Originally posted by YK
Originally posted by Waffle Ryebread
(copied from the other thread because durrrr)
I'm only going to okay this if:
A) The content has its own dedicated namespace, like Notes: and Proto: (unused stuff remaining in the game always has the highest priority and should always be the first thing you see)
B) We develop some heavy-duty rules/guidelines and actually enforce them
I'm mostly worried about B) since we already have a crapload of sub-par pages on the wiki that haven't been touched in months. :|
Sometime soon, we should make a coordinated effort to clean up those lackluster pages: either they're improved, or they're gone. One big offender is the Super Bonk page... it's terrible, and has been since basically the very beginning of the wiki. It mentions unused music and a debug mode, but says nothing about how to access anything, and despite my occasional efforts to get the page worked on, it remains largely untouched. Because it's such a skeleton of a page, I can't even update it myself, because there's just not enough info for me to do so.
Additional thoughts: Standards... we really need to get them worked out. As much as I like the wiki, and have no desire to go all "Wikipedia", we *do* need some hard-and-fast rules. For one... I'm not totally "NPOV" or anything, but one thing that always turned me off on some sites which would otherwise have been very enjoyable, is their overly snarky commentary. Zany VG Quotes, for instance, tended to open every section with a snarky remark about the game sucking or something. Plus, if you actually *liked* a game, seeing an intro bitching about it on a site that otherwise has no reason to can actually be off-putting. We're here to document unused content; we're not a game review website. Opinions on a game's quality don't belong here. If a game sucks, I'll put something less overly critical, such as "...was generally regarded as poor" or something, rather than "This game is a steaming pile of shit and GameCompany should feel bad for making it."
Also, humor/breezy language. Some may just say I'm "too serious", but I have no problem with well-placed jokes and sarcasm... but sometimes... well, for instance, let's say, someone listing the effects of a debug menu decides to put something silly under "Cancel". Now, it's blatantly obvious what it does, so there's no real need to say "Closes the menu". So something like "Yeah, this should be obvious" seems like nice deadpan humor. "Choosing this option blows up your Playstation", by contrast, seems amateurish and dumb. I don't want to be humorless like Wikipedia, but I don't want us to come across as overly juvenile, either.
Of course, ultimately this is all at the whims of BMF and Xkeeper, but that's my two cents.
Wikipedia's original article on the SNES game, Equinox, was basically just a GameFAQs-quality review and even included a racist gem along the lines of, "Like most games that weren't made in Japan, the graphics are gaudy".
____________________

Choose a Kitty
|