Strategies - Main Page or Talk?

Forums: Index > Planning Forum > Strategies - Main Page or Talk?

Post

This discussion was moved to draft policy status on July 10, 2009 and discussion in this forum is now locked from further comment. To discuss updates to this policy, see the policy talk page .

One of my few pet peeves is the strategy section that is included for nameds (And in particular, the fact that the strategies are put on the main article pages at all). While I agree some script information should be given on the encounters (in the forms of AEs (already supported by the template) and other specific scripted stuff, like Varsoon's three rooms), to me the individual user-created strategies (ie pull him to here, then do x, y, and z) don't belong on the main article pages -- they are better suited for a dedicated "Strategies" section on the talk page, with a link to such section from the main page.

Initial Discussion

The reason I say this is there are often many ways to go through a fight, and the current method sort of portrays one (the first one to be put down) as the 'definitive' strategy. So, how about a policy or guideline on strategies? Some suggestions for said policy/guideline while I'm thinking about it...:

• Strategies should only appear on the named monster's page (for scripts/AEs) or said monsters talk page (for user submitted complete strategies).
  • Encounters with multiple named shuold have it appear on the page of the "primary" named, with links to the "primary" named's strategy section in the strategy section of secondary nameds.
• Only verifyable, objective information should be included on the main article page. This type of information includes:
  • Mob abilitys / AEs (with or without screenshots)
  • Fixed timers or trigger conditions of said abilities (if they exist). If uncertain or highly variable, they may be mentioned but specific numbers will be restricted to full strategies on the talk page.

Good idea, bad idea, indifferent? Let me know what you think. -- lordebon 19:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, you can see how much I dislike main article page strategies: I freudian-slipped in titling this. It should read "Main Page or Talk?" rather than "Main Pain or Talk?" -- lordebon 19:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think a policy on this has been long overdue. If we were to do this, I would want to see a specific example of good and bad information for people to use as a guideline as well. So we'd actually be creating two things: a policy on strategies appearing only on talk pages and a guideline on the best way to write the main article information.

Something else that's been popping around in my head...EQ2raidmobs [1] has a type of voting mechanism for strategies posted. Would we want something similar?-- Kodia 12:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I have no problem with some information appearing on the mob page (like I said -- things like AEs verified by screenshot) but actual 'this is how you do it' type full strategies only on talk pages. I'm not sure how we would go with a voting mechanism, to be honest; it's not something wiki's are real easily set up for, and in most cases strategies are similar, just different in the details (like where to pull/stand). I don't see the need for an elaborate system like that. Instead, what I invision is you have a top-level section for strategy that appears first on the talk page. Users can then submit a strategy (which will get a second-level header, a ===). Comments on that individual strategy would then go after it rather than revising the original user's comments. If there is a consensus on the page (a quasi-vote) that one strategy listed is the best, it can be moved to the top of the list of strategies, otherwise just go in chronological order of submission.

As I think about it more and more I think this may be an opportunity to re-evaluate the named information box completely and expand the named pages. As it is now, most information about them is set to go in the box... and I don't like the way it ends up looking. The 'special abilities' (or whatever that section is currently called) is way too small to accurately describe most AEs or abilities, and the drops section can go on for far too long (and doesn't tell you anything about the drops). Chillispike tried to address the drops with his /Drops subpages, and while certainly a start I think we can do better and have it on the main page: What if we expanded the drops out to a section (==Drops==) and then used some new code to make them expandable links?

By expandable, I mean you'd have a list of links with +/- expand boxes (or show/hide text, whatever) and maybe a very brief snippet, like 'Mages - Ring' description (that can be hidden when the box is expanded) that when clicked on expands out to show the examine image, similar to the exiting examine window image on the item page (but set up to NOT preload the images). I've seen code for an easy hide/close table at other wikis that we could use; I've looked at the code for the examine box now and it seems to be made specifically for its purpose, so it might be easier to just incorporate new code. All it takes is a little javascript to do the hide/show table trick and to make it so that the images aren't all preloaded (since that might take a while and be unnecessary).

I'm getting off on a bit of a tangent here, but I think that's definately a template that has been long overdue for some updating, and now seems to be a good time since we're already updating other things (like the better CQ template and the new zone info box). Let me know if I'm getting a bit too ambitious ;) -- lordebon 14:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion/input still needed! Maybe if we revamp the main page we should have a small box/area for current discussions, to highlight current topics. I think they tend to get a little lost in the Forum section (especially since I haven't seen a way to put it on the watchlist as watching for new posts). Or maybe for now a little pimpage in the sitenotice? -- lordebon 12:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

So I see the desire for strategy pages along with the desire to prevent spoilers/differing strategies. The solution could be sub-pages linked to the main page so they are easily accessed. These sub pages could have a template the promotes an organized editing and reading of the strategy.

This also promotes differing opinions or strategies as there could be multiple strategies for each quest/dungeon. I will set up an example on a quest and reference it here. -- Aerazykil 13:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Another option would be to set up an example as a sub page off your user page, but whatever you decide, thankyou for making a proposal. We appreciate participation on this as it's something we've been mulling over for quite some time.-- Kodia 21:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I used Emperor Fyst for a quick example. I figured not many people go through there these days anyways. Aerazykil 15:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Having a /Strategy page works for me, but I'd rather keep it one page, not one for each strategy, especially since so many strategies are just modifications of others. What if we used that /Strategy page for the actual strategy and then used the discussion page to have a talk area for each of the strategies on the main /Strategy page? My main concern is getting it off the main article page, and this sounds like a good way of doing it while also not clogging up the talk page. -- lordebon 01:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I agree with Lordebon. I like one strategy page total, but I know there are encounters that require a lot of information that may needed headers or subheaders or possibly even maps and such for raid vs mob positioning. Does one strategy page necessarily provide enough space for those kinds of write-ups *in multiple*?-- Kodia 17:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe in case of too-much-information, page can contain a link to detailed article, just like on Wikipedia? Check, for example, England page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England . There are many subsections and almost on each of them there is a short description and a link to main article. Like section "History" has a link saying "Main article: History of England". Dunno if it makes sense :P -- Daear 12:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That's sort of the point of what we're suggesting. The base named mob page contains too much information (ie the strategies) that conflict so we want to move them off to a subpage. -- lordebon 15:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add my input here if you folks don't mind. I am beginning to MT raids for my guild. One of the things I know I wish I had more of is information on the boss mobs abilities - AE? Damage Type? Timer frequency average? Things of that nature are of more value to me as a MT and raid leader then a strat page telling me where to pull and hold, etc. Now, strat info is good, don't get me wrong, but I have found that most of the time, regular strats are not really followed as stringently. In summary, I guess I'm looking for say, Mob Name then a brief summary of the kinds of damage it does, when and what AE's it brings, then notes on special counters or conditions that need to be met to defeat. After that perhaps a strat roll through would be good. Make sense? Barshman 13:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I just took a look at Pawbuster (mob name, not the raid page) and that is actually exactly what I'm looking for as far as information about a mob. I will explore more before asking for things already here *pours more coffee* Barshman 13:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Basically my suggestion is to keep the 'abilities' type section (but include ability screenshots if possible) but then move the actual strategies bit off to the /Strategies subpage.

Checking Consensus

At this point, I'd like to make a proposal and check consensus. The proposal is as follows:

1. Split out the special abilities from the template and make them into their own section on the named page. Allow for screenshots of the abilities and for a range of reported timings (ie can range from 40 - 50s). Reported timings would be base times, not times affected by an ability (ie traumatic swipe).
2. Move all strategies to a /Strategy subpage. The subpage is to be organized by strategy and the wiki rules on ownership and crediting still apply. Majorly different strategies are to be separated into headings. The talk page for this subpage is to include matching headings to organize discussion.
3. Minor revisions or suggestions to a strategy may be listed in bullets beneath the strategy. Only majorly different strategies should be included as headings on the main /Strategy subpage. Complaints or issues with a strategy are to be put on the talk page only. Completely false strategies may be asked for review and, if found by consensus to be an exploit or to not work whatsoever (ie physically impossible or obviously ludicrous) it may be removed.
4. (OPTIONAL) The /Strategy talk subpage is also to include a subsection of each individual strategy section for voting. Only logged-in users votes are to be counted. Voting is not necessary on all pages and subsections will not be added unless there are at least three (3) strategies to choose from and voting has been requested on the talk page. Once voting has been requested and opened the strategies will be reordered one (1) month later based on # of votes for that strategy. This proposal point is optional and subject to refinement / improvement / discussion and should be considered separate from the rest. I honestly don't think it's necessary, but I'm open to it if others think we need it.

Please respond below this line with your suggestions. Please begin your comments either with "Agree," "Disagree," or "Comment-Only". Agreement can be expressed with just the word. Disagree should include a reason. And obviously, Comment-Only is for when you wish to comment without yet expressing approval or disapproval. -- lordebon 15:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree sounds good to me -- Xinturaia 07:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: What constitutes "majorly" different strategy? Without this definition, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree.-- Kodia 13:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply: True. I'm not sure how to define it precisely. A majorly different strategy would be one that is not a minor variation. A minor variation would be "pull to this pillar instead of that pillar," that kind of thing. A majorly different strategy would be "Joust AE_1, take AE_2, tank holds all adds" vs "Take both AEs, offtank the adds." With the vastly different scrips for the various raid mobs, I'm not sure I can come up with a definative hard line between the two. I'd say it's really up to the posting party as to whether they consider it a variation or a completely new strategy. Cases that are obviously one or the other but posted as the opposite can be moved, but otherwise I'd say its up to the OP's judgment. -- lordebon 16:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

So then why not just have a strategy page with strategies. Bob's Strategy, Kodia's Strategy, ThatReallyBigUberGuild strategy and leave it at that?-- Kodia 20:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That's basically what I'm envisioning, I just thought a way for folks to suggest changes they considered minor. I can edit the proposal above to make it more clear that it is an optional way for folks to suggest minor changes. Do you also want me to remove the part about ownership/crediting as well? -- lordebon 17:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus, Take II

Revised Proposal:

1. Split out the special abilities from the template and make them into their own section on the named page. Allow for screenshots of the abilities and for a range of reported timings (ie can range from 40 - 50s). Reported timings would be base times, not times affected by an ability (ie traumatic swipe). Other scripted special events may be included provided they occur at some fixed circumstance (eg health or total fight time).
2. Move all strategies to a /Strategy subpage. The subpage is to be organized by strategy and the wiki rules on ownership and crediting still apply, except that strategies may be signed when submitted. Different strategies are to be separated into headings. The talk page for this subpage is to include matching headings to organize discussion.
3. Users are permitted to make minor revisions or suggestions to a strategy in bullets beneath the strategy, however complaints or issues with a strategy are to be put on the talk page only. The choice as to whether to make a 'minor revision' bullet or an entirely new strategy is at the discretion of the poster.
4. Completely false strategies may be asked for review and, if found by consensus to be an exploit or to not work whatsoever (ie physically impossible or obviously ludicrous) it may be removed.

As before, please indicate Agree, Disagree (with comment), or Comment and in all cases sign your post. Disagreement without commenting will not be considered. -- lordebon 12:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC). Bump. -- lordebon 18:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I like this better. Did we talk about how linking will work?-- Kodia 15:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As in linking from the main page? I was just going to go with ===Player Strategies=== under the ==Strategy== heading with this under that: ''To create or read a player-submitted strategy, please see [[{{PAGENAME}}/Strategies|the strategy page]] or something like that. I'm up for suggestions there, I just wanted the idea to be agreeable before I put much work into exactly how it would be presented. -- lordebon 18:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Last call for commentary. We've waited nearly a month. Far longer than we really needed.-- Kodia 04:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Work on the draft version of this policy has begun at EverQuest 2 Wiki:Policy/Strategies . Please direct all future discussion to it's talk page . -- lordebon 13:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)