Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Strategy

Collaboration of the Month

Should I add an article which we should all try to feature to the page? If so, which one. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 15:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For now let's wait for a couple more people to join. It'll be hard with so few people. Also, how does this break down: video games, board games, playing card games, and other? Maybe it would be good to include that on the main page.--Clyde Miller 22:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's it. More can be added as we go along. You go ahead and add it, since you came up with the idea. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 00:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox

Is a userbox under construction by someone? I found a good pic [[Image:Chess.svg]] to use. If no one makes one, I have a little experience with it.--Clyde Miller 01:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doing it; you can go ahead and make it, then propose it here. Also, I think this image is better for a userbox; let's try both ways, to see how it looks better (or just have two userboxes). Will you make both, or do I make one of them? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 11:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I made both boxes here, but I didn't add colors. I don't really know what we should have, and I'd rather have a suggestion or input. I'll keep messing around and looking for a good combo to use.--Clyde Miller 01:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Those are great! If you need colors, you can find plenty here. I think they look good like that though, more "strategic". :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 12:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. I didn't notice you had already linked to Web colors. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 21:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Risk (game) or Rise of Nations

I'm going to try to get Risk to Good Article status. It's in very bad shape, and anyone else can help if they like. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 16:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, pick me! ♥ Fr ed il 00:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll pick you. :-) By the way, I've also started to edit Rise of Nations (that's why I changed the header). I like Clyde's idea (below) about a collaboration for an undetermined amount of time. I'll work on both, but which one will we choose as the WikiProject's collaboration? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 00:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I personally like Rise of Nations better because it is my forte (I wrote it's model article) but risk may need the help more. Perhaps we should put that to a vote as well. Ya know, let the other members know that a couple important votes are going on right now.--Clyde Miller 00:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already let them know about the userbox vote, I'll do the same for this one too. Actually, I like Rise of Nations better too, but I think Risk is a Classic, and deserves better than it's wreched current state. I'll add the vote below. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 00:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think that we've decided on Risk, but what now? Do we just put it as a section on the main page, or should a template be made? Clyde (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main page is fine, I'll add it now, but what do you mean by a template? A template to put on the mainpage or on Talk:Risk (game)? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 17:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess I was intenionaly vague, but it might be best to put a template on Risk's talk page, and make the note on the our page bigger about our collaboration. I was specificaly looking for it, and I almost missed it.-Clyde (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know it's bad (look at the edit summary). Maybe it should be near the top as well? Let's try to have that banner ready soon too; we need more people if we want to really improve articles. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 01:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I felt it would help the collaboration to put the peer review on the page. I also struck out what I feel has been addressed already. Thunderforge 05:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean you put Risk on peer review? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 10:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I get it, Dan Slotman's pr. Sorry. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 10:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

Vote whether to have Risk (game), or Rise of Nations as the first Collaboration for this WikiProject.

Risk Risk is a Classic, and deserves better than it's wreched current state. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 00:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Risk. I agree with AndonicO. Besides, having not played Rise of Nations kind of gets in the way... ♥ Fr ed il 01:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Risk I can grind out Rise of Nations into a good article if I really devoted a lot of time to it, but Risk could be a good flagship article for us. I think it would be a better idea.--Clyde Miller 04:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Risk Don't play games but I have always know that Risk is a classic...It would be great to get it up to FA. — Seadog^Talk 04:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Risk Risk is a popular strategy game that has been influential in the development in other games. I'm all making that our collaboration. Thunderforge 01:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas

Well I tried every combo I could think of, and I think the black and white is the best I can get. I guess I'm nominating this to be our userbox (color or format changes are welcome). Also, since we don't have many members, we could have a collaboration for an article, but not set a time limit due to our small numbers. I'd say maybe Risk or Rise of Nations could be our first one. Note: I got rid of my other one userbox using this picture because the chess wikiproject userbox uses it. Comments?--Clyde Miller 23:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user is a member of WikiProject Strategy Games.

Idea is great, text bigger, full stop? Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review}
- I like it better. I got rid of the one from my page and kept the raw text of yours here so it can easily be put as a proper userbox when the time comes.--Clyde Miller 15:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can I move this to Template:User:SGames or something of the like? I don't really like putting raw userbox text on my userpage.-Clyde (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, do move it. Just don't forget to make it "Template:User SGames", there isn't any colon after "User" in userboxes. ^{I thought I had added this message already... What a bad memory. :-(} | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 01:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

moved (Template:User SGames)--Clyde (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Strong Support I don't think it could be better; having a chess piece emphasizes that we're not all about video games. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 23:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
support since I designed it.--Clyde Miller 00:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. ♥ Fr ed il 00:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Support each version. Dfrg.m s c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 08:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very Nice! I especially agree with the non-videogames emphasis; there are other wikiprojects for that. (Also, then you get into the murky world of fair use; the Wikiproject Halo stuff I designed can't use even the halo font!) David Fuchs 17:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Chess is an excellent representation of strategy games and, as others have stated, it doesn't create the immediate conclusion that we are all about computer games. Thunderforge 01:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject box

As far as I note, there is no template box for this wikiproject. I made a quick one here: User:David Fuchs/stragwikiproj but obviously it could change. But if we want to get people to join our project we have to start tagging talk pages of relevant articles. David Fuchs 18:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, however, we should tag the articles using the finished version. I think Culverin was also working on one. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 23:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think this one works for the moment, and we can always change it out or edit it if Culverin has a better one. I think that we can tag articles quicker if we get a bot to do the work and tell it what the relevant categories are. Also, are we going to have a rating system? or should we let that go since other wikiprojects may have that covered?--Clyde Miller 00:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, lets see how it can be improved then. I think we should have a rating system, as an important strategy article isn't necessarily notable in a more extensive WikiProject. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 00:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you want the editing the template to be easier, we probably should move the temp box to Template:SGames, or something. Also, I was going to request bot help to tag related S.Games articles. These are the related categories I found. What did I miss? Just go ahead and add it.--Clyde Miller 03:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good; it took me a while to think of others. (ok, I confess, I used the article) :-) I think we should have the final version ready before posting it anywhere, so let's try to have it ready in the next few days. Perhaps by Wednesday we'll have it. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 11:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I only tagged stuff I knew I was going to be able to find again, so removing the draft one and replacing it with the final will be no issue. EDIT: Oh yeah, I was thinking that when we look at articles for improv. we should leave the heavy lifting and consideration to the related wikiprojects if they're covered, for example Warcraft and Starcraft that have their own wikiprojects. That way we work on the more general articles which wouldn't attract as much attention and don't have a dedicated team. In other words, if the article has a wikiproject, list it here but defer to the project first. David Fuchs (talk • contribs) 15:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, good idea. But I do think articles like Starcraft should be tagged later, when we have a larger group. Remember that adding the template to articles like that is what increased the amount of participants here. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 15:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Big O's comment, don't we want people to join the project? Also, it's Wednesday, and I don't think there is anything else to add to our categories. I'll wait a little bit longer, but I'm going to go to bot requests with this template, and with the categories below. If either David or Culverin could add a rating system, that would be good.--Clyde (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yeah, I don't have any idea how to add a rating system, but I'll see what some digging does. David Fuchs (talk • contribs) 23:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if we can make a rating system unless we make an essential articles page. That opens up another can of worms, so let's dicuss that under a new header, which I'll start. Clyde (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Essential Articles

If we plan on making a rating system for our project, we are going to need to iron out an essential articles page, where we define what is high, mid, low, and none importance, and we might need to iron out some guidelines on what constitues a complete strategy game so we can decide what is stub, start, B, GA, A, and FA. We really won't have a way to work on games and improve them unless we know how. Maybe something like the strategy game article and well known game articles are high, and importance goes down from there. Clyde (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a good enough place to start for our rating system. I think "well known games" should be considered ones that have widespread popularity (i.e. most people would have heard about it), is a notable strategy game, and isn't too recent. Maybe I'm just stating the obvious, but I guess this is as good as any place to start. Thunderforge 04:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So Risk would be one of the most important, together with chess perhaps. How do we make a rating system? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 10:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think we would have to make categories (below), then we make an essential articles page which says this is how we organize our games. Top is decided because it's an important game etc. Then we have a box made (like CVG's), get a bot to update the statistics daily of which articles have been rated, then we have to fix the syntax of our box so that it alows us to rate the articles. We might want to get the help of the people who wrote the CVG box for the syntax work, and of course, Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team for permission to get started, and help. Clyde (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if someone can do that, it'd be great... unfortunately I'll be gone a lot and I won't have time to pursue this for a while, so I don't want to be hindrance. *passing hot potato ;) * --David Fuchs (talk • contribs) 23:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll help, but I don't want to "hog" the potato. ;-) I think we should put the banner up first, that way we have a Category we can search in. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 23:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'll take the potato, but not yet.--Clyde (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it really matters what ranking they are, as long as they're good and encyclopedia-worthy. Also, how do you guys do the fancy signatures? Mine is plain... Prelate Zeratul 19:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Preferences, Edit Profile (default), check "Raw Signatures" and use Wiki code when building your signature. --Juigi Kario (Charge! * My crusades) 01:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stub-Class strategy articles
Category:Start-Class strategy articles
Category:B-Class strategy articles
Category:A-Class strategy articles
Category:FA-Class strategy game articles

What is a strategy game?

I noticed that Solved game, along with 1038 other articles, was marked as falling within the scope of this WikiProject. What were the criteria for selecting these articles? Specifically, what role does this project fill that is distinct from WikiProject Board and table games and WikiProject Computer and video games? It seems to me that this WikiProject is somewhat redundant, particularly given the current population of Category:WikiProject Games. —ptk✰fgs 02:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The redundancy problem was something we had to deal with very early on, even before we were a proper wikiproject. The rationale for creating a wikiproject that appears to be a blend of board games and video games is that if you take a look at how many current example articles there are, one was done by me (Empires), one was done by wikiproject chess (chess, their only one) and one was done over a year ago (Starcraft). Board games isn't excatly chugging out good strategy game articles (they don't currently have a collaboration), and video games wikiproject is so bloated that we really couldn't get the focus we needed to improve strategy games. Many strategy games are poorly written or stubs, and a lot are missing the banner and TLC of the projects that are above us. We might be considered a subproject of video game wikiproject, but then again we're not the the first. Also, I'm sorry that strategy games banner is at the top of every article with five spaces. That was how that bot that placed them was programmed. You can move them below your banner if you want..--Clyde (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Makes sense! —ptk✰fgs 23:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]