StrategyWiki:Featured guides/Successful requests

1. Very complete guide, deserves to be featured -- Safety Skizzerz ^{{{ Talk | Contribs | Spel Chek™ | VFG | RTFM }}} 13:03, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
2. I poured my heart into this. I can't think of anything else that I could possibly add. --Procyon (Talk) 13:53, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
3. It's done. Only needs a good graphic to fit in the ToC. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 14:42, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
4. Somebody needs to finish proofreading it first, though. --DrBob (Talk) 16:34, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
5. Needs a gold star!! echelon_talk 18:36, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
6. The amount of information and maps is mind-boggling. I give it 3 thumbs up. Woah where'd this third one come from... --KapKyle 23:20, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
7. The guide is excellent, the only additions I can think of are to this page, Great job Proc.--Rocky ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 12:37, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
8. I think this is amazing, there's so much stuff in here, it'd take a while to even read it all! Baejung92 17:39, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
9. All that needs to be done is a minor proofread, relocation of GBA specific content, and improving the cheats page. There is practically nothing else to do. Artee 16:31, 11 August 2007 (CDT)
10. -- Prod (Talk) 15:54, 12 August 2007 (CDT)
11. DukeRuckley 17:58, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

1. Can't go either way with this as I don't have the game and it's too large for me to pick it apart for issues I may have. --Tathar 12:47, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

You need to play this, Tathar! echelon_talk 22:30, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

I didn't say I never played it. I played it long ago at a family friend's house. I loved the parts I was able to play. --Tathar (talk|contribs) 21:07, 24 December 2007 (CST)

• This nomination also serves as a test for the system. Chances are, it will be revised after this nomination is completed (or even mid-nomination, if things are really dysfunctional). -- Safety Skizzerz ^{{{ Talk | Contribs | Spel Chek™ | VFG | RTFM }}} 13:03, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
• Rocky, you bring up an excellent point. I actually don't know anything about the specific additions to the GBA version. It seems to me that the GBA specific information should be moved to the GBA version page. The way we used to have parent game relationships, but now I think we just use ToC transclusion. This issue should be resolved before the guide is promoted.
  • I have it but it's the american version (Ebay, I hate you) so sorry but I can't help you with this one.--Rocky ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 13:49, 11 August 2007 (CDT)
    • There hasn't been much discussion of this point, and so far the only person that I've spoken to who objects to those sections being moved is Prod. Quite frankly, he has a good point, using my own prior work against me (grrr…). He points out that I put Pokémon Yellow information in the Pokémon Red and Blue walkthrough. While that is a valid point, I counter with the fact that there is no Yellow information outside of the walkthrough (in what would be considered the appendix if Pok.R&B had an appendix). In fact, features new to Pokémon Yellow that don't quite fit in the walkthrough can be found on their own page exclusive to the Yellow guide. Therefore, it would not be against precedence to move the appendix information out of the SNES guide and into the GBA guide. I'd like to get some kind of consensus on how everyone else feels. Procyon (Talk) 15:22, 12 August 2007 (CDT)
      • I've decided that I'm completely undecided about transclusion versus inclusion >.<. I'm trying to decide on a proper scheme for this right now. I'm currently at: If there is a completely new section to the game, that gets it's page within it's separate guide, and you transclude the original toc with the new pages added on (the "what's new" page in Pokemon Yellow). If there are minor additions (like an extra item in a specific location) that belongs with the main guide (like the fact that you can only start with pikachu). I would say this is featured as an SNES game, but not as a GBA game. The problem is, this messes with our one game one guide policy (now we're at 4 games (RGBY), one guide >_>) -- Prod (Talk) 15:54, 12 August 2007 (CDT)
        • To be honest, I'm kinda neutral in this but if you think about it, it'll be an easy 2nd stage 5 completed guide when it's done and that's a good thing, right guys. (Atm I think it's 1 stage 5 and 1 stage 3 guide at the moment). We need to bring this up in community issues and set a standard.(quickly said after conflict) Prod, it's a new game in there, the two slightly interling, you get the ridlle quest and a new sword technique and the palace of the flour sword in a link to the past--Rocky ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 15:57, 12 August 2007 (CDT)
          • I would have to argue that whatever our decision should be, it should not confuse the reader. If the reader has a copy of LttP for the GBA, they're going to look for our LttP guide, possibly without knowing there are multiple versions of the game (if they are a younger gamer, for instance). I suggest for simplicity's sake that we stick to inclusion (prevents redundancy and is better for SEO--search engines penalize duplicate content!) and outline any differences with special sidebars or pages as they are necessary. My two cents. echelon_talk 20:11, 12 August 2007 (CDT)
            • I just realised, we'll need to add a section in the lost woods about not getting the Fake Swords (for the riddle quest), that's the only change I think of now--Rocky ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 03:36, 14 August 2007 (CDT)
  • I have gotten rid of the red links in the Zelda navigation bar at the bottom, so I think its truly worthy now. Once we solve the transclusion/etc. problem let's go ahead and make it official!--DukeRuckley 17:59, 13 August 2007 (CDT)
    • Agreed. Of course, we'll have to determine how long it stays as the currently featured guide (one month, two months?) -- Safety Skizzerz ^{{{ Talk | Contribs | Spel Chek™ | VFG | RTFM }}} 18:02, 13 August 2007 (CDT)
      • I wasn't aware that a featured guide had a time limit. I thought once it was nominated as a featured guide, it remained a featured guide. Why would it suddenly stop being one?
        • No, once featured, always featured. I was referring to how long it stays on the Main Page before being changed with another guide. -- Safety Skizzerz ^{{{ Talk | Contribs | Spel Chek™ | VFG | RTFM }}} 20:42, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

1. This guide is really well-developed, with complete data, maps, and a highly-detailed walkthrough. I think this deserves to be featured :) -- Safety Skizzerz ^{{{ Talk | Contribs | Spel Chek™ | VFG | RTFM }}} 21:51, 4 December 2007 (CST)
2. Yes, it is not only highly detailed, but it is very easy to follow and is comparable to the official guide in terms of quality. Halosonic 22:28, 4 December 2007 (CST)
3. Push it through. We need more featured guides. Procyon (Talk) 22:49, 13 January 2008 (CST)
4. An unbelievable level of detail—maps, tables, artwork, detailed info for each Pokémon when first encountered... it's enough to make Nintendo jealous. This is "the death of plain text" at its finest. Once we get a few more in support this can receive the gold star it so rightfully deserves. Garrett^Talk 01:40, 14 January 2008 (CST)
5. Red link fixed FTW --Arrow Windwhistler (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2008 (CST)
6. Definite support. --Dukeruckley (talk • contribs)

1. Eh, guys...red link. Not complete. All links gotta be blue. (see Cheats heading) --Arrow Windwhistler (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2008 (CST)

• So... what do we do about Yellow though? Does it get included in this nom as it shares the same walkthrough, or does it get excluded? I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. -- Safety Skizzerz ^{{{ Talk | Contribs | Spel Chek™ | VFG | RTFM }}} 21:51, 4 December 2007 (CST)
  • After thinking about Yellow for a while, I think we would have to promote it as well, because the featured template goes in the guide's ToC, and since Yellow transcludes the ToC from RB, it would get the star on its main page, even though it's only CS4. -- Safety Skizzerz ^{{{ Talk | Contribs | Spel Chek™ | VFG | RTFM }}} 17:20, 5 December 2007 (CST)
    • Actually, I can probably modify the template to avert this type of issue. -- Safety Skizzerz ^{{{ Talk | Contribs | Spel Chek™ | VFG | RTFM }}} 18:00, 5 December 2007 (CST)
  • Yellow is largely the same as Red and Blue; its differences seem to have been covered quite thoroughly, so it should therefore be promoted as well. Garrett^Talk 18:16, 5 December 2007 (CST)
• Technically, the reason The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past was promoted ahead of this guide was due to the fact that other than maps, it has few to no in-game screenshots, which it technically needs to reach level 5. For that reason, I will neither support, nor object the guide's nomination, and leave it up to everyone else. But I am flattered by the nomination, thanks :) Procyon (Talk) 17:35, 5 December 2007 (CST)
  • Actually, it doesn't need in-game screenshots. The only image criteria are that it a) has at least two per page (which it does), b) images are placed by text that relates to them (which they are), and c) images are correctly named and categorized (which they are). It says absolutely nothing about what type of images are required. -- Safety Skizzerz ^{{{ Talk | Contribs | Spel Chek™ | VFG | RTFM }}} 18:00, 5 December 2007 (CST)
• Red link fixed FTW --Arrow Windwhistler (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2008 (CST)
• It's been a while and there's currently no opposition, so I think its about time to give it it's star.--DukeRuckley^Talk

1. God help me... --Arrow Windwhistler (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2008 (CST)
2. Procyon (Talk) 20:01, 15 January 2008 (CST)
3. Safety Skizzerz ^{{{ Talk | Contribs | Spel Chek™ | VFG | RTFM }}} 20:45, 15 January 2008 (CST)
4. The sheer depth of this guide made me decide to try this game myself. :) Garrett^Talk 01:43, 16 January 2008 (CST)
5. This kicks ass, Arrow! What a great job! :D echelon_talk 15:31, 16 January 2008 (CST)

• (expects it to be raped) <.< --Arrow Windwhistler (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2008 (CST)
  • Looks good :)
• I'm going to spell/grammar proof the guide in the next few days and will get back to you with most likely support.--DukeRuckley^Talk

1. Procyon (Talk) 22:10, 12 December 2007 (CST)
2. very nice work :) -- Safety Skizzerz ^{{{ Talk | Contribs | Spel Chek™ | VFG | RTFM }}} 20:57, 23 December 2007 (CST)
3. Vast amounts of detail, and lots of pictures! :) Garrett^Talk 01:51, 16 January 2008 (CST)
4. Amazing work, esspecially with flash combos... Bmuig 15:43, 16 January 2008 (CST)
5. Looks very nice! --Dukeruckley (talk • contribs)
6. Nice guide, I can tell you've put a lot of work into it! --MaestroFergus 09:11, 29 February 2008 (CST)
7. Excellent work! Can't think of anything that's missing from it, so let's promote it already. - Koweja 20:10, 6 March 2008 (CST)

Pocket Fighter is one of the last fighting games that I planned on working on, and in all honesty, I think that it came out the best. I had planned on nominating the Street Fighter II guide first (once I got all the moves pictured), but I put so much into this guide, I can't think of another thing to cram into it. I can't think of a reference of cameo that I didn't mention. For the record, this guide contains:

• Individual character pages that feature an animate idle stance gif, fully illustrated Flash Combos guides showing every costume change, and of course a full move list indicating which moves are level up moves, for all 12 characters.
• A Stage description page including a full capture of each stage (stitched together), and a list indicating every single cameo and reference that can be found.
• An items page that identifies each item carrier, and the different item balls that you can collect.

So... while it could be expanded upon (like, by adding images of how each of the moves improve by levels, or all of the color selections... which I might add some day), I think it's pretty comprehensive state. Procyon (Talk) 22:10, 12 December 2007 (CST)

• It's been over a month, so I think its about time for this to be given its star.--DukeRuckley^Talk