Codex Gamicus talk:Reorganize

Question
How did you get "Attention Users go here to decide on reorganization process!" on the header? It is a template right? -PatPeter 23:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * By editing this page. - Adan Aileron 23:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Huh, would editing that MediaWiki page work on all wikis or just in Wiki because it is a extension? I am the Bureaucrat of the Red Orchestra Wiki and I may use this. -PatPeter 06:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a standard MediaWiki feature: more info here. - Adan Aileron 00:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

manual nav cats
just a note, when you put on a game's subpage (/credits, /soundtrack, /codes, /walkthrough), you dont have to manually put the categories on the page any more, the nav template detects that and automatically puts the page in the appropriate category --Uberfuzzy 05:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Neat but we may need it to categorize games --Cs california 09:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * here's an example http://egamia.gamepedia.com/index.php?title=1nsane%2Fcodes&diff=48973&oldid=39007 see how i took out the category? but look at the page http://egamia.gamepedia.com/index.php?title=1nsane/codes&oldid=48973  its still in the category. the template takes care of that --Uberfuzzy 22:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Consolidated Proposal
Ok, so this is my attempt to sum up our discussions this far. It would be great if everyone could respond just saying "yeah, that's cool ... let's start moving ahead", or reply with what areas still concern you.


 * The Wiki Gaming Hub will move to Egamia. All breadcrumbs, press release links, etc. will go to the new Egamia.  The new site will be called Wiki Gaming, and we will probably take over the gaming.gamepedia.com domain name (but not immediately).
 * The logo will be the Wiki Gaming logo. The community will have some input, most likely on color, but the logo would have to be consistent with our other materials.  Check out this image for a preview of what we're looking at (in the lower-right corner).  The colors inside the Wiki text are flexible.
 * Still kind of ugly needs some work or a specific theme or something (attempt to include old logos(see site history) to keep constancy)--Cs california 08:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The new Egamia will serve primarily to link the various gaming communities and provide a place for everyone to hang out. The homepage will reflect this new purpose.  When appropriate, content pages will deep-link to pages within host wikis (for example, "Dwarf" on the World of Warcraft page would link to w:c:wow:Dwarf).  No existing content would be removed, but the focus for future content would be more breadth.
 * We should still have specific guides but not in detail about armors and units right? what about significant characters? maps? stand alone games (without wikis?) The statement is too conceptually broad. Needs more discussion--Cs california 08:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am also wondering about where the line will be drawn. I'm also concerned about what would happen in the following scenario:
 * Codex Gamicus amasses a comprehensive collection of articles about Subject X
 * Someone asks for, and gets, a Wiki covering Subject X
 * Are articles moved? Deleted? Left alone? - Adan Aileron 04:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that you really need to approach it on a case-by-case basis. I would definitely discourage the removal of perfectly good content because it might be duplicated elsewhere.  That said, once the other wiki is created, as an editor, would personally rather contribute any future in-depth information to the new wiki rather than try to compete with it.  Keep in mind that even if the new wiki is fledgling, sometimes all it takes is a few good articles to get it rolling. --KyleH (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest that Egamia will be able to take over and merge contents of inactive wikis as long as we screen those red links out.--Cs california 09:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The community will still control operations on the wiki, including homepage design, policies, etc. The only caveats to that are:


 * A user must be able to browse to the individual wikis from the homepage rather than having to search.
 * This doesn't mean that the homepage needs to be a link farm; I think that the portals would great for this ... for example, the RPG portal could link to all the RPG wikis, etc.


 * Section above is contradictory and does not make much sense first statement does not agree with second one unless portals are on front page which will make it crowded. We can have a link to portals on front page so people can navigate more easier but put it below in a template box as a item of navigation. --Cs california 08:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be easier just to describe what I have in mind. For example, on the front page, rather than the 200+ wiki links that are on the Gaming Hub now, there might instead be 8 links to portal pages (eg. one for FPS, one for RPG, one for Strategy, etc.).  Those individual portal pages would house links to each of the individual wikis rather than them being on the homepage itself.  That's just my idea though: the only important thing is that a user should be able to reach an individual wiki within a few clicks of the homepage without having to enter a search term.  I think it is in everyone's interest that the content is easily browsable; the method of getting there is less critical. --KyleH (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree to this. That was what I had in mind below.--Cs california 09:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Wiki Gaming staff may occasionally have to make small changes without seeking consensus, such as changing highlighted wikis.
 * Should be separate boxed section on front page like current events because it is not significant to users seeking help or news. Should be brief like wiki spotlight. --Cs california 08:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is our hope that this would eventually be mostly managed by the community as well.
 * No direct fanon links would be allowed, but links to fanon wikis on Wiki would appear on the appropriate wiki pages for their games.
 * The Egamia admins would remain admins.
 * We don't get anything special? :(
 * If you're ever in town, I'll buy you a drink? Or did you have something else in mind? ;) --KyleH (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Pages for adult games would be allowed; however, they would only provide a basic overview of the game and more in-depth information would be linked to another wiki.
 * Wont this be same as wikipedia?--Cs california 08:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Box art which is not work safe would be censored or removed.
 * Where will they go??? Is a wiki setup for this type of material?? Boxart removal can be viewed as product discrimination and can will not help users who want to know what the product looks like so just mention the genre and have a portal with links to another wiki project and disallow all on the site. You cant be wishy washy and keep some but not all--Cs california 08:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you believe would be a reasonable compromise? --KyleH (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Have only a hub and all pages with adult content at another wiki / section with javascript setup. If we have another wiki then there will be no problems. But if we have a section or something make sure it does not show up in the random pages. I would really prefer it if wiki can add javascript features to filter them or you can mod your account to allow/ disallow like google search features. But since that is a hassle, we should all discuss what to do by listing our ideas and come to a consensus.


 * Remove all day ie September 1 As they are unimportant.

I think that covers the major points that we have discussed. This is in no way "final", I'm just trying to move things along.

Thanks! --KyleH (talk) 02:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Approve. --Achernar 13:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Approve with slight modifications see above --Cs california 08:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks ok so far, Approve. -- Adan Aileron 04:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

2-10
Alright I have been busy for the last few weeks, what happened to all of this? -PatPeter 02:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyone? -PatPeter 18:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)