Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Strategy/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is an archive of discussions from WikiProject Strategy games.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hmm... yeah, Risk. Zeratul ^{En Taro Adun!}_{So be it.} 21:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)
  - 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)

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)

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

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)
support since I designed it.--Clyde Miller 00:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. ♥ Fr ed il 00:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Support Support each version. Dfrg.m s c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 08:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

Agreed. Sample: Copyediting is correcting minor things, such as grammar, sentence order, etc. Barno 18:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

Okay right now it is 29 May 2024. When is the next choice picked?--Clyde (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Hey I have an idea. Do you want to make another subheading that says finalists, then send out another message asking for people to vote for one of the finalists?--Clyde (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that could work well. Do you want to do it, or I? · AO ^Talk 00:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I'd be happy to do it, but since I did the first one, you can do this one if you want.--Clyde (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright then, I'll do it. · AO ^Talk 09:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Vote (add more nominations if you'd like)

Rise of Nations: Rise of Legends

--Clyde (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
--Khalidkhoso 19:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Stronghold

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

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)
Age of Empires II Captain panda In vino veritas 01:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Age of Empires III (Some more work and this article becomes an FA!) TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 10:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Age of Empires-Apple 21:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings and The Conquerors Wiki Raja 06:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Lux

--Bernstein2291

Nintendo Wars

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

Quoridor

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

Oh dear we need some categories.--Clyde (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I read the bot page: in through one ear, out the other. I can make the categories, but I don't understand the rest too well. Do you know what it means, or should we ask them? · AO ^Talk 11:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay if I'm reading this right you create all the categories (using AWB) then we look on some pages we've assesed and make sure that categories are right. As long as we have have Category:Strategy articles by quality and the assessment levels by quality, the bot should working. So let's make some categories and see where we are at.--Clyde (talk) 13:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll do that after lunch (another couple of hours). For convenience, here's the list of categories to create. · AO ^Talk 14:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Strategy game articles by quality

Category:FA-Class strategy game articles

Category:A-Class strategy game articles

Category:GA-Class strategy game articles

Category:B-Class strategy game articles

Category:Start-Class strategy game articles

Category:Stub-Class strategy game articles

Category:Unassessed strategy game articles

Category:Strategy game articles by priority

Category:Top-priority strategy game articles

Category:High-priority strategy game articles

Category:Mid-priority strategy game articles

Category:Low-priority strategy game articles

Category:Unknown-priority strategy game articles

Looks good. However, I'm not going to be on again until tommorow or 2 days from now. I'll start assessing then. Good Luck.--Clyde (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've done most. The no-priority one doesn't exist for WP:VG, so presumably it isn't in the template. We'll do the two top ones after we have everything organized. · AO ^Talk 16:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well (I'm actually going to be here) I think we need to have the two main categories in existance if we want the bot to start updating (like Category:Physics articles by quality or Category:Video game articles by quality). Also we need to make Category:WikiProject Strategy Games. Look at the bottom of Talk:Rise and Fall: Civilizations at War for what I am talking about. Finally, because we changed the name of our banner, we need to update all 1000+ articles with that name.--Clyde (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, thankfully, your last point is "done" automatically (thank God for redirects!). But other than that, yes, we still do have a lot of work. · AO ^Talk 08:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You forgot us

I am wondering why the Tactical role-playing game is not receiving any attention from you folks (project banner is missing from the discussion page). Stop on by and drop a line. SharkD 05:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well the reason that it is missing a banner is because we added the banner using a bot (which used categories), and we missed Category:Tactical role-playing games completely (somehow). Sorry, we'll add it (you can also join the project and add it yourself).--Clyde (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Nomination finalists

The result of the poll was that the winner is Age of Empires II. Clyde (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The result of the nomination above is unclear, but there are three finalists. Please sign below the article you would like to collaborate on. Thank you. · AO ^Talk 11:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Stronghold (2001 game)

--Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя ^{Rant | Contributions} 22:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC) - I am going to stick to this game, since the article needs some major renovation. I mean, comparatively, it is in much worse condition compared to Age of Empires II. Even though not many people know the game, it's the article that's important, right?
--Clyde (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC) None of these articles really strike me as "pathetic." In fact, no matter who wins, they all need game guide cruft deleted and cleanup (which I intend to do). Everyone is voting for a game because they played it, but all three games have well developed gameplay sections, which makes it possible to improve that article without ever playing it (I've done it). What needs to be done is writing the "balls to the grindstone" sections, development and reception. In reality, it doesn't matter how fun the game was; it is how hard you will work for it.

Age of Empires

· AO ^Talk 11:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I choose Age of Empires. Muchris 11:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
AoE deserves a much better article. Hopefully we can get it to FA status, which the game deserves. Sazielt c 12:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I played a lot more II than the original, but the original should be dealt with first imo. Alastair Haines 23:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a classic game, the first of the series, the original one... ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 10:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Deserves FA~ Giggy! ^Talk_Contribs 23:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Age of Empires II

Voting for AoE II just because A) I still have the game manuals, and unlike Stronghold I've extensively played the game. We can use AoE III as a benchmark, I think. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 11:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: To clarify, I meant using AoE III as an example of what we should have, etc. as its already a Good Article. Of course, some things are different, but in the general sense. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 22:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Vote AoE II Stabby Joe 12:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I vote AoE II because I have the manual, play it a lot, and would be able to do the most work on it. Also the page is pretty shabby. N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9' ^{T a l k} 15:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I Vote for AOE II,i loved playing it.Khalidkhoso 19:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I vote for AOE II because I liked this game best out of these three games. Because I like it best, I know it best. Captain panda In vino veritas 21:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Vote - Great game, and I could actually help this time! ALTON .ıl 22:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Vote AOE II has the most potential, and I enjoyed it the most. Dfrg.msc 10:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think it's evident that AoE II won. Let's start improving the article! · AO ^Talk 11:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed! ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 13:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, it's in bad shape... · AO ^Talk 13:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. AoE II needs some cleanup and editing. Silenced Nighthawk^{ComlinkPast Missions} 01:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's get to it! Dfrg.msc 00:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article resurrection

I resurrected the turn-based tactics article and modeled it after the RTT article. SharkD 16:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice! You might want to add some screenshots though. Sazielt c 18:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Can I steal screenshots off of websites? I want to feature Steel Panthers, but I don't own a copy of the game. SharkD 18:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can, but make sure you link to the original website on the image page. Also, try not to choose a screenshot with a watermark (most sites do that, even if they didn't take the screenshot originally). I know HeavenGames doesn't use watermarks; perhaps you could use a screenshot from a game like Rome: Total War (or just look for the TBT games they have). · AO ^Talk 18:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What type of license do I use in this case? SharkD 19:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

All screenshots use the one you have on it now, so it's quite easy to remember. :-) · AO ^Talk 19:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Great work Shark, keep it up! · AO ^Talk 18:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Turn-based vs. real-time

I added a section discussing arguments as to the superiority of either system to the turn-based strategy article. It still needs to be fleshed out a bit. SharkD 00:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

List of strategy games

I overhauled the List of strategy video games. There's lots more games listed now--especially in the TBT section. I've also expanded each series to list each game in the series, including expansions. SharkD 02:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Good work, I'll pitch in too! That list is pretty high priority for this project. · AO ^Talk 20:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going through the list and making sure the genres and categories are correct. I'm removing games from categories if they fit better into sub-categories. For instance, if a game is already in the TBS category, then I remove it from the Strategy category. Ideally, there should not be any individual games--only sub-categories--listed in the Strategy category.

Also, can someone create a bot to copy all the games in the TRPG category into the TBT category? In the future, the TRPG category may contain some real-time games, as well (for instance, Freedom Force). SharkD 01:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

AoM Cleanup

Age of Mythology is in pretty bad shape. I've done some stuff on it, so I'd like some feedback, comments, and more work done if possible. Thanks! ~ Giggy! ^Talk_Contribs 00:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll look over that tomorrow. Never played the game though, just the demo. · AO ^Talk 00:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna do some heading changes and remove some game guide information if I find it.--Clyde (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, I could really do with some help. I agree, the headings suck, but I really didn't want to to a total rewrite. ~ Giggy! ^Talk_Contribs 00:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I did a little cleanup. I'll look at it again if I get some time.--Clyde (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice work! Well, it's on the to do: cleanup list, so hopefully more will be done. ~ Giggy! ^Talk_Contribs 01:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I was too lazy to actual do more work, so I added a to do list instead.--Clyde (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Projects

Should I add our project (and probably Wikipedia:WikiProject Age of Empires too) to this? I wasn't sure.--Clyde (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

On a completely unrelated topic, I think we should archive at least part of this page.--Clyde (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the AoE project will get too far, because of the limited scope. I think this one should be added, but it's not ALL video games... · AO ^Talk 14:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I personally think both should be added.~ Giggy! ^Talk_Contribs 23:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Though technically, this is not all video games, the majority of the articles that we focus on here are strategy games on the computer. StarCraft, Age of Empires, Rome:Total War, and Risk are some examples. Because of this, I think it should be added. Captain panda 01:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Xiangqi FAR

Xiangqi has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 15:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the notification. · AndonicO ^Talk 15:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

References to the board game Risk in popular culture up for deletion

Hey, I was wondering if you all could speak on behalf of keeping the Risk in pop culture article alive. I know a lot of us worked hard earlier this year to make the Risk article GA status (in fact it's almost FA status) I'd hate to see all our work go down the drain: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/References to the board game Risk in popular culture b_cubed 04:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I voted merge. Sorry, I just can't vote to keep such a thing. ~ G1ggy! _Reply 09:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I voted delete. I think it's not necessary. · AndonicO ^Talk 20:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait so it was deleted completely? No merge?--Clyde (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No merge that I can see. It can be discussed on the talk page, in any case. · AndonicO ^Talk 22:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a shame. Oh I archived by the way. Any problems, let me know.--Clyde (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem with the archive; I had forgotten about that. · AndonicO ^Talk 22:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, deleted, according to the AfD. ~ G1ggy! _{Reply | Powderfinger!} 09:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Next Nomination?

Honestly I wasn't able to participate too terribly much with the last collaboration on Age of Empires II due to my limited knowledge of the game (and I was also simply very busy). I think that we should start up another collaboration lest this wikiproject stagnates and dies on us. Furthermore, I think that we need to give serious thought to the next collaboration. Ideally we can choose one that is relatively popular and within range of FA status. The way I see it, if we can get an article to FA status it will be shown on the mainpage and our wikiproject will gain more visibility. More visibility = more contributing members.

Personally, I would like to nominate games such as The Oregon Trail (computer game), Connect Four, or even a renomination/refocus on the Risk (game) article to bring it to FA status. (Personally I think the Risk article could easily become FA with minimal work, IMO all that is left is a few citations, work on a separate article (currently a workspace) focusing on the different licensed versions of the game found here, and then a peer review). b_cubed 04:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think anyone contributed to the collaboration. Risk wouldn't be a bad idea, considering, as you say, that it is near finishing. I'll see if I find time to help you with those citations. · AndonicO ^Talk 09:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. b_cubed 16:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Risk is quite a popular game, and few board games ever reach FA status. If we can get it up to FA, TFA will surely follow. I've had Empires on TFA/R for a while, but nothing has come of it. I'd guess the same would be with Rise and Fall, but something like Risk has a chance. Perhaps we could draft a plebiscite to see whether or not we (as a project) want to finish Risk and forget about AoE II for a while (or forever).--Clyde (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance but what does the 'T' in TFA stand for. I have done a little more work on the Risk (game) article and have a peer review under way. It certainly needs a read through and a few more citations where applicable. The only section that I think still needs work is the section dealing with different versions of the game. Looking at the main article I have for that (List of licensed Risk game boards), I'm sure that it could also qualify as a FA list if it was only cited. b_cubed 05:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe T means "Today's." I'd help with the PR, but I am involved in an FAC of my own right now.--Clyde (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Importance Ratings

How does one define which articles are top, high, mid, and low importance? There are a lot that aren't assessed, and I'd like to run a backlog drive, but I'm not clear on which is which.... G1 gg y ! _{Review me!} 04:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a looksie here. I hope that clarifies it for you. b_cubed 05:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I already told Giggy, but another discussion was here. Clyde (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Facelift

I just finished giving this wikiproject a facelift. It took me a lot longer than I thought it would, even with using the Central Asia wikiproject as a template. I hope everyone finds it easier to use and better looking than the last one. b_cubed 05:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Assessments?

I put Eastern Front (computer game) up for assessment, but from what I can see there hasn't been any effort on this at all. Is anyone currently running assessments? Is there anyone in charge? Maury 18:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked at it, and it looks like a weak B, possibly a strong start. As a representative of both video games and strategy games, it looked like a correct rating. Do you want me to bump it down to start?--Clyde (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You might want to consider putting it in a VG peer review or peer review if you can't think of anything else to do. I'd be happy to make some comments.--Clyde (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather just collect comments on the article talk page, the aim here is to make a better article, not get a fancy sticker. I am very curious to hear why you consider it a "weak b" though. Maury 21:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Is that why I would consider it that good or that bad? I'm confused. The game covers the gameplay very well, but the critical reception is little more that one unreferenced paragraph in versions. Development is really nonexistent, but partially forgivable given the date of the game. The prose could be improved, and I saw little hints of POV now and then.

For an article that size it is a little low on references, and the lead could probably be expanded. The difference between B and start is a majority of the content vs. only some of the content. In terms of other video game articles I have worked on, it is missing much of the information I look for. However, it has a lot of content in it (AI and versions), so it falls in the gray area between start and B. It is also missing fair use rationales, which gets into copyright issues. The references are not in cite web, which leads me to question their verifiability since I cannot see publishers and authors.

Finally there's an external reference in the article, which should be a reference. I'm still wondering how you want this reassessed. To go higher you must nominate at the the good article candidates page, and most editors do not want the assessment lowered. I would not recommend nominating for GAC until it is a little more developed, so what are you going for? I will lower it to start if you want.--Clyde (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Update

I completed B and finished A in regards for assessing articles. If you want to help, go ahead, and/or sign here.--Clyde (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability tag on 4X

McKay insists on adding a Notability tag to 4X, which would put it in danger of deletion - despite the fact that I've provided references that show how widely and consistently the term is used and that it represents a significant genre of strategy games. If 4X is deleted, any article about one of the many games in this genre which linked to it would have a dead link. I think McKay's real problem is that he / she thinks only subjects discussed in well-established academic journals are notable, which is a totally unreasonable criterion for computer games, where most of the articles are online and generally taken offline after a few years. If the Notability tag stands, someone (possibly McKay) will be tempted to apply it to other genres such as RTS - and Herzog Zwei, the first RTS, would be extremely vulnerable as articles about it are going extinct.Philcha 23:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What tag? Was it removed?--Clyde (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was removed. It may be back up shortly. There's an elusive PC Gamer article that has an article dedicated to the genre that would satisfy his requirements. Anyone with back issues of the magazine please look for it. SharkD 00:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:PROD nominations

21 August Tank Mania --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think it's a strategy game. SharkD 02:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for comments

I've recently done major edits on Master of Orion, Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares and Space Empires III. Comments would be appreciated.Philcha 00:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to read through everything right now, but skimming through a bit, I notice a couple of things. First off, they're written well. Try to condense the sections a little bit though. The main problem is a lack of sources: for articles that long, you should aim to have a minimum of thirty. · AndonicO ^Talk 23:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The default source is the game manuals and, for user interface, the screens. Philcha (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Inactive?

Someone added the "inactive wikiproject" template. Just want to see if anyone is around... · AndonicO ^Talk 01:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I am around. I suppose I don't do as much work as I should with the project, but I do look at it. Captain panda 01:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Same here (I've been on wikibreak for a while though). I'll be working on another article whenever I get around to it. :P · AndonicO ^Talk 01:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I keep a tab on assessment, but haven't been very active lately.--Clyde (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm around, and this is on my watchlist, but I'm not overly active in this area. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 23:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

But you're very active in the related articles. :-) · AndonicO ^Talk 01:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm around, but not a member. I tend to keep a close watch on a few articles. SharkD (talk) 07:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Please review Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares

I've recently done a major edit.Philcha 12:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion: Games Workshop Online Community

This is an old AFD action that remains pending:

Games Workshop Online Community at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Games Workshop Online Community (2nd nomination) (22 September 2007) Ongoing

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Interest in Fire Emblem articles?

I noticed that at some point someone affixed the tag for this project to Talk:Fire Emblem Gaiden, but none of the other Fire Emblem game articles. I found that rather odd. Is this project interested in the Fire Emblem series of tactical RPGs? If so, I would be happy to add the template to all the other Fire Emblem game talk pages for you guys. Infernal Inferno 22:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's a strategy game... So actually if you removed it that would be helpful. :) · AndonicO ^Talk 23:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This genre is more commonly known as Strategy RPG. It shares more in common with strategy games than RPGs. There's very little actual role-playing involved. Moby Games lists this game in both the RPG and Strategy genres (link). IGN lists this game as Turn-based Strategy RPG (link). GameSpot lists it as Fantasy Turn-Based Strategy (link). SharkD 00:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a bit like saying tactical shooter, but okay. · AndonicO ^Talk 01:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you're not too familiar with the series. The Fire Emblem article gives a pretty good overview. The games really do have more in common with turn-based strategy games like Advance Wars (actually, the same company develops both series) than the typical RPG, which is why I think it might belong here. However, I'm unfamiliar with what the exact scope of this Wikiproject is, so I'll await your final decision on the matter. Infernal Inferno 02:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, some tactical shooters are covered by The Wargamer[1] and Tacticular Cancer[2] (as well as a few mentions at Strategy Core[3]--nothing at Strategy Planet, though[4]). Moby Games lists them in both the Strategy and Action categories[5][6][7]. I'm not that familiar with tactical shooters, so I can't provide further analysis. SharkD (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Content dispute

There's a short edit war going on over at Roguelike. It's not a strategy game, but the disputed content deals with concepts found in strategy games, such as tactics. Some RPGs are mentioned that overlap with turn-based tactics. SharkD (talk) 06:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

FAR for Chess

Chess has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Kaypoh (talk) 08:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Chinese chess players

This category name is highly confusing, since Chinese chess is the common English name for a different board game, and one would naturally expect it to be filled with players of Chinese chess. Any suggestions on renaming it? 70.51.9.174 (talk) 07:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_January_5#Category:Chinese_chess_players —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.9.174 (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Chess players from China ? SharkD (talk) 08:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Characters of StarCraft FAC

Characters of StarCraft has been nominated for Featured Article candidate. Please comment, etc., thanks. FightingStreet (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, will soon. · AndonicO ^Hail! 18:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

SGamesproj: Articles of unclear notability

Hello,

there are currently 13 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 12 March 2008 and may be slightly outdated.)

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Master of Orion

WLU has just re-written Master of Orion unilaterally, despite the fact that I pointed out some drawbacks of changes he had already made and asked him to discuss further changes on the Talk page. The further down the article I read, the more dissatified I am with the changes - there are errors, omissions that are as misleading, a lot of re-phrasing for the sake of it that IMO generally reduces clarity, etc. Arbitration is needed, otherwise this is going to wind up as an edit war. Someone who knows the game woudl be the ideal arbitrator, to avoid the need to paste chunks of the manual and other rlevant material into the discussion. Philcha (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Dots and Boxes

I'm going to be working on the dots and boxes article, but I'm worrying about what would be suitable for the page, and what depth would be right. Advice on its talk page would be good.
Are there any wikipedia guidlines, or some pages I can model it after. Macbi (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

4X and board games

Randomran and I have been working to get 4X up to GA, and we've found board games described as "4X". Since neither of us knows much about board games, we'd appreciate input from someone who does. Can anyone help? Please respond at Talk:4X#Board_games. Philcha (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Games timeline

Board and Card Games Timeline omits a lot (almost all those used in the "History" section of [4X]!) but may be useful for others tracing the history of various game genres. E.g. Tactics II seems to have been the "first influential commercial wargame." Philcha (talk) 08:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Historical.

I haven't seen anyone active here in ages, and I myself don't work on strategy game articles much anymore... I've tagged it as historical; feel free to revert. · AndonicO ^Engage. 01:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

DESPERADOS 2 COOPER´S REVENGE

I HAVE READ THAT SOME OF THE LOCATIONS IN THIS GAME ARE:SANTA FE IN NEW MEXICO,FORT WINGATE ALSO IN NEW MEXICO,BUT I DONT KNOW THE OTHERS LIKE:

"EAGLE´S NEST" (SANCHEZ FORTRESS)´&
"EYE OF THE NEEDLE"

DOES SOMEONE KNOW THE LOCATION OF THESE TWO PLACES? IN WHICH STATE ARE THIS PLACES?

THANKS

PLEASE WRITE ME TO:pochales@yahoo.com Marco de la Fuente,Lima-Perú —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.43.254.70 (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Strategy game

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Strategy task force

I think it's safe to say that this page isn't getting much usage any more. Clearly strategy games are being worked on, 4X is now a featured article, although it hasn't been discussed here since it's notability was questioned. I would like to formally propose that this project become a task force of WP:VG. Clearly it would lose a little of the scope, but most of the efforts here seem to be on video games anyways, and with the Chess/Board games/Card games projects all in existence there's no worries of any pages getting orphaned. And to be honest, a completely-inactive project has no scope at all. If there are any people still watching, I'd like to know your opinions. If the project stays here as historical or whatever, we'll still need to remove all the project banners, delete the categories, etc. I'd rather at least attempt to get it up and running (or even a brisk walk), and I think a task force is the best way to do that. Cheers! ~ JohnnyMrNinja 17:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm retired, and AO doesn't seem to be around these parts anymore (He's the founder, I'm a charter member), and it doesn't seem like anyone's left. You can make it a task force, or get rid of it entirely in my opinion. I doubt anyone's going to complain.--CM (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like it's already a task force. -Thunderforge (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

How can you tell whether it's a taskforce? The page hasn't moved at all. SharkD (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I clicked on a link of task forces for WP:VG and would up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Culture/Games#Games, which lists task forces not just for WP:VG but other projects as well. I read it too quickly and thought that this project was a taskforce of WP:VG. Looking at this again, it seems like most of the bona fide task forces for WP:VG are for video game series (e.g. the Starcraft taskforce). Currently, there is a project for "Adventure Games," but there aren't any other projects or task forces for other genres (there isn't, say, the First Person Shooter taskforce) since it seems to be covered by WP:VG in general. I don't think that Strategy Games will be successful as a task force because there aren't any others, but feel free to take my opinion worth a grain of salt. Who knows, maybe someday there will be taskforces for each genre. -Thunderforge (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem there would be that making this a task force of VG would cut down the scope enormously. This is directly under Games, and should stay in that relationship, as there are a lot of non-computer strategy games (such as chess, which provides the logo for the current WP ;) ).

In the end, the real question to me is, 'can we find a way to get some real work done on games outside the VG and RPG realms?' There's a couple of us who have mucked around in WP:BTG, but there's never been enough for a self-sustaining community to get going, so we (well, I, anyway) just trail off after a while.... --Rindis (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the bulk could be split into a VG taskforce, but leave a shell that has braoder scope? You're right in that there might not be enough interest even for that. SharkD (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:43, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Advance Wars 2: Black Hole Rising

Hey, I've recently made many edits to this article (with suggestions from the WikiProject Video Games talk page, and I was wondering, do I need to get separate reviews (quality) for the article? If so, could someone look at the article and tell me how it can be improved (possibly on the talk page)? Thanks! ♥ichi 01:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced article if they are not sourced, so your project may want to pursue the projects below.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 02:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggested merge of Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness and Warcraft II: Beyond the Dark Portal

See Talk:Warcraft_II:_Tides_of_Darkness#Merger_proposal. The combined article would be Warcraft II] (new title). I've asked at Help_talk:Merging#Help_text_needs_adjusting.3F on how to a merge from A and B into C, and will add merge templates when this question is resolved. However I think discuss can be started now and will advertised it at Talk:Warcraft_II: Beyond the Dark Portal. --Philcha (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri and Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire

This project looks dead. In case anyone cares, I will be doing major overhauls of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri and Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire.

Vyeh (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I am revising Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire and Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri articles following the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. There are more details on the discussion pages of those articles. I'd be interested in any comments you have.

Thank you.

Vyeh (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Strategy game articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Strategy game articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Tic tac toe clarification

In the Strategy section of the English article on Tic tac toe, there is a line starting with "Opposite corner". It states that, "Opposite corner: If the opponent is in the corner, play the opposite corner."

I think this requires some clarification, the diagonal, horizontal or vertical opposite? It's impossible to tell from the article, and I'm afraid I can't contribute with the right answer. Hopefully someone else will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Femtiosex (talk • contribs) 09:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Task force cleanup

I've proposed a comprehensive cleanup of WP:VG's inactive task forces (which would include redirecting all task force talk pages, including this one), if you'll take a look czar ♔ 02:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)