StrategyWiki talk:Guide

Rating
The ESRB didn't rate StrategyWiki. Thus a custom image should be created, perhaps comedic (replace ESRB with Prod for example) otherwise, blank out the bottom text all together. --Notmyhandle 21:10, 25 January 2007 (CST)
 * Yea, I definitely agree. Perhaps rated R for Registered :P. -- Prod (Talk) 23:18, 25 January 2007 (CST)

Table of Contents
The toc needs to be redone I think. It should be made to match what a regular guide toc would look like. Since this is a fairly major change, I'm putting it here first. -- Prod (Talk) 23:18, 25 January 2007 (CST) Getting Started Walkthrough
 * Sign up
 * Set your preferences
 * Using Wiki syntax
 * Preview and save your work
 * Getting help
 * 1) Starting a new guide
 * 2) Researching more information
 * 3) Adding more information
 * 4) Adding pizazz
 * 5) Further information


 * Very nice idea, I love seeing "Getting Started" and "Walkthrough" and how it can apply to both games and StrategyWiki. --Notmyhandle 23:34, 25 January 2007 (CST)
 * I agree. This table of contents looks much better and easier to understand. I say we implement it. --Antaios 16:30, 26 January 2007 (CST)

Getting started guide
IS there a reason that in the starting a guide page there is no content whatsoever about actually starting it. Unless there's a reason why, I'm going to put it up there. --Navy White 12:02, 2 February 2007 (CST)
 * Getting Started is for general information, it shouldn't actually have any info about guide writing, which goes under the Walkthrough section.  -- Prod (Talk) 12:08, 2 February 2007 (CST)
 * While I agree completely with you Prod, I do see Nave White's point about the potential confusion of labeling the page Getting Started. You and I know it refers to getting started as a user on StrategyWiki, but a title like that has enough room for a different interpretation.  I might be wise to put a link to the Walkthrough section, just like we do for series disambiguation links.  You know, something along the lines of: This page is for getting started on StrategyWiki.  For more information about starting a specific guide, please see the Walkthrough or something like that.  I'll leave it up to you guys to decide. Procyon 12:31, 2 February 2007 (CST)
 * I changed up the intro to the page, and moved what was there to it's own section. Hopefully that will get rid of any ambiguities. -- Prod (Talk) 12:40, 2 February 2007 (CST)
 * Actually I was talking about the starting a guide page, just a bit of confusion with names, I just thought that it should have some info on actually starting the page and infoboxes --Navy White 15:03, 2 February 2007 (CST)

To add
There were questions about setting up a series template discussed here that could use some explanation in this guide. Just leaving a note here. -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 18:21, 25 February 2007 (CST)

Researching more info
What should be included? Are there any (internet, unofficial) sources that SW consider 'reliable'? I mean, I know that Gamefaqs.com and a few other sites are seen as very good, but should the community as a whole endorse the sites that we are (figuratively) competing with?

I was considering putting down something like this:

"Certain information, such as methods of defeating a boss, are relatively easy to verify. Others, such as cheat codes and patch codes are a lot more difficult or potentially damaging to verify.  It's recommended that you do not add any such information unless you are 100% certain that there is no chance of it causing any harm to a users save file, etc.

Also, when adding information, make sure that you have tested the info out yourself and if you haven't personally tried a method recommended in a non-StrategyWiki guide, at least cross reference it if possible with other guides. However, official sources, such as the 'official' strategy guide are usually the definitive source."

Something like that. I'm working on it.--Froglet 05:04, 3 March 2007 (CST)
 * Might want to add a notice as to, "make sure you don't copy another person's guide; rewrite any copied information but try to paraphrase the information rather than dumping it into StrategyWiki." --Notmyhandle 05:47, 3 March 2007 (CST)

Question
Does anyone else think we should put preceded by GameFAQ:)--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 14:08, 12 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Why on earth would we do that? o_O; Procyon 14:22, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Funny, but let's distance ourselves from them. I'd prefer we said preceded by Wikipedia :P. -- Prod (Talk) 14:24, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Wikibooks would be an even more suitable predecessor, seeing as some of our content came from there. :) GarrettTalk 15:14, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Preceded by: Sites with plain-text, static game guides
 * Or something like that... -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 21:14, 12 March 2007 (CDT)


 * I'd think "Preceded by" is only used if they are in the same series, as opposed to being merely in the same genre. The above is like saying some random D&D novel is preceded by the Lord of the Rings, because they are both fantasy, or because some ppl think D&D got the "elves" idea from JRR Tolkein... -Afker 23:45, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Thus it was not preceded by anything. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 00:19, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I can see the entry in my mind's eye now: "SW is the dawn of a new era in strategy guides..." :-P -Froglet 03:11, 13 March 2007 (CDT)

Adding Additional Information
I created the page, however the ToC links to "Improving a Guide." I can see how Adding Additional Information could be integrated into such a page; but I created for the page for no other reason that other pages with footer navs linked to it under that name. So, which is it? Someone please move it/fix the footer navs before we start adding information (irony?). --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 20:50, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
 * The footer navs should follow the ToC, since it was there first. The name is just to clarify what the page is for. -- Prod (Talk) 21:08, 14 May 2007 (CDT)