From StrategyWiki, the video game walkthrough and strategy guide wiki
Revision as of 04:59, 16 March 2007 by Mason11987 (talk | contribs) (→‎Creating game ''Main'' pages: agree with other commenters)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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.

Nominations

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. DukeRuckley 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. echelon 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).--DukeRuckley 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

  1. --Froglet 03:36, 22 January 2007 (CST)
  2. --Notmyhandle 21:52, 22 January 2007 (CST)

Comments

  • 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. DukeRuckley 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.--DukeRuckley 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. DukeRuckley 14:29, 22 January 2007 (CST)
  3. bibliomaniac15 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.--DukeRuckley 14:29, 22 January 2007 (CST)
  • Cleanup is too vague. bibliomaniac15 22:53, 30 January 2007 (CST)

NES Games

Nominated January 8, 2007.

Support

  1. Notmyhandle 18:32, 8 January 2007 (CST)

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

StrategyWiki: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. echelon 00:09, 15 February 2007 (CST)

Oppose

  1. DukeRuckley 14:29, 22 January 2007 (CST)

Comments

  • 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?--DukeRuckley 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.--DukeRuckley 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)

Set up policies

Nominated January 25, 2007.

Support

  1. Prod (Talk) 10:11, 25 January 2007 (CST)

Oppose

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.--DukeRuckley 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)

StrategyWiki:Guide

Nominated January 29, 2007.

Support

  1. Prod (Talk) 10:27, 25 January 2007 (CST)
  2. bibliomaniac15 22:54, 30 January 2007 (CST)

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 #Set up policies to the next month. Leaving this here in case it needs another month. -- Prod (Talk) 15:17, 29 January 2007 (CST)


Creating game Main pages

Nominated March 15, 2007.

Support

  1. Prod (Talk) 00:18, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
  2. Afker 17:13, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
  3. Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 17:24, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
  4. -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 23:59, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

Oppose

  1. Procyon 09:02, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
  2. DukeRuckley 11:27, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

Comments

  • We should have a proper main or front page for every (notable) game. With mostly complete infoboxes (release dates, genre, systems, developer/producer). -- Prod (Talk) 00:18, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
    • I'm worried about affecting the signal-to-noise ratio. Right now we have a lot of games missing, but most entries have at least some attempt at a guide. I think creating too many stubs may come across more as "Wikipedia clone" rather than "basic groundwork already done". GarrettTalk 04:07, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
  • This might bring down the average quality of the articles here, if a lot of the games were only an infobox and some information. However, if there was at least a ToC with some blued in links (like character information, controls, perhaps a level or two), then this would make a worthwhile Collab of the Month - loads of people still have the in-box manuals to their games, so filling in some basic information from there into here wouldn't be too much of a chore. - Froglet 07:47, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
    • For all the reasons mentioned above, and more, I am kind of against this idea (nothing personal Prod). By the very nature of this site, and the amount of time it takes to accumulate information, SW will never be a site with "on the day of release" content. It simply isn't possible, and to try to cover that fact up with short main pages almost draws more attention to that fact instead of correcting the problem. But pre-release hype does not equal popularity. If you look at the top 10 FAQs listed on GF's home page (as of this day), 7 out of the top 10 were released last year (8 if you want to count FFVI Advance). That's your biggest indicator of what people are looking for information about. I think that's what we should be striving to provide. Procyon 09:02, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
      • I agree with Procyon here. I think we need to work more on content for popular games than just providing basic information on any game. If we want people to come to this site, we need to have something they are looking for.--DukeRuckley 11:27, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
  • If you go to almost any other gaming website and look up a game, you don't find an empty page. They have basic info about what the game is. I don't think we have to worry too much about "wikipedia clone" since we already have a different look, we have good number of starting guides, and we clearly state our purpose....everywhere. As for bringing down the average quality, that isn't much of a concern, since we are bringing up the "total" quality. However, starting off the ToC pages as well would probably be a good idea, seeing all the people who have trouble figuring out the whole transclusion thing. Having the redlinks would direct people where to add their info. This isn't specifically dealing with day of, but for all games, and this is just to get us a head start (only for a month). I would also think that having a blank page is worse than having some basic info about a game and having some basic structure for contributors to follow. Finally, this shouldn't take away from people writing their own guides, this is what you do when you don't wan't to work on anything else. As an aside, By the nature of this site, and assuming we can get to the level of our competitors, we should be able to have better day of info than our competitors (no going through editors/work hours/other delays in the process). -- Prod (Talk) 11:42, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
    • Agreed. For relatively new people (either new to MedaiWiki or wiki as a whole, or new to SW's site structure), it's much easier to modify something already here than to create something from scratch (even if there is an example guide on another game to copy from). Having something basic already here minimizes the resistence for new people to add tiny bits of information. Also, as an idealist, I care more about the total amount of signal, rather than the signal-to-noise ratio. By making it easier for ppl to contribute, SW potentially gains more contributors, which increases the signal rate. -Afker 17:13, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
      • I have to agree with Prod and Afker here. Having basic info about a game, like and infobox, and maybe a controls page, would definitely be better than no page at all. I believe it said somewhere in Wikipedia that the main users lay down the foundation and that anons contribute most of the info of guides. If you think of anons on SW as people that aren't really active and/or don't know a lot of wikimarkup, then that holds somewhat true on SW as well. Therefore, I believe it is a good idea to create new guides with some basic info (besides the info on the main page). --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 17:24, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

Nomination Template

===[[article name]]=== 
Nominated ''{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTDAY}}, {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}''.

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)

Retrieved from "https://strategywiki.org/w/index.php?title=StrategyWiki:Collaboration_of_the_Month&oldid=119369"