StrategyWiki talk:Guide/Scope

Things to think about

 * 1) I believe the scope will change some day, when we have a larger community, more people, and less importance leaning on actual corporately published games.
 * 2) As long as a game is popular, how much publicity the game has and how much money it earns people shouldn't be a factor.
 * 3) SW should be able to cover free games.

I don't think there's much to debate, but yeah, small unknown shareware games don't really fit the bill, but I know that some games have gotten quite popular (i.e. Little Fighter and its sequels). I just think the more games we include the better, because we'll gain more users and have more "portals" for people to collaborate on. --User:Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 10:49, 22 June 2007 (CDT)
 * I have to disagree with Notmyhandle. If we allow freeware and shareware games, it would make StrategyWiki an ideal grounds for advertising one's game that they just invented. The site would be cluttered with front pages filled with sales pitches on why this person's game is the best without actually giving anything more than basic strategy, presumably because basic strategy is as in-depth as the game goes. Games like that really don't even deserve a single page here on StrategyWiki. If a game is completely common sense based and the controls and such are built into the game (which many are), there is NO POINT WHATSOEVER of hosting it here (except for advertising purposes, which should go against our scope). Also, I think that the criteria should be revised so that each one doesn't say "if it meets this criterion, it can go in, just ignore all the rest." If you really want that on every single game, what's the point of even having this page? Every game could be covered because every game fits at least one of the criterion which say "if yes, ignore the rest." -- 11:19, 22 June 2007 (CDT)
 * But I said that a game has to be popular... --User:Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 17:27, 22 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Well, I guess I DO agree with NMH on one point then :P (publicity and money shouldn't matter anyway). -- 17:30, 22 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Please define popular. -- Prod (Talk) 12:36, 23 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Played by a lot of people or well known. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 13:04, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Flash Games
Portals such as Ijji and Miniclip are legitimate sources for games that wouldn't get out of hand. I believe these games should be allowed as part of our scope, but represent the most minimal of requirements met for inclusion. Games such as those on addictinggames.com and newgrounds.com, however, should not be allowed unless there is some considerable hype or notability. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 16:34, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Yes, but most of those games are so simple that they do not require guides. For the ones that do, it will have to be determined that they fit into one or more other categories (like notability and whatnot). Games that seem to have no English media mention whatsoever (I am not counting mentions in languages other than English) do not belong here on StrategyWiki. We could also use a policy concerning removing guides outside of our scope. What I am doing right now is just deletion and a message on the creator's talk page for the first two times, then a protected redirect to the Scope page for the third time. -- 16:44, 25 July 2007 (CDT)