Talk:Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Explorers of Time and Explorers of Darkness

What is this?

What's Pokémon Mystery Dungeon 2? I've never heard of it. Myth 15:35, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

See the Wikipedia article. It was only announced in May, and the English title isn't even known yet. It seems to be focussed on loot rather than good deeds. Garrett^Talk 15:41, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

I dunno, this may be crazy concept, but I've heard that people use this site called Google to look things up. Maybe you've never heard of that either. Procyon (Talk) 15:44, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

Mystery Dungeon "2" Reference

Can we even call it "Mystery Dungeon 2?" It's not in either of the games' titles, and from the description it doesn't even seem much different than the originals. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 22:34, 10 February 2008 (CST)

Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Explorers of Time and Explorers of Darkness or Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Explorers of Time and Darkness. Wikipedia uses the first, but the second is shorter. Why couldn't it have just been named Time and Darkness... -- Prod (Talk) 21:55, 12 February 2008 (CST)

What matters more: The game name or the Walkthrough?

We're all focusing on the name itself that we don't focus on the big picture. We here at Strategywiki are for making strategy guides, and not for interpreting names. I've been working on the guide for a month now with the Japanese version, and meanwhile you all here are talking about the name! Let's get working! And just to settle our current debate, the two games are Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Explorers of Time and Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Explorers of Darkness.--GaleZephule 10:55, 21 February 2008 (CST)

Ordinarily, I would not bother to take time out of the day to say this, but I think your response to Prod and NMH's question warrants a proper reaction. No matter how zealous you are about the work that you're doing, your answer to their legitimate question was extremely rude and dismissive. Your work will amount to nothing if people can't find your guide under the proper name that it belongs to. SW doesn't just need guide authors, it needs authors who are capable of compromising and working cooperatively with other authors, sys ops, and editors of this site. You have just demonstrated that you are not very capable of this, and perhaps SW would be better off without someone with your level of maturity, regardless of the content you may have contributed. Procyon (Talk) 12:24, 21 February 2008 (CST)

I don't even see how I was being rude. I was just saying that we should be working on the walkthrough first, then focus on the name. I agree with you, a guide is useless without a name to find it under, but a name to find a guide under is useless without the guide itself. Make the guide, then make the name. Who wants to read a walkthrough that only goes through Chapter One?

I was just trying to be nice to you guys by giving you the first Pokémon Mystery Dungeon 2 walkthrough on the Internet, but it seems that you guys are too ungracious enough to take it without me being a little angel about it.

Maybe I would work together with everyone on this, but there's one problem: No one's working with me! No one has worked on the guide since I took a break. Not good, people. We need to work on it!

I say, if no one is going to work on it, then take whoever you can. Of course, I'm not a senior editor, now, am I?

You people are starting to get on my nerves, lighten up a bit, and be a little more optimistic. I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just pointing out what was wrong, editorially and morally, with what you said...

And I really don't care at this point if you fire me. I don't like working with tightwads...--Galezephule 02:01, 1 July 2008 (CDT)

I can appreciate that you are well-intentioned, and I'm happy you're enthusiastic about contributing to the guide, but can you please soften your attitude? People like NMH, Prod and Procyon^* put many, many hours in on StrategyWiki sorting out all the hundreds of problems people bring up on a daily basis; they deserve some respect. Perhaps you should cool off and put some more thought into your messages before sending them.

It's an unfortunate fact of the way StrategyWiki works that sometimes only one person contributes to a guide, and if they disappear for a while like you did, nobody else will work on that guide. That's not because they don't appreciate what you've done, or because they think the game is worthless — it's usually because they don't have the game, or don't know the guide exists. Maybe you could enlist the help of some of your friends, or ask around on forums dedicated to this game? There are bound to be people to help somewhere; you just need to find them. You take care of writing the guide, and we'll take care of the formatting, name, and generally running the site. --DrBob (talk) 11:00, 1 July 2008 (CDT)

We greatly appreciate your contributions, and we don't want to lose you as a contributor. Also, apart from you, there have been a fair number of contributions. Check out related changes. Most of them are just anonymous users, but if you check back two weeks, there's another user adding content. As most of us don't have the game, we can't help with content, but if you ever need help with layout or wikimarkup, we're glad to help. Leave any of us a message, or post on the StrategyWiki:Staff lounge. Happy editing :) -- Prod (Talk) 12:07, 1 July 2008 (CDT)

^* I also wanted to add a humble DrBob to that list of hard workers. Procyon (Talk) 12:33, 1 July 2008 (CDT)

This is merely a weakness in the system of the wiki - what really is the proper (or successful) way to provide both a successful wiki and promote contributions and community? Sorry dude, we (myself and I think the others who have responded) don't own the game, otherwise we would help. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 00:38, 5 July 2008 (CDT)