Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Strategy games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Knight chess piece This article is within the scope of WikiProject Strategy games, an effort by several users to improve Wikipedia articles on strategy games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Strategy games To-do:
Archive

Archives
1

Contents

[edit] 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 NighthawkComlinkPast 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.... G1ggy! 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Please review Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares

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

[edit] Articles for Deletion: Games Workshop Online Community

This is an old AFD action that remains pending:

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)