Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Strategy: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:59, 29 March 2007

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]
Hmm... yeah, Risk. Zeratul ^{En Taro Adun!}_{So be it.} 21:59, 11 January 2007 (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]
Neutral Support because the knight faces the opposite direction as the knight turned slightly in this image which I like linked from two computer chess articles (and was two-frame animation like a flip book if you want it to be). Reservations because the icon is used in Chess-stub. -Susanlesch 22:27, 1 January 2007 (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]

Copyedit

Excuse me if I sound stupid, but what exactly is "copyedit"? I have the game Company of Heroes and would like to contribute some information, but I'm not sure exactly what to contribute. --Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя ^{Rant | Contributions} 21:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh heh. Never mind... --Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя ^{Rant | Contributions} 21:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting is correcting minor things, such as grammer, sententence order, etc. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 21:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Risk

I was looking at the project page today, and I saw that all the points were crossed. I think that someone should review the page and make sure that all of these points have been addressed. --Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя ^{Rant | Contributions} 00:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll begin doing it right now, but I probably won't finish until tomorrow. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 00:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If everything is fine, I think that the next step would be to submit it to be a Good Article. At that point, we ought to decide if we want to continue collaborating on this article and bring it to Featured Article status or to focus on a different article. Thunderforge 07:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good to me, exept for the chart naming every territory on the board, and when reffering to the player, it says "he or she", which I find redundant. ~~Also, I'll try to stub Miro (Company), because that broken link doesn't look good near the top.~~ Should we do a peer review, or go for Good straight ahead? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 12:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, Good Article Nominations usually wind up having "mini peer reviews" in that when they are nominated, people comment on what is needed to make things better to bring it closer to Good Article status. I vote for going straight to Good Article Nominee. Thunderforge 20:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, you can nominate it if you like. Should we post a notice on the project page, or would that be counter-productive? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 21:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say post on the project page and support the GA nom. Thunder's right about them being mini-PRs; the GA reviewer for the article I nominated, Halo 2, helped bring it up tremendously. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 23:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then let's wait for Thunderforge to nominate it, and then we'll add a banner or something to the page notifing the others. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 23:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know I haven't been doing much with the collarboration, but I know it passed GA and I think the plan is to go for FA. Does anyone know what needs to be done still? Maybe a call to the League of Copyeditors? Right to FAC? Another peer review?--Clyde (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say PR, then, FAC. I don't think we need the league of Copyeditors, since I've copyedited twice already, and it isn't in dire need. You can go ahead and nominate it if you'd like. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 23:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what, PR?--Clyde (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, PR. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 12:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

done--Clyde (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The PR got a light round of suggestions--Clyde (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection request made

Due to the vandalism caused by multiple IPs (most likely a proxy by a single user), I have made a protection request for this page. --Juigi Kario (Charge! * My crusades) 23:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look?

Is Metropolismania still a stub? I did some work on it a while ago, not even sure if it's pertinent. Good game though. :) Midnightdreary 23:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's start class (according to WP:CVG), which is one level above stub. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 23:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I dropped the stub tag and put start class as my edit summary.--Clyde (talk) 03:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Strategy games

I've started working on a Portal for Strategy Games, but you can help too. I've put in everything I know should go like that, but we'll have to decide on the rest. Also, should we use black and white, like in the userbox? (that color looks horrible!) · AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 13:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add chess as the selected article. · AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 13:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

I'm proposing a very minor move of this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Strategy games. Yeah, I'm just a grammar freak like that...anyway...I just want to get a consensus first. –Llama man 01:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support, just noticed WP:NAME says it should be that way. · AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 13:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure knock yourself out.--Clyde (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use template

Back in December I proposed a merger for three fair use templates, Template:Game-cover, Template:Boardgamecover, and Template:RPG-artwork. I made an effort to publicise the merge on the villiage pump and various places that deal with fair use templates. After a lot of support on tfd and a lack of opposition elsewhere I attempted the merge on January 15. Post-merge I've had two objections, one of which said that I "should have brought up the merge with the various projects that manage those covers" (which I thought I was doing when I informed WikiProject Fair use). The merge has been reverted by the person who said I should have brought up the merge in more places. So here we go... IF ANYONE FROM THIS PROJECT CARES ABOUT THIS MERGE PLEASE VISIT Template_talk:Game-cover#Merge AND JOIN IN DISCUSSION THERE. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Active?

Is anyone here still active? I think we should choose a new collaboration, and ask the opinion of every member who has joined so far for input.--Clyde (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm active; I've just finished Rise and Fall: Civilizations at War, and Portal:Strategy games is starting to look better. I don't know about anyone else though. I'd agree to a collaboration, and on notifing everyone (I think that's what you mean, right?). · AO ^Talk 07:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well do you want me to draft some sort of notice like "Please nominate an article for S Games" or should we come up with some noms then say "Please vote"?--Clyde (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the collaboration you mean? Sure, go ahead. · AO ^Talk 01:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations

I think we need a new collaboration. My vote goes to Rise of Nations: Rise of Legends. It needs some serious decrufting and has an entrie navbox of all cruft and not enough encyclopedic info. I'm even gonna get a larger audience to look at this.--Clyde (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I nominate the article Stronghold. It could use some serious editing, though it is not the most well known of games. Half the article was essentially terrible, and I had to rewrite some of it, probably adding cruft in the process. --Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя ^{Rant | Contributions} 04:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I nominate Rise of Nations, the original, or one of the Age of Empires series games. · AO ^Talk 12:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay right now it is 13 November 2024. When is the next choice picked?--Clyde (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say another three or four days. Few people have responded to the message; hopefully more will come by. · AO ^Talk 13:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well quite a few users are inactive, and a few never were active in the first place.--Clyde (talk) 04:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we have three nominations with 2 votes; we need more people to vote. Let's wait a little longer shall we? · AO ^Talk 19:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote (add more nominations if you'd like)

Rise of Nations: Rise of Legends

--Clyde (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stronghold

--Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя ^{Rant | Contributions} 16:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC) - We need sources![reply]
--In terms of dire need, this one definitely. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 00:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rise of Nations

Age of Empires series game (please specify which)

Age of Empires, because it's a classic game, former GA, and it failed a GA nomination recently. · AO ^Talk 12:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Age of Empires II Captain panda In vino veritas 01:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Age of Empires III (Some more work and this article becomes an FA!) TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 10:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Age of Empires-Apple 21:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings and The Conquerors Wiki Raja 06:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lux

--Bernstein2291

Nintendo Wars

Game Boy Wars - expansion needed. --Juigi Kario (Charge! * My crusades) 08:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quoridor

The article is pretty small, and I can help since I own the game. Ry Guy 11:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Advance Wars COs

Shouldn't this also been in the scope of this WikiProject? The Advance Wars series is... Anyway, I think it needs cleanup. --The preceding comment was signed by Us e r:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 10:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who says it isn't? The talk page has our banner. · AO ^Talk 11:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advance Wars has but this page doesn't. --The preceding comment was signed by Us e r:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 23:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then just add "{{SGames}}" to it's talk page. · AO ^Talk 14:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done...btw, I feel that it would be more uniform with the other WikiProjects if wee made it so that the template has a proj at the end: sgameproj or something like that. Just a suggestion...probably not worth editing every page with this template though... --Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя ^{Rant | Contributions} 01:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we only have to edit the template page. What exactly do you mean? This:

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. This article is on a subject of low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0

Is that what you mean by project? · AO ^Talk 11:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No he means that if you put the template on a page it is {{SGames}} whereas 1984 thinks it should be {{SGamesproj}} to reflect the look of other project templates (like VGs is {{cvgproj}}). However, that does bring up the idea of a rating scale and an importance scale again...--Clyde (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wikipedia 1.0 do that, or do we more or less judge how good/important it is? · AO ^Talk 13:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well 1.0 has the final decision on what they think should go in, but each wikiproject can classify and rate an article on their own. For example, I am working on the Eragon (video game) article, and the two different projects give it two different ratings and classifications. I think the reason behind this is that the members of a wikiproject specific to that topic probably know about it more than a random 1.0 member.--Clyde (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds alright. Do we just rate articles, or is it by nomination? I mean, one person might say a certain article is GA, while another might say B-class. How do we keep tabs on that? I'll look into the CVG project (and it's incredibly complicated banner) later. Perhaps you'r already familiar with this though? · AO ^Talk 01:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings are basically opinions based on this by the user that asseses it. GAs and FAs go through the process, and A's are usually failed FACs, but the rest is done by the project member. BTW, I looked into the syntax of the cvgproj banner and it is fun.--Clyde (talk) 04:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fun? Right... I'll probably have time to review it today. · AO ^Talk 19:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link was the important part of that thread.--Clyde (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw the link. Anyways, I'll (try to) look into the template now, or maybe tomorrow morning. · AO ^Talk 23:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've "filtered" it. I passed it to User:AndonicO/SGames template, since I doubt it is ready. Feel free to test it there; we'll probably have red links galore, so get ready to create subpages. · AO ^Talk 00:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added what I think is the final version to Talk:Rise and Fall: Civilizations at War to use as an example (because it only works in article-space). If you think it's fine, I'd say we change the old template for this one. If not, tell me, and I'll fix the problem. (P.S. THAT WAS HARD!!!)· AO ^Talk 00:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks really good (you are a better man than I). Can there be two adjustments made?

[[Image:Chess.svg|{{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|30px|40px}} to maybe something bigger like [[Image:Chess.svg|{{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|50px|60px}}
Can we change the featured SG article pic so it doesn't look like the cvg one? Myabe even just the FA star?

What do you think?--Clyde (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll try to do it; be back as soon as I get it right. · AO ^Talk 15:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was easy. Is it alright that I made the FA star for "selected article" smaller? · AO ^Talk 15:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it's fine, I'll replace the previous banner with this one. Also, thanks for the compliment. :) · AO ^Talk 15:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Satisfied Clyde? · AO ^Talk 17:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's very nice. Now we just have to do this. I don't have AWB, so I can't help. Also I think we should put this on our assessment page for clarity.--Clyde (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 312: / Line 312: @@
 ::::If you think it's fine, I'll replace the previous banner with this one. Also, thanks for the compliment. <tt>:)</tt> · [[User:AO|<font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="1">'''AO'''</font>]] <sup><font color="DarkSlateGray">[[User talk:AO|''Talk'']]</font></sup> 15:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 :::::[[Template:SGamesproj|Done]]. Satisfied Clyde? · [[User:AO|<font face="Papyrus" color="Black" size="1">'''AO'''</font>]] <sup><font color="DarkSlateGray">[[User talk:AO|''Talk'']]</font></sup> 17:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
+::::::It's [[Borat|very nice]]. Now we just have to do [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot|this]]. I don't have AWB, so I can't help. Also I think we should put [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#Importance of topic|this]] on our assessment page for clarity.--[[User:Clyde Miller|Clyde]] ([[User talk:Clyde Miller|talk]]) 01:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)