that signature thing, why not add a "League of Legends Wiki" signature to every paragraph on the attack speed, movement speed or various item articles? Clearly, the information there wasn't written on Rito's official site, so we must openly state that the content was written by an editor here, unless they happen to be a Riot Game Design Description Designer.

        Loading editor
    • Oh, so you still deny that those descriptions are subjective, while every other information on the main pages is either pure facts or Riot's recommendations, excluding, of course, strategy pages.

      I expect an answer from KHO not from you anyway.

        Loading editor
    • Perhaps I may be reading this wrong, but this is a forum thread, not an exchange on a message wall. If your goal is simply to irritate KHO rather than not-so-subtly try to derail this project, then perhaps you should post on their wall. Or better yet, don't.

      I also think that, while the flavor text on a description may be subjective, the descriptions themselves are accurate and objectively do list off champions' genuine strengths and roles. Even if it were purely subjective, there would be no reason to add a quote.

        Loading editor
    • People must know these descriptions don't come from Riot so they won't use them in an argument. Also they must know they are free to edit them, like how anyone is free to edit the strategy pages.

      Why would I post on KHO's wall, when here I have visibility and others can come and agree with me? Or better yet, don't. says everything: you don't even want my opinion, you hate being opposed.

      Now please, follow Neon's tips and stop being a jerk.

        Loading editor
    • The LoLWiki is a third party site. Everything here doesn't come from Riot. Again, those "objective" descriptions on stat articles were created here, and all written content here is made on-site. There is no point to special-casing champion descriptions.

      It is also rich of you to call me a jerk immediately after casually dismissing my reply to you, on the grounds that you were only looking to interact with a specific person. Considering your behavior on here and various message walls, mine included, has been tremendously immature and borderline offensive, I would advise you to take your own advice, and stop antagonizing people on this wiki.

        Loading editor
    • Why are we still answering and discussing with an obvious troll?

      As for whether they should be on the main or strategy champion pages, I still think they should be in the main one. The reason is simple: when a newbie enters one of the champions' pages, it'd be the first thing they see, their "guideline".

      As for the Strategy pages, I digress what should be done with them. Not my thing.

        Loading editor
    • DamonDraven wrote:
      Well, Jason isn't that wrong about Lee Sin's crowd control though. I think replacing "pin down enemies with crowd control" with "cripple enemies with crowd control" could be more appropriate. Usually just changing a word is enough.

      (Speaking of it, if I wanted to point out other slight changes like this, should I use the original topic?) 

      Yes, and that's a good change which I'll implement right now.

        Loading editor
    • If Twitch has so much as a ward in river or even a suspicion of a gank he can get into a position to use his Q without getting interrupted, then easily get out. Yes it requires some forethought - by which I mean 1.5 seconds of it. Having the tankier end of stats on a squishy certainly doesn't make you no longer a squishy, but it does mean you aren't squishy for your role. Also, other champions who are squishy don't have that mentioned. Why does Twitch, who is on the tankier end of squishies early, have the fact that he is squishy early mentioned when others like Ahri have their squishiness left out entirely?

      Kog'Maw has 0 mobility and the slowest base movement speed in the game, yet he's not mentioned as slow or stationary. "Kog'Maw makes up for his lack in speed with range", yet "Cho'Gath is slow and cumbersome," according to their descriptions. Cho'Gath is faster than Kog'Maw, but due to wording, the descriptions clearly imply that Kog'Maw is simply not very fast while Cho'Gath is extremely slow, but the opposite is true.

      Graves is still a marksman and he still has medium-high range abilities. His burst is slightly increased when he uses a point-blank Q, and yeah he's fairly tanky for a marksman, but as you said - having good stats on a squishy still means you're a squishy. He generally still benefits more from being in the back line than the front line, because a slight increase in his own damage doesn't mean that he won't instantly die if he tries to get up in an enemy tank or assassin's face in order to get slightly increased damage.

      As for Lee, his power is in mobility, I'll agree, but these are comparisons, in the end. If every other champion in the game had more mobility, his strength would be in his displacement ultimate or true sight and mobility wouldn't even be mentioned because it's subpar to everyone else's. In that case, his mobility would be invalidated by theirs, the only difference here is that there are less champions with that amount of mobility - but his mobility still isn't as good as a fair few others'. His ability to reveal stealthed targets could be mentioned, since that's something he does better than any other champion in the game but it's completely left out.

      What I'm seeing here is a lot of innacuracy or misleading wording and I fail to see how that helps new players get a feel of the fantasy of playing a champion. That was the original goal, but as far as I can tell, it's not being achieved.

        Loading editor
    • But Cho'Gath IS slow and cumbersome. Yes, he has a relatively high movement speed, but he's got zero mobility. He's the original juggernaut, and it's part of his fantasy to be this big, scary monster that will eat you alive if he gets his paws on you.

      Graves may still have decent range for a marksman, but you're looking at it wrong. His fantasy IS indeed being the tough marksman who gets in your face and bursts you down. Besides, I do mention in the description how later in the game he must play less recklessly because his resistances aren't enough to keep him safe.

      Lee's displacement ult is mentioned, and, as you said, his power is mobility. If you ask a Lee main what defines Lee, they'd say its his good in-fight mobility and his versatility. Yes, he can reveal stealthed targets, but that's too small a niche to be focused on. How many champions can stealth in this game? Five pr six? Being able to reveal six champions in a game isn't enough of a niche to be mentioned, so of course it's left out. We have to prioritize.

      As for Twitch's squishiness being mentioned, the fact is that unlike other marksmen, Twitch has no escapes, so while his base stats may be SLIGHTLY higher than normal, that doesn't mean jackshit in face of the fact that he needs to plan his fights very carefully because he can't easily disengage from them. As for why Ahri's squishiness isn't mentioned, it's because she has a crapton of mobility to counter that fact. Yes, you are squishy, but so is every mage.

        Loading editor
    • KHO is right. You can argue on slight number differences, but that doesn't detract from the bios, which give the big lines on how a champion is supposed to be and how they work. Cho does objectively have low mobility, and Graves does have a relatively short overall attack range for a marksman, plus a kit that encourages getting up close. Lee's mobility will never be sub-par because it's already intended to be top-tier. Champion descriptions will have to be comparative to some degree, since they're meant to list what makes a champion stand out, but that doesn't mean those comparisons will become inaccurate in the future. Even if Riot somehow releases a hundred champions more mobile than Lee Sin, that would still leave over a hundred more champions with less mobility than him.

        Loading editor
    • Willbachbakal wrote:
      The LoLWiki is a third party site. Everything here doesn't come from Riot. Again, those "objective" descriptions on stat articles were created here, and all written content here is made on-site. There is no point to special-casing champion descriptions.

      It is also rich of you to call me a jerk immediately after casually dismissing my reply to you, on the grounds that you were only looking to interact with a specific person. Considering your behavior on here and various message walls, mine included, has been tremendously immature and borderline offensive, I would advise you to take your own advice, and stop antagonizing people on this wiki.

      We post here information that comes directly from Riot or facts about their game, not our own opinions like those bios are. I see you objective between " " so you also don't believe those are objective. Or maybe you don't know how to use " ", that may be too.

      I didn't dismiss your reply, I answered it, didn't I?

      And I'm really tired of your bad taste critique.

        Loading editor
    • Even riot said multiple times that Graves is supposed to get in your face.

      • The fact that he has a 1800 range skill doesn't mean anything when its cooldown is 100 to 80 seconds.
      • His Buckshot bread-and-butter skill is most effective when used in close range.
      • The "multiple" ADCs that have a shorter AA range than his are actually 2 on a total of 17. (Counting Kog'Maw's range as 500 is as stupid as treating Kayle as a melee champion.)

      I've never seen someone playing Lee for his ability to reveal stealthed targets. Simply because there aren't many stealth champions out there, like KHO said.

        Loading editor
    • Kind-Hearted-One wrote:
      Why are we still answering and discussing with an obvious troll?

      Why am I trying to have a discussion with some jerks?

      You considered my argument once, but since then you discovered that I'm a lower human being who doesn't deserve your answer.

        Loading editor
    • The bios also use information pulled from Riot and their game. We're not making flavor text out of thin air, so the argument that this is within the purview of this wiki still stands.

        Loading editor
    • Strategy pages also use information pulled from Riot and their game.

      You declared that you're for removing strategy pages because they're subjective.

      So how is your project better than strategy pages? It's not.

        Loading editor
    • Only some of that information comes directly from Riot, so that's not entirely accurate, but my assessment for strategy pages is that they're a) heavily unstable, since any change in itemization or champion roster would necessitate an update, whereas a champion's bio would only need an update if they or the game received an overhaul, and b) subjective, since a lot of its information is dependent on specific matchups, comps, and other extremely situational factors, which would be impossible and undesirable to list exhaustively on the wiki. By contrast, champion bios give a concise and accurate description of what a champion does and how they fit in the game. Ultimately, I don't think the removal of strategy pages should be a priority, and I may even be wrong about their removal, as I don't check them often and am therefore not too well-invested in them or well-informed, but I definitely think champion descriptions stand strongly enough on their own to merit staying.

        Loading editor
    • In strategy pages you write about builds and roles, which may vary depending on the player's preferences - that's why they're subjective. In these bios you write about what a champion does, and that is always the same, thus objective.

      Example. In a strategy page there may be written that Twisted Fate is best played with early CDR (Morello) or emphasis on getting towers (Lich Bane): subjective. In the bio you'd just say that he has map control and pushing capabilities: objective, because it's true even if you try something as yolo as playing TF top or ADC.

        Loading editor
    • I'm not really seeing much sense in the points you're making. You repeat that Cho is slow and cumbersome, but you don't really mention anything other than that he has relatively high movement speed and he's dangerous if he catches up with you. He has no mobility abilities, but that doesn't mean every champion without mobility abilities is slow and cumbersome - would Zyra be described that way?

      Graves outranges 5 marksmen, not 2. The fact that you think it's stupid to count Kog'Maw's range as what it actually is is your opinion. He's also on par with 2 others, or 3 if you count Azir (which is up to you - he essentially is just an AP version of a marksman, and that is his secondary role). The next 8 marksmen who outrange him do so only by 25 units, the difference is barely noticeable until you get to Varus, Ashe, Caitlyn, and Tristana at later levels.

      You may be right that people don't play Lee for his ability to reveal stealthed champions (11 can stealth, double the number you said), but it's possibly the only thing he can do better than anyone else. If a newer player wanted to play a champion with good mobility, then these bios should point out the mobility of the champions with the most of it, not champions like Lee Sin who only have two targeted dashes, one of which requires a skillshot to be landed first and the other is only a dash when used on a different ally. I'd say even Katarina has more mobility with an extremely low-cooldown and resetting decent movement speed boost and a fairly low cooldown targeted blink which can also reset. I'll just say this again - if a champion's noted strength is something that so many other champions are better at, why is the the noted strength? Why not the thing that they are the best at out of every other champion in the game?

      Yet again you say Twitch has no escapes. Aside from the longest-duration invisibility in the game which also provides a movement speed boost which can be activated in 1.5 seconds, or in other words is basically uninterruptable as long as Twitch has an ounce of foresight?

      EDIT: Another issue about Twitch's noted squishiness in the early game.

      In response to asking why Twitch was mentioned as squishy in the early game despite having above average stats in the early game in comparison with others in his group: "Having good stats in the squishy category still means you are a squishy."

      In response to asking why Ahri was not mentioned as squishy despite being squishy: "Yes, you are squishy, but so is every mage."

      Furthermore, this brought to my attention another discrepency in your argument. Graves' ultimate, despite having a decently long range, is discredited due to having 100-80 second cooldown. "The fact that he has a 1800 range skill doesn't mean anything when its cooldown is 100 to 80 seconds."

      Yet, Ahri, despite having only a brief burst of movement speed on her Q, has "a crapton of mobility" because of her ultimate. Which is on a 110-80 second cooldown.

        Loading editor
    • JasonWildBlade wrote:
      I'm not really seeing much sense in the points you're making. You repeat that Cho is slow and cumbersome, but you don't really mention anything other than that he has relatively high movement speed and he's dangerous if he catches up with you. He has no mobility abilities, but that doesn't mean every champion without mobility abilities is slow and cumbersome - would Zyra be described that way?

      Graves outranges 5 marksmen, not 2. The fact that you think it's stupid to count Kog'Maw's range as what it actually is is your opinion. He's also on par with 2 others, or 3 if you count Azir (which is up to you - he essentially is just an AP version of a marksman, and that is his secondary role). The next 8 marksmen who outrange him do so only by 25 units, the difference is barely noticeable until you get to Varus, Ashe, Caitlyn, and Tristana at later levels.

      You may be right that people don't play Lee for his ability to reveal stealthed champions (11 can stealth, double the number you said), but it's possibly the only thing he can do better than anyone else. If a newer player wanted to play a champion with good mobility, then these bios should point out the mobility of the champions with the most of it, not champions like Lee Sin who only have two targeted dashes, one of which requires a skillshot to be landed first and the other is only a dash when used on a different ally. I'd say even Katarina has more mobility with an extremely low-cooldown and resetting decent movement speed boost and a fairly low cooldown targeted blink which can also reset. I'll just say this again - if a champion's noted strength is something that so many other champions are better at, why is the the noted strength? Why not the thing that they are the best at out of every other champion in the game?

      Yet again you say Twitch has no escapes. Aside from the longest-duration invisibility in the game which also provides a movement speed boost which can be activated in 1.5 seconds, or in other words is basically uninterruptable as long as Twitch has an ounce of foresight? May I also note that on one occasion I was told that squishy champions are squishy, even if they are less squishy than other squishies, and that's why it is mentioned. Yet now I'm being told that squishiness is not being mentioned because every other champion of the same role is squishy as well.

      Essentially, I'm being told that a squishy who isn't very squishy is still mentioned as squishy because their group is squishy, but a squishy who is as squishy as the other members of their group is not being mentioned as squishy because everyone else is squishy too. You can't tell me one thing in response to something I said, then tell me something that disagrees with your first reply in response to something else I say.

      If a champion can be blown up by a full assassin/mage combo, they are squishies by nature or are squishy because their deffensive steroids/items still aren't online.

      And a 1.5 second arm on anything is piss poor to use in most situations especially escape situations when you are always certain to atleast take an instance of damage thus pushing the arm time to a full 6 seconds. Using it on trades is suicide, teamfights aswell. Escapes are escapes regardless of the situation. Champions like Lucian, Graves, Kassadin, Leblanc even Kennen can instantly evade or reposition on the drop. You mention foresight...no matter how much you ward, or evade skillshots or anything, you will in a game get caught in a flank or eat a hook/bind and as Twitch you have no way of escaping that unlike any of the champions above mentioned. Twitch's lack of instant escapes, lack of innate peel and his reliance on longer trades and skirmishes alongside his squishy base stats makes him more vulnerable to burst/all ins, thus making him a particullarly fragile target. In that paradign, he's very similar to Kog'Maw.

      You considering Katarina more mobile than Lee is...simply absurd. Kata doesn't half of Lee's chase or evasion potential or ability to enter the middle of the enemy team and engage on a priority target. And just because you have champions that excel at the same function over others doesn't take away from what their core strength is, it simply means they are outclassed in it. Viktor outclassing Anivia as a control mage, doesn't take away the fact that Anivia is a control mage and that is what she brings as her major strength.

      Cho is a melee tank and you're comparing him to a CC long range mage? Really? High base MS means jack when you're a melee champion with mostly telegraphed spells with long cast times and your major burst has to be dealt at melee range aswell. Compare that to a Nautilus/Maokai/Sion/Sejuani/Skarner/Rek'Sai, they can close the gap on you in some way. You ask the parameters of considering Cho "slow and cumbersome"? Melee range, no gapclosers, no movement steroids, long cast time spells and melee range ultimate. 

      You mentioned Graves AA range? And you're point...is? Would you say that Vayne isn't a short range ADC despite having a base 550 AA range? You look at things as separate elements, while these descriptions are looking at the whole of a champion's playstyle.

        Loading editor
    • The fact that there's already this much arguing over the content of the bios suggests pretty clearly to me that this project isn't very watertight, regardless of the quality of the complaints.

      Even if said complaints are poorly informed and justified equally badly (and I'm not saying they are or will be), are you prepared to have to have this conversation every time someone comes in and openly disagrees with how it's written? Or worse, edits and rewords it into something that you disagree with?

        Loading editor
    • the disagreement is minoritary, though, and the vast majority of that disagreement comes from a single person. Not only are the odds of another person doing the same thing fairly rare, but in any case the members of this project would be more than happy to talk them through it. The only major issue I see here, aside from the single troll attempting to derail this conversation, is the bureaucracy's overall apathy towards stabilizing the situation.

        Loading editor
    • About the squishy thing, I edited my comment to make my point more clear about my issue with you telling me why certain champions' descriptions say they are squishy but others' do not.

      You are being very subjective in my opinion here. You say 1.5 arm time is piss poor, or that Twitch's escape is weaker because it's not instant. I do not agree - Lucian and Graves, for example, have very, very short ranged dashes that are instant, but for just a very short arm time Twitch gets up to 8 seconds of invisibility and a movement speed buff. Perhaps you should change the wording of the description to "lack of instant escape tools." As for the issue I retain with him being marked as fragile and "weak and vulnerable early on," see my other comments and paragraph 1 of this comment.

      Range has nothing to do with movement speed. Whether he is melee or not, he is faster than Kog'Maw but the descriptions make him sound much slower. Sion's only gapcloser is his ultimate, yet when I mentioned Graves having an ultimate of long range, it was counted by you as irrelevant due to it's long cooldown. Sion's ultimate overall has a much longer cooldown than Graves' (far higher at rank 1, a little higher at rank 2, a little lower at rank 3). Why do you get to decide when the cooldown of an ability is relevant to its, well, relevance, but I do not get to decide? If we aren't including CC as a gapcloser, many melee champions have no gapcloser outside of their ultimate, or none at all, yet they are generally not described as slow or cumbersome.

      I wouldn't say that Vayne is not short-ranged, because the maximum range of all of her abilities and attacks are 550. However, Graves has an attack range of 525 but abilities with ranges of 950 and up to 1800. For example, you would describe Kog'Maw's range as extremely high, despite having an attack range of only 500, so clearly if basic attack range is the only short-ranged attack the champion has while the rest of their ranges are decently high, they are still high ranged.

      Please do not make assumptions about the way I think or view things. If you'll notice, I've taken direct or nearly direct quotations of yours to describe what you have previously said to me (look at anything that I've said "you have said" or "you would say" about and I will show you where you specifically said that). It's very condescending to say "you view this one way, but it's actually another way," especially if that's not even the way I view it anyway.

        Loading editor
    • Graves can be described with "long but relatively weak poke". I like the suggestion you made about Twitch. No one said Sion had mobility though.

      Sorry for these short points but I don't have the head to talk more about them right now. I'll get further into them tomorrow.

        Loading editor
    • JasonWildBlade wrote:
      About the squishy thing, I edited my comment to make my point more clear about my issue with you telling me why certain champions' descriptions say they are squishy but others' do not.

      You are being very subjective in my opinion here. You say 1.5 arm time is piss poor, or that Twitch's escape is weaker because it's not instant. I do not agree - Lucian and Graves, for example, have very, very short ranged dashes that are instant, but for just a very short arm time Twitch gets up to 8 seconds of invisibility and a movement speed buff. Perhaps you should change the wording of the description to "lack of instant escape tools." As for the issue I retain with him being marked as fragile and "weak and vulnerable early on," see my other comments and paragraph 1 of this comment.

      Range has nothing to do with movement speed. Whether he is melee or not, he is faster than Kog'Maw but the descriptions make him sound much slower. Sion's only gapcloser is his ultimate, yet when I mentioned Graves having an ultimate of long range, it was counted by you as irrelevant due to it's long cooldown. Sion's ultimate overall has a much longer cooldown than Graves' (far higher at rank 1, a little higher at rank 2, a little lower at rank 3). Why do you get to decide when the cooldown of an ability is relevant to its, well, relevance, but I do not get to decide? If we aren't including CC as a gapcloser, many melee champions have no gapcloser outside of their ultimate, or none at all, yet they are generally not described as slow or cumbersome.

      I wouldn't say that Vayne is not short-ranged, because the maximum range of all of her abilities and attacks are 550. However, Graves has an attack range of 525 but abilities with ranges of 950 and up to 1800. For example, you would describe Kog'Maw's range as extremely high, despite having an attack range of only 500, so clearly if basic attack range is the only short-ranged attack the champion has while the rest of their ranges are decently high, they are still high ranged.

      Please do not make assumptions about the way I think or view things. If you'll notice, I've taken direct or nearly direct quotations of yours to describe what you have previously said to me (look at anything that I've said "you have said" or "you would say" about and I will show you where you specifically said that). It's very condescending to say "you view this one way, but it's actually another way," especially if that's not even the way I view it anyway.

      I find it amusing that you complain about us making assumptions, when you are making your own. 

      Let's run some examples. I'm top lane Kennen, going for a TP/ult engage on the ADC on two games. In one we have a Twitch, in the other Lucian. Flash summoner spell aside and assuming equal player capacity. I can catch Twitch with my ultimate and burst him 100-0 after a certain point with a R-W even if he stealth's or not. On the other hand, Lucian will E away from my ult range, pop the W movespeed and kite me to hell and back. Graves is more than likely to W to blind my vision, dash out and burst me down. That's the difference. And that is not subjective. And i also find it amusing that you say for me view your previous comments about Twitch's frailty when i actually gave you several reasons (dependancy of longer trades, lack of instant escape tools, lack of peel, squishy deffensive stats) why this is and you apparently glossed over then.

      Another one. I'm toplane Cho'Gath in one game and Maokai in the other and build Righteous Glory in both champions for the engage, pop it and go in. On Mao i can simply pop the W after getting in cast range an i just lockdown my opponent instantly. What do i do on Cho? I can silence my opponent, but that won't make him stop moving. I can knock him up, but the delay makes it so i can literally avoid it by walking to the side. That's the difference. Most pure tank based characters have some form of reliable lockdown or way to close the gap or both. Cho does not. And being a gigantic melee tank with telegraphed spells, no gapclosers and having to get in melee range to reliably kill you is being "slow and cumbersome". Hell i think a Rioter even described him in the Red Post forums of SS@20 in similar terms when talking about rework possibilities and his gameplay style.

      And you keep tunneling on MS, when in reality base MS is worth jack on alot of characters. You could decrease Vi's MS to 325 (actually they shaved 5 MS from her a few months ago), the lowest in the game and she'll still be one of the most mobile junglers due to her double dash. Same thing with Zed as an assassin midlaner. Trist has 325 movespeed and she is one of the most mobile ADC due to her 900 range dash. Kalista is the mobility based ADCand she has 325 movespeed. Xerath has 340 movespeed, which is above average and he's still one of the easiest mages to kill when you close the gap on him, compared to Ziggs who shares several kit similarities and 325 movespeed but can escape and peel away with a W.

      Also in terms of cooldown ultimates, you don't take into account build paths. Sion will build 40% CDR in almost all occassions, lowering his ult CD to 35'ish seconds, meaning if planned correctly he can use it twice in a teamfight. Graves on the other hand has a higher rank 3 CD and builds almost no CDR outside of an occassional Ghostblade, which means his ult CD will be in the ball park of 75-70 seconds, twich of Sion's own. Outside of that Graves has one offensive spell which is his Q, that requires close range contact to deal full burst damage and a deffensive steroid that pops in combat. Did you know that Graves more recent number tweaks was to his Q, where Riot made it so it could deal more damage from upclose, but less from a poke based perspective since that was the intended playstyle they layed out for Graves. 

        Loading editor
    • To add more controversy in the discussion, I added champion descriptions for Shaco and Vel'Koz, two of my mains, and I will continue to do so until instructed otherwise by an administrator or by popular consent.

        Loading editor
    • Hey, someone deleted the Shaco one! At least notify me beforehand, or check with me. 

        Loading editor
    • Also, to contribute to this discussion, I think the idea is brilliant. For one, it helps new players understand what the champion's playstyle is, because when I first started playing, I couldn't make heads or tails of the scalings and descriptions and such, and the strategy page is quite unforgving to new players because it assumes you have a decent amount of prior knowledge, then just continuing forward by describing the champion's synergy and build path, not really a solid overall description. Secondly, it adds a sense of contribution to the wiki. You say we shouldn't mess with the official stuff? Then how come we have all these pages about abilities and healing and armor that are completely done by us? I hold that we have some say in the matter of how a champion is recieved by new players.

      Secondly, a lot of you are saying that the descriptions are too subjective and will constantly fluctuate with the meta (e.g., reworks, ADC Ahri, etc.). For one, we can certainly change a description if a champion is being reworked, or not include one if we know they will be soon- such as Poppy or Taric. You probably won't have to overhaul a general description if the champion in question is simply tweaked or had some power shifted. Secondly, yeah, you can do ADC Ahri, or tank Shaco, or AP Riven. But that doesnt mean you should. Classes and the champions they encompass are there for a reason. It doesn't matter if you've had success playing a mage as an ADC or an assassin as a tank (coughEkkocough), but its plain dumb, and more likely attributed to the skill of your opponents (or lack thereof) than yours. Ahri was given powerful, AP-scaling spells that synergize with each other, she has low base auto-attack damage, so she is a mage. Shaco is useless without damage and has no hard/impactful CC, no initiation, and no defensive abilities, and thus is a poor choice for a tank. Its not a matter of if you can, its a matter of if you should, because I've played with AP Rivens and crit cahnce Vel'Ki before. It wasn't pretty. Plus, for all this talk of repsecting Riot's wishes and not putting our own thoughts on the official wiki champion page, you sure seem to think class-bending against Riot's intentions is okay.

        Loading editor
    • AphidSenseiRage wrote:
      To add more controversy in the discussion, I added champion descriptions for Shaco and Vel'Koz, two of my mains, and I will continue to do so until instructed otherwise by an administrator or by popular consent.

      You'd better add those to the comment section of blog about the descriptions linked in KHO's proclamation. Since it's his/her original project and to avoid accusations of vandalism and such, it's better to add those to the blog and let KHO also read them. 

        Loading editor
    • I have no idea what assumptions you think I'm making, but I'm not making any. Please point them out, telling me that I'm doing something without actually telling me what I'm doing is the opposite of helpful.

      If the player sees the Teleport, Twitch obviously has a better chance of escape than Lucian, because he has 4 seconds to use his Q, meaning he'll easily go invisible in time to escape. For Lucian to proc Ardent Blaze's movement speed, he'll have to stand close enough to Kennen for a long enough duration to take probably at least 2 bolts from Slicing Maelstrom without his ultimate, and has a decent chance of dying for it. If the player doesn't see the teleport, unless they're standing right next to the bush the teleport came from, I have no doubt that Twitch can keep out of Kennen's attack range and dodge a Q to get the invisibility and escape easily.

      You mention that Twitch relies on extended trades, but I disagree. He relies on poison and stacking, yes, but he relies on getting enough attack speed to assassinate in an extremely quick trade, and staying out of trades beforehand - not because he has bad defense but because he's reliant on a stat which he needs items for. His lack of instant escape tools does not make him frail - especially because his slightly less-than-instant escape tool is so powerful. As for being a squishy, he still has decently high defensive stats, and as for lack of peel, he still has more than others such as Lucian, whom you are implying is far less frail.

      I OBVIOUSLY NEED TO CLARIFY SOMETHING HERE. I am not saying Cho'Gath is not slow because of his lack of mobility abilities, and I'm not saying he's super fast because of his decent base movement speed. Here is what I am saying: in every possible way, Cho'Gath is faster than Kog'Maw, yet their descriptions show that Cho is slow and cumbersome yet Kog has a slight lack in speed.

      I'm not ignoring build path, but the fact that you are implying that certain champions must get 40% CDR while others should get none is rather subjective in my opinion. I don't doubt that there is a viable 40% CDR build for Graves nor a 0% CDR build for Sion. Build paths weren't intended by Riot, they were suggestions to help display an intended playstyle, but similar playstyles can be achieved with different builds.

      Lastly, I request that you look at the comment I made before my previous one. I made a change to it after originally posting which adds clarification to my statement, as well as points out 2 clear discrepancies in what I am being told which I would like to be addressed.

      I honestly hate to be condescending as well but I feel like I'm completely being misunderstood and regardless of the fact that this may or may not be condescending (and I promise it's not intended to be), but I am going to now make a list of the problems I would like adressed solely in order to keep away from arguments or misunderstandings.

      Firstly, I would like you to either point out where I was making an assumption and what it was and how it was false.

      Secondly, I would like you to look at the comment I made before the previous one and read everything after the edit and explain that discrepancy.

      Thirdly, I would like you to tell me why Twitch is mentioned as squishy and Ahri is not (more on that in the edit I requested you view).

      Fourthly, I would like you to tell me why Cho'Gath's description makes him sound much slower than Kog'Maw's description when he is actually faster.

        Loading editor
    • Kog's bio states "what he lacks in speed and survivability [...]", which does indicate his immobility. Ultimately, whether this makes him sound faster than Cho'Gath is a judgment of value you, and you alone, are making, hence why you're basing yourself on assumptions. Ultimately, this kind of criticism is moot, because not only are you nitpicking minor aspects of wording that can easily be fixed over time if needed, but you're also projecting your own subjective analysis onto what is ultimately a set of far more general, objective and accurate descriptions.

        Loading editor
    • You may be right that it's just my judgment, but honestly which would you say sounds slower - "slow and cumbersome" or "lacking in speed?" I have a feeling you would make the same judgment as I did, and so would essentially every other new player who would be looking at this. My complaint is that its implications are innacurate or at the very least its wording is misleading and an extremely minor change could be made to fix the situation, yet this simple change is not being made, for no reason being shared with me other than that the problem is a minor aspect. 

        Loading editor
    • You have the power to suggest this change by posting on KHO's blog, and even designing a bio of your own. This thread, however, is about approving the project's development in the first place, which is why discussing the details on the wording of a particular bio detracts from the topic more than it helps. Ultimately, I think the response for this project has been overwhelmingly positive, despite vocal opposition from a select few, and so I think it might be worth asking an admin to give the project an official greenlight, but you can continue to contribute by offering criticism of bios and suggestions to change them, and even develop your own bios to add to the mainspace if you so wish.

        Loading editor
    • I did and you continue to ignore it...i gave a full list of reasons backing Cho's description. Aside from that you have to factor Kog's much superior range and thus ability to kite melee characters (including Cho to hell and back) partially over-rides his lack of movespeed and escape tools plus he is still mentioned as an immobile character being on of his primary weaknesses. Cho on the other hand can't kite anyone, can't escape unless burning Flash and his engage tools are extremely telegraphed. If you ever read the Rioter forums and posts, the community and the Rioters agree that Cho is meant to be a slow moving behemoth, it's what he was designed as. 

      Twitch is mentioned as fragile not squishy. There's a difference. Not all squishy champions are inherently fragile. Why? Because they have some sort of ability that can at least partially detter or counter act a hostile engage. Self peel, instant burst, mobility spells, lockdown CC. Ahri has 3 of the 4 parameters here. Thus she has the ability to instantly evade and counter-engage on an attacking foe, making her much less fragile than Twitch. Twitch on the other hand, has none of the parameters noted.

      In the hypercarry category he's the most AA dependant champion, with his only burst spell being severely AA reliant meaning that even with attack speed his burst is still delayed when compared to the burst of conventional casters. On the other hand you have Vayne, a less fragile character due to her self peel and mobility. And the fact that in the lategame she can kill any non-tank with single Silver Bolts proc. Draven with AD, crit and his Q can 2-shot most squishy characters. Jinx has more on-demand AOE and burst overall. 

      As for the rest you i won't go over it again. This is a matter of you having a subjective view of your own and ignoring alot of what's already been said here. 

        Loading editor
    • @Darksusanoo, you're being extremely condescending and downright insulting my competency to do so much as read your replies, which I have been doing thoroughly, and I am no longer responding to you for any reason because our discussion was the exact opposite of productive.

      @Willbachbakal, I was not discussing details on the wording of a particular bio until I was drawn into arguing about it (not that I'm not at fault for arguing), but I was merely providing examples of why this project seems to have some aspects which would be doing the opposite of helping newer players because of misleading or simply incorrect wording. That's why I felt that at least some of the comments I made had a better place here than KHO's blog. I will be happy to make some of my points about wording changes over there, since as far as the actual bios go, they're just minor issues. However, I maintain that some of the descriptions being kept as of yet are misleading and will not fulfill the project's goal of helping newer players, but the opposite.

        Loading editor
    • DamonDraven wrote:
      In strategy pages you write about builds and roles, which may vary depending on the player's preferences - that's why they're subjective. In these bios you write about what a champion does, and that is always the same, thus objective.

      Constant doesn't equal objective. Changing doesn't equal subjective.


      @Dark, I don't understand how can you be so arrogant as to say Jason has a subjective wrong view while you have the right objective view.

      @Will, is the bureaucracy's overall apathy towards stabilizing the situation I agree, how can they allow 3 jerks to bully anyone they want and then continue with their project?

        Loading editor
    • Are you telling me that Twisted Fate being a pusher with map control isn't objective, and that what you can build on him isn't subjective?

        Loading editor
    • Put words in my mouth more please.

      Anyway, this thread is absolute, I don't understand why it isn't closed.

        Loading editor
    • JasonWildBlade wrote:
      You may be right that it's just my judgment, but honestly which would you say sounds slower - "slow and cumbersome" or "lacking in speed?" I have a feeling you would make the same judgment as I did, and so would essentially every other new player who would be looking at this. My complaint is that its implications are innacurate or at the very least its wording is misleading and an extremely minor change could be made to fix the situation, yet this simple change is not being made, for no reason being shared with me other than that the problem is a minor aspect. 

      I mean, this is kind of a moot point. The point is whether the project is good or not, not about individual bios. You can indeed raise the point on whether Cho or Kog's descriptions are accurate on my blog, and the feedback will be listened to, I guarantee you; we did change Lee Sin's description after people pointed out how him losing damage in the late game is merely a build path and not the champion's designed power curve.

        Loading editor
    • Vsagent wrote:
      DamonDraven wrote:
      In strategy pages you write about builds and roles, which may vary depending on the player's preferences - that's why they're subjective. In these bios you write about what a champion does, and that is always the same, thus objective.
      Constant doesn't equal objective. Changing doesn't equal subjective.
      Vsagent wrote:
      Put words in my mouth more please.

      In the same post, I made the same example about Twisted Fate. Yes, the one that you made sure not to quote.

      Now, either you ignored my example (why are you even considering my post if you don't take it all into account?), or you've actually read it but didn't understand it was part of the same argument, which I refuse to believe because I even said "Example" at the beginning. I take the right to explicitate the meaning of your posts if you don't say it, when they are a response to mine.

      You can't take a thing and consider it without context. That's the most cowardly/stupid (pick the one that you think suits you best) thing one can do in a discussion. And yes, it upsets me, because it's a cheap argumentation tactic that only works when used with unintelligent interlocutors.

        Loading editor
    • Do not fall for the bait, Damon~

        Loading editor
    • ZeloAvarosa
      ZeloAvarosa removed this reply because:
      Misspell
      12:35, August 10, 2015
      This reply has been removed
    • There is no use to arguing, the project requires all of the community to work together. If there are multiple personalities to what defines a certain champion doesnt mean they have to battle for space, they can both be placed in the description.

      Sure TF can be a utility mage with high range poke and a reliable stun and map wide reveal but he is also a strong ganked and tower pusher as well. Ekko can also be defined as a high utility slippery damage dealer of a high damage backline assasin. Anything is avaliable as long as the community believes it true

        Loading editor
    • DamonDraven wrote:

      In the same post, I made the same example about Twisted Fate. Yes, the one that you made sure not to quote.

      I hate wasting space so I didn't quote your entire post.


      What context? Examples are not context. If I take an example alone, then it's without context not vice versa.

        Loading editor
    • @KHO the only reason I brought that up was as an example of why I didn't think these would help new players and why was not in favor of this project, I thought it would be better to post it here, but since I have moved it to your blog, because it's more appropriate there.

        Loading editor
    • @Everyone why can't we just listen to Vsagent? Or, you know, at the very least, treat them like a human being?

        Loading editor
    • Because it's easier to mock than listen.

        Loading editor
    • Then to the point again, please tell me what's false about saying that effectiveness of builds is subjective while what a champion does is objective. I'll put it all in one paragraph: what Fizz does/has (%hp damage, decent mobility, assassination potential) is objective because it doesn't vary. His build effectiveness (AD tanky toplaner or AP mid assassin) is subjective because the preferences vary depending on the player.

      Let me say it in a different way: what's objective about a champion is their kit and lore, what's subjective is their best way of being played and/or built. Because whether you play Kayle building mainly AS, AP or AD, her kit will always be centered around dealing continuous damage and giving temporary invulnerability to an ally or herself, and she'll still be an angel of judgment.

      I did not intend to put words in your mouth. I asked for clarifications about what you were saying. You gave me none, so I'm asking again.

        Loading editor
    • Then to the point again, please tell me what's false about saying that effectiveness of builds is objective while what a champion does is subjective.

      You have to agree it makes sense this way too.

      There's nothing false, there's a lack of information and a lot of confusion.

      what's objective about a champion is their kit and lore

      Kit and lore are facts, not based on facts (objective).

      And there must exist an objective best way for a champion to be played and/or built.


      Something being objective or subjective is a matter of perspective.

      For example, Twitch being weak and vulnerable doesn't say if he has low stats or no gapcloser so it's subjective as it has more than one possible answer.

      Saying Kayle is centered around dealing continuous damage and giving temporary invulnerability to an ally or herself is objective, but saying she's an angel of judgment is pretty subjective because readers' perspectives (or understanding of this) may differ.

      That's why I prefer cut&dry information: facts. And those bios are far from that.

        Loading editor
    • Ok then. For Twitch's case, we can correct it with wording. In Kayle's case, that part would be omitted. Or changed - would mentioning that she has "her own sense of justice" be acceptable?

        Loading editor
    • @Kind-Hearted-One, here is the description I have for Vel'Koz.

      Vel'Koz, the Eye of the Void, is a skillshot-oriented poke mage who can harass his enemies from afar as well as burst them down in a single devastating combo. Vel'Koz's kit encourages and rewards players who can land skillshots in quick succession of one another due to his passive, which causes every third spell on a single target to deal bonus true damage if all three are landed in quick succession. And even if they manage to survive his exceptional E-W-Q combo, Vel'Koz also has his incredibly powerful ultimate at his disposal- a huge energy laser that carves a thick swathe of destruction through all but the most coordinated teams. He is not without is faults however- Vel'Koz is relatively immobile and also fairly squishy, and relies on a strong CC team to keep him safe, as his ultimate roots him in place, making initial positioning of prime importance.

        Loading editor
    • AphidSenseiRage
      AphidSenseiRage removed this reply because:
      Not necessary
      01:10, August 12, 2015
      This reply has been removed
    • You should post those in my blog, Aphid. Also, don't add them to pages, we're not doing that yet.

        Loading editor
    • Got it.

        Loading editor
    • Someone answer this for me: Why is a simple yes/no question turning into such a huge deal like this?


      Please explain.

        Loading editor
    • PINKNinja221 wrote:
      Someone answer this for me: Why is a simple yes/no question turning into such a huge deal like this?


      Please explain.

      Reasoning should be given for the answer (yes or no). That way, issues nay-sayers find with the project can be discussed and/or fixed, and people can read through the discussions of others - this could cause them to see points they previously missed and change their answer.

        Loading editor
    • I get why people have to give reasonings, but this has turned into argument after argument. That is what I meant by "big deal". Sorry for not using the proper wording.

        Loading editor
    • I think the discussion has been significantly bloated by the actions of one specific troll, but aside from that I think it's healthy that we have a certain degree of argumentation here, since the takeaway from this whole discussion has been that we need to be more inclusive with our contributors to this project, and more critical of our work so as to avoid errors of style. Overall, I do think we have a strong enough consensus to push this project forward, even with the arguments on this thread, but we also need to organize ourselves a little differently from our setup at the start.

        Loading editor
    • Not only one, 3!

        Loading editor
    • Vsagent wrote: Not only one, 3!

      *hysterical laughing intensifies

        Loading editor
    • Skipping tons of shit throwing and point out couple things.

      Again about the subject 'repeating what official site said' that's seems to come up time after time with hobby wikis. Do you want to be a parrot or do you want to be source of information? If the later, use references. If the former, copy & paste whole official site and be proud of what you have done and be the sole user of the site. Information is data that is collected, processed, evaluated and represented in a way that gives knowledge to the reader from that data without the need for the reader to got rough the actual data (except if he is skeptical about the process thus going after the reference). The argument about being objective and subjective is pointless as the intro would point to the facts why the champion is this and that. Lee Sin is mobile champion that has excellent gap closing (# to his Sonic Wave) and disengage (# to his Safeguard) abilities. And so on.

      Secondly burying the intro to some sub page is dead idiotic idea. It works just as well as asking the girls name in the next morning, after you slept with her. Feel free to disagree with me but from my experience all the wiki readers are looking for clear information about what the champion can do, what items work well with him/her/it and what are his cons and pros. Intro cowers both ends leaving item synergy for its own section. The huge block with numbers and bars looks nicely artistic but it does not really offer any information to the reader. Its data, pure numbers, that you can't even compare with others (and doing so in the first section would be too much). A intro with less numbers would offer something worth while to read. If you doubt the math (Is Vayne really games fastest attacker?), you send them after the references like champion Attacks Speed comparing List Page Article (or I would send them to attack speed where the comparing would be done and everything else attack speed related but thats not the way people like to do things in here).

        Loading editor
    • BlackSmith wrote: It works just as well as asking the girls name in the next morning, after you slept with her.

      What's wrong with that?

      Anyway arguments about this project are no longer considered here, Neon created another thread for this subject, free of your shit throwing.

      @Damon, I'm not the one deciding what's acceptable. But I want to have a say when it's decided what's not.

        Loading editor
    • Vsagent wrote: What's wrong with that?

      Well, for some reason girls are offended if you sleep with them and you don't know even their name. First things first and so on.

      Vsagent wrote: Anyway arguments about this project are no longer considered here, Neon created another thread for this subject, free of your shit throwing.
      Wow, another thread jumping.

      Aww cute, how nice and personal try for a insult from you. You mind pointing out where I have offended anyone with my whole two messages? I was referring to the personal attacks, like the ones you just made, that make this such a nice place.

        Loading editor
    • BlackSmith wrote:

      Well, for some reason girls are offended if you sleep with them and you don't know even their name. First things first and so on.

      Maybe they just want to sleep with you, not marry you...

      BlackSmith wrote:

      Wow, another thread jumping. Aww cute, how nice and personal try for a insult from you. You mind pointing out where I have offended anyone with my whole two messages? I was referring to the personal attacks, like the ones you just made, that make this such a nice place.

      I didn't attack you, you mentioned this shit throwing.

      Also saying stuff like this is kinda offensive unless you're talking about farmers.

        Loading editor
    • I think the "your" in "your shit throwing" meant "the shit throwing you mentioned". Just my two cents.

        Loading editor
    • The derailment is real.

        Loading editor
    • Agreed.

        Loading editor
    • So is the champion description project happening or not? At this point all i see is people tryna fight against a troll....which is ....fun....or something....

        Loading editor
    • Plant 05 wrote:
      So is the champion description project happening or not? At this point all i see is people tryna fight against a troll....which is ....fun....or something....

      Yes...as you can see additional descirptions we're added for Garen, Morde and Skarner...it's moving a bit slower but we're still online...

        Loading editor
    • Well someone removed my nami description :(

        Loading editor
    • Because they're not adding the descriptions to the champions' pages yet, and yours wasn't reviewed by one of the project's directors. Post you're description to KHO's blog for review first.

      Although I'm not a fan of how KHO is going about this. Gives the idea that champion descriptions must go through KHO first. It's great for quality control, but if the community has decided that the descriptions are fine then KHO is no more entitled to adding them than anyone else. If someone wants to contribute, they have to go through KHO? Why? Anyone can edit. We've never needed to go through another person before. Why do we need to now?

      By all means, edit it to make it appropriate. Don't remove it just because it messes with your plans, though. At least try to contact the editor first.

        Loading editor
    • I didn't remove it. And everything needs to go through another person here before it makes it to the pages, or else we wouldn't have admins.

      Also, if I'm the one setting the standards for the descriptions it's because a) I was the one who started this project and b) I think I have found the best model for these descriptions. As people like DarkSusanoo can attest to, if I see something worthwile in any suggestion, I keep it.

        Loading editor
    • KHO, the page history shows that you were the one to remove it. You even left a message for Plant.

      Admins? When have we needed to show the admins our edit and wait for them to edit it until it's up to their standards?

      If it's not up to your standards, that's fine. I have no problem with anyone editing it until it is. However, if someone adds a description before you, you shouldn't remove it because it doesn't fit into your plans. You may have started the project, but why should you be the only one to add the descriptions? Why must it go through you? Why do you need to force it to comply with your plans?

        Loading editor
    • Oh, I didn't remember which one it specifically was, I think some other people removed others.

      I didn't remove it because it wasn't into my plans. I removed it because we weren't adding descriptions yet.

      Why must it go through me? Because, again, I believe I have found the best model for these descriptions, and they should all follow a single unified model or else it would be a complete chaos. Besides, as I said, it's not like I'm bringing down the hammer. If there's good in the descriptions, I take it into account and try to find a way to include it.

        Loading editor
    • You removed it because your not adding descriptions yet? How do you not see how that's removing it because it didn't fit into your plans?

      It doesn't have to go through you first for you to edit it to your standards. You can edit it any time. You can unify any existing descriptions, or even just replace them when you start adding yours. That's the beauty of not needing to push your edit through someone first.

      While Plant's description did need editing, I felt it fit in your model fairly well. It didn't deviate to much, and any deviation could've been fixed.

        Loading editor
    • When this project started, the descriptions that had already been made were removed by the admins. That's what I meant when I said the descriptions aren't being added yet.

        Loading editor
    • Can you shed some light on that? It's pretty clear that you have a good amount of community support with this project now. While some of the mods have shown some apprehension, I don't see why they would remove the descriptions now. Unless they gave you a set of requirements, such as descriptions for all champions at the same time or something. I could see them removing it before, but now the situation has changed.

      I also don't see how that justifies you removing other descriptions.

        Loading editor
    • When I first started, I didn't follow the proper channels of discussion and posted the first description on my own, following after the example of the Aatrox one that had been months there, all alone. After a few days, all were deleted, my blog was locked and I was issued a warning by TehAnonymous. The lock was undone by NeonSpotlight and I opened the proper channels of discussion.

      From those I gathered that we had both community and mod support, but no definite conclusion was reached. Right now I'm just doing work on my blog and waiting to have a bigger body of work to present to spark an interest in the project again.

      As for why I removed other descriptions, true, I don't have the "right" to do that as an admin, but there's really no point in those being there, and if people start posting descriptions on their own it might hurt the project as a whole if it comes to be seen as arbitrary vandalism. That's why I'm trying to have all the descriptions follow a unified standard too.

        Loading editor
    • That makes sense. Surprised the Aatrox one survived for so long.

      I don't believe allowing other descriptions would hurt your project though. With all the work being poured in into this project, I don't think it will be seen as vandalism. But I suppose I can survive with you doing what you think is best for this project. I still feel you should at least post something on the editor's wall or something. It's a better medium than edit notes.

        Loading editor
    • You do seem to have a good grasp of the project, regardless, so your input would be welcome. Right now I'm stuck at the Darius description of the Juggernauts and waiting for Willbachbakal to present me his suggestion.

      After that I'd probably make a new blog post that is better presented and more actualized (like, using actual tabs instead of listing down every champion's description). After that, it's probably going to be some easier niche champions like Draven or Cassio.

        Loading editor
    • That's quite common way for those two to handle things. Anything that changes even slightly the wiki in looks needs to go through 'proper', their self defined, channels. Also everything is buried somewhere deep instead to the article's discussion page so that any mortal editor has hard time finding where the discussion or things should be handled. This emphases that only advanced level editors or good enough friends get their thoughts through.

      The idea about having descriptions at champion pages got the community's blessing but at least I didn't vote for something that is against 'everyone can edit' that this wiki (also) is all about.

      Being able to write descriptions and discuss about them at champion's own page would allow for free editing, discussion and openness, at its relevant place. Having a secret _blog_ somewhere that's content is regulated one dude is quite the opposite.

      Another fun fact, if the description part would have made open and directly at the champion page (Write nice description about champions kit here), it would have been already done. Sure, some would look horrible and outrages but hey that's why they can be EDITED and discussed ;-)

        Loading editor
    • I am not trying to restrict access to these descriptions; it's simply that these descriptions, right now, cannot be at the champion's pages because the admins won't allow it. So for the time being my blog is the space where I am having them posted and waiting for discussion and suggestions. I also opened a couple threads in the wikia discussion forum for people to make suggestions and discuss in a place that isn't just my blog, but they haven't garnered much attention, so it's not like I'm trying to hide this project from other users.

      As I said, the only reason I am having all descriptions pass through me is for the purposes of standarization and uniformity. As several users can attest to, when their suggestions gave good ideas, they were included in the "final" descriptions.

      I am not against the "everyone can edit" idea, but this isn't just a small thing. These descriptions need to follow a common procedure or else each champion's description would look 100% different and turn into a complete chaos. I'm fine with people pitching their ideas and suggestions, and I do take them into account when I feel they're good, but I think following a single model is better.

        Loading editor
    • BlackSmith wrote: Being able to write descriptions and discuss about them at champion's own page would allow for free editing, discussion and openness, at its relevant place. Having a secret _blog_ somewhere that's content is regulated one dude is quite the opposite.

      The blog attracted over a dozen editors within the first few days of it being released, so it's hardly a secret, especially as it's linked above. You also immediately contradict your first statement with this, in the same post:

      BlackSmith wrote: Also everything is buried somewhere deep instead to the article's discussion page so that any mortal editor has hard time finding where the discussion or things should be handled.

      You can whine about champion bios being too hard to find when discussed on a champion's article or out of it, but you can't do both at the same time. I personally think having a central location and highlighting it on the wiki, as with any other project, would allow for better organization and less clutter on champion pages.

      BlackSmith wrote: Another fun fact, if the description part would have made open and directly at the champion page (Write nice description about champions kit here), it would have been already done. Sure, some would look horrible and outrages but hey that's why they can be EDITED and discussed ;-)

      Fun fact, that was the very first think KHO and other users did with the bios. They were removed by admins and a few other users, which is one of the reasons why there's a discussion here to make sure this wiki's community as a whole is on board with the idea of champion descriptions. The huge variability in quality when that happened is also why we went to more centralized quality control while requesting bios from more users, few of whom have decided to step up, in order to make sure they'd be in good condition upon being added. This criticism is completely out of touch with the actual course of events this project went through.

        Loading editor
    • I believe this kind of information--summaries not being posted yet--should be updated within the main blog to prevent misunderstandings, with the recent arguement being the example.

        Loading editor
    • I have been meaning to make a second, updated blog post once we finish the last Juggernaut description (Darius), with a better presentation for the information (TABS *gasp*) and updated guidelines.

        Loading editor
    • I'm back. Sorry its been so long. Why has this died out?

        Loading editor
    • KHO and Will have been busy (natural, there is a life outside of LoL xD) but i think it isn't dead, only in cryostasis xD

        Loading editor
    • soooooooooo is this happening or no?

        Loading editor
    •   Loading editor
    • Yes, it's still going. Personal life (I'm in college and it demands a lot of time) is slowing it down, but it's still going.

        Loading editor
    • By the way, I may try to write something down when Christmas holidays begin. Can't guarantee though.

        Loading editor
    • That's good to hear.

        Loading editor
    • well it's been a year lmao

        Loading editor
    • Willbachbakal wrote: Fun fact, that was the very first think KHO and other users did with the bios. They were removed by admins and a few other users, which is one of the reasons why there's a discussion here to make sure this wiki's community as a whole is on board with the idea of champion descriptions. The huge variability in quality when that happened is also why we went to more centralized quality control while requesting bios from more users, few of whom have decided to step up, in order to make sure they'd be in good condition upon being added. This criticism is completely out of touch with the actual course of events this project went through.

      Fun fact, according to the community's guide and rules admins don't have that kind of privilege or power to overrule edits. Admin's role is something totally different than forcing his own agendas.

      This centralized quality control leads to less editors as the edits are buried deeper into the wiki markup that needs deeper understanding of the wiki and code. Having the context deeper in wiki also does not make it better. There simply is no gain. There would be more editors that would 'step up' if the policy of making the wiki harder and harder to edit would stop. There is no 10 second grammar of patch correction edits when the edited part is three, four or five templates away from the article where it is used. If you know code, then this data burying is same as using CSS to represent the actual context, not how to make it all nice and fancy.

      Yeah, it has indeed been a year. Wonder why others haven't stepped up to write those descriptions if the wiki is so welcoming for the edits.

        Loading editor
    • Hi guys, Im finally back to this wiki

        Loading editor
    • BlackSmith wrote: Fun fact, according to the community's guide and rules admins don't have that kind of privilege or power to overrule edits. Admin's role is something totally different than forcing his own agendas.

      Then the admins have overstepped their duties. I'm sure telling them how wrong they are will make them relinquish the unchecked power they currently have.

      BlackSmith wrote: Yeah, it has indeed been a year. Wonder why others haven't stepped up to write those descriptions if the wiki is so welcoming for the edits.

      This was not KHO's original intention, and I think most of us can agree that this is not optimal, but this is the space that was assigned to the project by the powers that be. Perhaps now that enough time has elapsed, and that several more users have implemented successful champion-wide page updates, it might be worth looking at this project with a fresh eye and determining what can be done to get it started back up again.

        Loading editor
    • I have time today, I will try and create some

        Loading editor
    • an anonymous contributor
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message