StrategyWiki:Collaboration of the Month

Every month, a Collaboration of the Month will be selected by using this page. Using cooperative editing, the aim of the collaboration is to complete a major task or greatly improve an article by the end of the month.

Current Collaboration of the Month

Voting
Please feel free to vote on as many candidates as you like. The article with the most support each month is selected. Any registered user may vote for an article, as long as the account's first edit occurred before the nomination. During the case of a tie, the article which was nominated first will be selected.

How to Nominate
Anyone may nominate a collaboration. To nominate an article copy the nomination template at the bottom of this page, fill it out accordingly and the put it at the end of the list.

Move lists project
Nominated October 9, 2006

Support
 * 1) Procyon 14:41, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * 2) Prod (Talk) 20:30, 20 November 2006 (CST)

Oppose

Comments
 * I'm actually somewhat reluctant to nominate this, but I've actually reached a point where I'm realizing that trying to take all of this on by myself is rather daunting. SFA3 alone is a b!tch.  I'll have to surrender the level of quality control that I have over it now, but Antaios has been contributing the Mortal Kombat moves, and he's been doing an excellent job making use of the templates that I've established to keep the look consistant.  I wouldn't mind making more people aware of it in case they'd like to contribute because it's going to take a long time to complete.  The more people working on it, the faster we can get through it.  Procyon 14:41, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * What would people be required to do? -- Prod 17:23, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Er... I honestly thought that the project itself was rather self-explanitory, but... just in case 9_9; All that is required is people find a fighting game that isn't yet covered in the Move Lists category and start inputting the moves using the graphical format and templates that are being used for all of the other fighters.  There are a ton of games by Capcom, SNK, Midway, and many others, left to be done. Of course, it's important to follow the policy that is in place that you not only populate a game's page with all of the characters moves, but that you likewise populate the character page with all of the moves from each game.  Just see the Super Street Fighter II Turbo page and click on a character's name for an example if you're not sure what I mean. Procyon 20:52, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Um, yea I guess I should be more specific with my questions. Where do we get the info from? I've only got the MK3 instruction manual and that doesn't tell all the moves.  I guess you mean from fan websites and gfaqs? -- Prod 21:11, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Oh! LOL, I was wondering why you asked your question.  Yes, gamefaqs.com is a de facto place to find move lists.  There are other places, but a majority of moves can be found there.  Any FAQ done by the recently deceased Kao Megura (aka Chris MacDonald) is guaranteed to be complete and thorough, and is an excellent source.  Instruction manuals are the worst, and American conversions of games rarely have in-game move lists provided because they make deals with strategy guide publishers so they can squeeze extra bucks out of you.  If you are extremely resourceful, you can find the japanese name for a game and look up the Japanese word for technique, waza (romanji), わざ (hiragana), or 技 (kanji) and you can actually find some great Japanese web sites for moves.  Another good resource is the MAME command.dat but it's not easy to interpret in a text editor, but it can be done.  To see it the way it's supposed to be seen, you need to either look at it in MAME32Plus, or find another program that can interpret it (there aren't many.)  Hope that helps. Procyon 21:32, 9 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Support - Something everyone can help with and I'm sure plenty of people would be interested in this info. -- Prod 22:10, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

Example guides
Nominated December 7, 2006.

Support
 * 1) Prod (Talk) 23:40, 7 December 2006 (CST)
 * 2) Froglet 01:45, 28 December 2006 (CST)
 * 3) Notmyhandle 19:07, 30 December 2006 (CST)

Oppose
 * 1)  Duke Ruckley  14:29, 22 January 2007 (CST)

Comments
 * Set up a good amount of background guides which follow the policy and are good examples of how to continue other guides. Having one main example is good, but we should probably have a few that show different aspects of what can be done. -- Prod (Talk) 23:40, 7 December 2006 (CST)
 * There are a few game guides that are very close to completion, such as the Final Fantasy VII guide. Maybe we should collaborate to complete the almost-but-not-quite completed guides?--Froglet 21:36, 28 December 2006 (CST)
 * These might be good "Guide of the Month" projects. This may enable us to shed light on these guides while still having another collaboration goal.  ech elon  00:10, 15 February 2007 (CST)
 * I don't think there is enough to this to make it a collaboration of the month, although I do agree it should be done. Unless you mean that we should all work on a few specific guides which would then become the "example guides".  In that case I think we should focus on one at a time, such as Final Fantasy VII (see below).-- Duke  Ruckley  14:29, 22 January 2007 (CST)

Pikmin 2
Nominated December 27, 2006.

Support
 * 1) PokePikmin 10:59, 27 December 2006 (CST)
 * 2) --Navy White 16:05, 6 January 2007 (CST)
 * 3) --Mister Zook Zook 18:55, 21 January 2007 (CST)

Oppose Comments
 * 1) --Froglet 03:36, 22 January 2007 (CST)
 * 2) --Notmyhandle 21:52, 22 January 2007 (CST)
 * This game is fun! Come on it dont even EXIST yet here from what i seen. After Ruby and Sapphire are done, work should begin here immediately! Ill even provide a free strategy for Titan Dweevil! PokePikmin 10:59, 27 December 2006 (CST) (PS: Sorry, got no clue how to start)
 * It'd be a good example of what a guide should be like, and is a very popular game that people would benifit from having a guide for. However, as I operate under a "He/She who complains, is assigned to fix it" work ethic, it'd be a good idea for you to help get it started and contribute a good part of it.
 * The guide for this game is barely started. I somewhat doubt that given a month the community could make a sizeable dent in it - I'm not sure about every else around here, but it's kinda daunting starting stuff like that.  There are plenty of guides for popular games around here that are almost but not quite finished.--Froglet 03:36, 22 January 2007 (CST)
 * Uh, froglet, already been started... --Mister Zook Zook 19:50, 22 January 2007 (CST)
 * It's a small game, enough for one or a few people to work on. Collab of the month should be bigger in perspective; although I can see how "getting the job done" is important rather than just starting a ton of projects. --Notmyhandle 21:52, 22 January 2007 (CST)
 * By 'it's barely started', I meant that there is very little content in the FAQ, so those who don't have the game cannot do much. It also seems to be a 'niche' type game, and a small one at that.  As others have said, it's a job for a few people, not an entire community.  I'm sure you and your allies SuperSmashBrother, Kirbyfan, Zip-O-Rama and Lord Poof could all collaborate on together and get it completed ever so quickly.--Froglet 08:24, 25 January 2007 (CST)

Final Fantasy VII
Nominated December 28, 2006.

Support
 * 1) Froglet 01:56, 28 December 2006 (CST)
 * 2)  Duke Ruckley  14:29, 22 January 2007 (CST)
 * 3) Prod (Talk) 00:22, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

Oppose

Comments
 * This game has an almost completed guide, but there are holes in areas such as where to find items, along with spelling and grammar mistakes, and it could do with work. By the end of next month the entire thing could be completed.  Loads of people have this game and evidently know a lot about it, so this could finally get finished.--Froglet 01:56, 28 December 2006 (CST)
 * This is a prime choice because of its popularity and also because there is so much information out there in general. It already has a lot of information, so it shouldn't be too hard for people to just jump in and add little bits here and there.  It has the potential to become a great example guide.-- Duke  Ruckley  14:29, 22 January 2007 (CST)
 * This would do very well as an example guide. All the content is there, just needs finalizing layout/formatting wise. -- Prod (Talk) 00:22, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

Cleanup
Nominated January 6, 2007.

Support
 * 1) 0-172 20:42, 7 January 2007 (SCT)

Oppose
 * 1) Prod (Talk) 23:40, 6 January 2007 (CST)
 * 2)  Duke Ruckley  14:29, 22 January 2007 (CST)
 * 3)  bibliomaniac 1  5  22:53, 30 January 2007 (CST)

Comments
 * I've started going through the cleanup category and begun to cleaning things up, and could use some help. There are alot of things needing cleanup, therefore this should become the next collab. of the month, to help get alot of the cleanup out of the way. 0-172 20:45, 7 January 2007 (CST)
 * I personally don't think this would be that good, since it takes a while to figure out what exactly "clean" is. This should be left to those who have a good knowledge of wiki-syntax and site layout (ie. the regulars). -- Prod (Talk) 23:40, 6 January 2007 (CST)
 * Prod's right.
 * I also agree with Prod. We don't want too many people jumping in there who don't have much knowledge of SW.  It may cause more problems than it solves.  Plus, I don't think most SW users actually enjoy that kind of tedious job.-- Duke  Ruckley  14:29, 22 January 2007 (CST)
 * Cleanup is too vague.  bibliomaniac 1  5  22:53, 30 January 2007 (CST)

NES Games
Nominated January 8, 2007.

Support
 * 1) Notmyhandle 18:32, 8 January 2007 (CST)
 * 2) --Shadowsithe 11:41, 22 April 2007 (CDT)

Oppose

Comments
 * We currently have 82 NES related articles, assuming these are all games, that's 82 out of 772 games (about 10.6%). Games ARE hard to come by, but most people who play them now rely on emulators anyways. A complete list of games exists here; those who want a good NES system should also check out the product on that website (plays NES and Famicom in one system, wireless controller abilities etc.; good review by IGN).  Lets see, with 28 days in the month of February, that's only 24 games per day.  If you take the time to go get information and write a summary, well that ranges up to about an hour if you just want a description and infobox.  If we get 6 people, that's only 3 hours a day max... Dang we need more members ahaha. --Notmyhandle 18:32, 8 January 2007 (CST)
 * As much as I enjoyed NES games back in the day (Contra was awesome!) they aren't that relevant anymore (except for Xbox Live and VC for the Wii). For now, we need guides for the most popular current games written up.  I would support this, but not right now. -- Prod (Talk) 18:49, 8 January 2007 (CST)
 * Good point. I think this should be made noticed; it's vital to keeping StrategyWiki up to date (would probably bring in more users as well). --Notmyhandle 18:57, 8 January 2007 (CST)
 * lol, I dunno how to feel now... NES is kind of my M.O. You know that I have a strictly retro focus, and I've been in the process of adding different Famicom games to StrategyWiki, but I'm doing it them mostly in chronological order (as of this comment, I'm up to Yie Ar Kung-Fu).  From the conversations that I've had with Echelon, he's in favor of any and all content, regardless of era.  I think striking a balance of current and retro is the key, as we would like to attract all kinds of viewers with all kinds of tastes in games.  Procyon 19:13, 8 January 2007 (CST)
 * I agree, any and all content is useful (which is why I didn't oppose it, it's still a good idea). Other gaming sites appeared long after some of those old retro games, but they still have tons of the old content.  If someone is interested, they should definitely be added, and they will be used and attract visitors (I know tons of retro gamers :P).  From one test* I did, newer games attract more people, though the older one got it's fair share, which is why I can't support it for now.
 * Ruby/Sapphire was Collaboration of the Month, Bully was Promising guide, Trauma Center is Promising guide

Community Portal
Nominated January 20, 2007.

Support
 * 1) Prod (Talk) 13:57, 20 January 2007 (CST)
 * 2) 0-172 (Talk) 20:48, 20 January 2007 (CST)
 * 3) --Froglet 19:48, 20 January 2007 (CST)
 * 4) YES FOR FORUM EXTENSION --Notmyhandle 23:50, 22 January 2007 (CST)
 * 5) Yes for spiffing up, no for forum extension hack.  ech elon  00:09, 15 February 2007 (CST)

Oppose Comments
 * 1)  Duke Ruckley  14:29, 22 January 2007 (CST)
 * 2) Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 16:38, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
 * The portal is going to become a focus for community efforts, and right now it is quite lacking. It needs to look better and have more content. -- Prod (Talk) 13:57, 20 January 2007 (CST)
 * I agree. 0-172 (Talk) 20:48, 20 January 2007 (CST)
 * I also agree, but I don't think it is a problem that a Collaboration will fix. I think that a few people should be designated to just take care of it.  You don't want too many people on that kind of thing.  Plus, will it take a month?-- Duke  Ruckley  14:29, 22 January 2007 (CST)
 * I can't make a decision on this so I won't vote, but I think that the community portal needs a more forum like style in which old topics are more easily viewed and revived compared to what it is now. Unless you guys like new threads on old topics.--Notmyhandle 17:29, 22 January 2007 (CST)
 * We could install the forum extension (see it in action here). GarrettTalk 21:58, 22 January 2007 (CST)
 * Lol I don't see why that hasn't been implemented earlier! Such an easy solution. I vote YES for forum extension. --Notmyhandle 23:50, 22 January 2007 (CST)
 * Forum extension looks like a hack to me. I don't think we need a forum anywayz, most of the major topics are already covered, and the rest can go on their separate policy pages. -- Prod (Talk) 13:06, 23 January 2007 (CST)
 * Note: A forum extension would be okay, but again is it really something everybody can work on as a collaboration?  That's my biggest problem with this nomination.  It should most definitely be done, but not by everyone.-- Duke  Ruckley  16:30, 23 January 2007 (CST)
 * I see what you mean. I guess it could be, Make suggestions for the Community Portal. -- Prod (Talk) 16:03, 25 January 2007 (CST)
 * Agree with Duke, it won't take a month, forum is a great idea, but the forum needs spiffing up, check the sandbox for my idea--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 16:39, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Set up policies
Nominated January 25, 2007.

Support Oppose
 * 1) Prod (Talk) 10:11, 25 January 2007 (CST)
 * 2) Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 01:13, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

Comments
 * Set up policies, tell people how to use it . Essentially, have enough documentation so that within 10 minutes they can start editing, but easily find more in depth info after (or at least some direction). -- Prod (Talk) 23:40, 7 December 2006 (CST)
 * Comment: This would be a great idea, although my main motivation for this is that I'm horrifically unfamiliar with Wiki tools, and I'd like to get started on a Medievil and Medievil Resurrection guide and help with the Final Fantasy guides.  This might also attract more people to joining and starting up an account and start editing.--Froglet 00:51, 28 December 2006 (CST)
 * We really need editing guides, having to use Wikipedia for reference is good and all, but we have large differences that aren't covered. --Notmyhandle 19:08, 30 December 2006 (CST)
 * It is important to have policies implemented so that anybody not already familiar with StrategyWiki has some place to go to figure things out. Also, it'll make the sysops' jobs easier because they can then direct anybody to already written policy, instead of having to explain it over and over again to new users.-- Duke  Ruckley  14:29, 22 January 2007 (CST)
 * I find it somewhat absurd that this issue is up for debate as this is clearly something that is needed and useful, but I want to go on record as saying that I find it even more absurd that someone would actually oppose this idea. Procyon 20:06, 22 January 2007 (CST)
 * What's up with all these recent vandals? Anyways, I support this suggestion because we really need to set up SW so more people come and know what to do. --Antaios 20:16, 22 January 2007 (CST)
 * I am renominating this (leaving comments) in case one month isn't enough. This has been chosen as the collaboration for February, so revote just before March if you think it needs more time. -- Prod (Talk) 10:11, 25 January 2007 (CST)
 * As I was writing up the collaboration blurb, I realized that the guide is a somewhat separate entity to the policies, so I'm nominating the guide below. -- Prod (Talk) 10:27, 25 January 2007 (CST)

Guide
Nominated January 29, 2007.

Support
 * 1) Prod (Talk) 10:27, 25 January 2007 (CST)
 * 2)  bibliomaniac 1  5  22:54, 30 January 2007 (CST)
 * 3) Froglet 04:30, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

Oppose

Comments
 * A guide to StrategyWiki. Prod (Talk) 10:27, 25 January 2007 (CST)
 * So what are you thinking of making it up of; policies & editing guides, thus linking to help pages, etc.? -- Notmyhandle 11:58, 25 January 2007 (CST)
 * To go along with this, make some more subpages to the guide for some special features such as aligning images, the complex things like charts, templates.... It's an awesome thing to get done since almost everyone has the "game" (haha) and if you can use strategywiki, you can contribute. It'll help everyone make guides and make them better with a bit of knowledge. --Navy White 15:42, 25 January 2007 (CST)
 * Help:Writing guide should be integrated into this (split into pages, obviously). GarrettTalk 16:15, 25 January 2007 (CST)
 * Lol why are we making this a collab (as in postponing it); lets just do it now. Someone make the page, and I'll start adding content (as will most everyone, I would but I don't know what namespace to use; "StrategyWiki"?).--Notmyhandle 18:47, 25 January 2007 (CST)
 * points at link at top of section ;) It already has some links, but I think they need renaming/rearranging to make it look more like the game guides we have. It definitely needs a lot of collaborative work, since it would become policy when it's done. -- Prod (Talk) 19:11, 25 January 2007 (CST)
 * Well, due to popular demand, and the fact that people are already working on it, I made this the Collaboration of the month, and pushed to the next month.  Leaving this here in case it needs another month. -- Prod (Talk) 15:17, 29 January 2007 (CST)
 * This still needs a lot of work. If somebody more in the know could give us a few guidelines and co-ordinate what's meant to go into the still-red-links, we could get this finished within the month, expanded and perfected it.  I think it's a bit ironic that the Guide to StrategyWiki is still a Work In Progress.  :-P--Froglet 04:30, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Froggy, don't be surprised, the policies - the groundwork for StrategyWiki - isn't even done. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 17:01, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

Pokémon Diamond and Pearl
Nominated April 21, 2007.

Support Oppose
 * 1) Lunar Knight (Talk to me + Contribs) 11:27, 21 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 2) Rhonlore 12:47, 21 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 3) Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 12:53, 21 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 4) Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 02:41, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

Comments
 * With the games release on the horizon (Tommorow, 4/22/07), I believe this would be an excelent collaboration. -- Lunar Knight (Talk to me + Contribs) 11:27, 21 April 2007 (CDT)
 * We can still get it in July when it comes out in europe--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 02:41, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

Guide/Usage policy and/or Usage policy
Nominated May 14, 2007.

Support Oppose
 * 1) Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 21:05, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
 * 2) --Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 12:48, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
 * 3) Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 16:18, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Comments
 * Key word: Usage Policy. Isn't this like a EULA?  I mean, we give users priveledges and we also restrict the right to deny them said priveledges.  I think this needs to be laid out and then additionally presented in StrategyWiki:Usage policy where it would be made into an enforced policy.  --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 21:05, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Maybe we can add something about who created the site as well, at the moment I can't find anything.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 12:48, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Yeah, info on Ech and Ness are hard to find. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 15:51, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Completely agree, I created the page on Echelon and Garret's taken care of the Ness Page other than these, there's barely and info on either of them :P--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 16:06, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Definitely. We should also probably put them in the wp article as well. As for the actual collab, I like Usage Policy better because all of the enforced policies are not in the guide, so why break the trend? Also, having this on the main page will draw more attention to it and hopefully enlighten contributors to the point of my enlightenment. --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 16:18, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
 * We do have one, Images but I think that's it.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 16:20, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

StarCraft
Nominated July 7, 2007.

Support
 * 1) Baejung92 18:48, 7 July 2007 (CDT)
 * 2) Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 22:07, 7 July 2007 (CDT)

Oppose

Comments
 * I like how this article's walkthrough is turning out, but everything else--namely, the units and structures pages--could use some serious cleanup. Also, some of them are incomplete and need more info. Baejung92 18:48, 7 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I almost opposed this, but then I thought hey why not just get it done. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 22:07, 7 July 2007 (CDT)

article name
Nominated , .

Support

Oppose

Comments
 * A description of why the article should be the Good article Collaboration of the week followed by ~

(subst:CURRENT... will automaticaly generate the dates, you do not need to alter them)