StrategyWiki talk:Guide/Scope: Difference between revisions

:I have to disagree with Notmyhandle. If we allow freeware and shareware games, it would make StrategyWiki an ideal grounds for advertising one's game that they just invented. The site would be cluttered with front pages filled with sales pitches on why this person's game is the best without actually giving anything more than basic strategy, presumably because basic strategy is as in-depth as the game goes. Games like that really don't even deserve a single page here on StrategyWiki. If a game is completely common sense based and the controls and such are built into the game (which many are), there is NO POINT WHATSOEVER of hosting it here (except for advertising purposes, which should go against our scope). Also, I think that the criteria should be revised so that each one '''doesn't''' say "if it meets this criterion, it can go in, just ignore all the rest." If you really want that on every single game, what's the point of even having this page? Every game could be covered because every game fits at least one of the criterion which say "if yes, ignore the rest." --{{User:Ryan Schmidt/sig}} 11:19, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

::But I said that a game has to be popular... --[[User:Notmyhandle|{{{2|Notmyhandle}}}]] ([[User talk:Notmyhandle|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Notmyhandle|contribs]]) 17:27, 22 June 2007 (CDT)