Site News
Warning: This wiki contains spoilers. Read at your own risk!

Social media: If you would like, please join our Discord server, and/or follow us on Twitter (X) or Tumblr!

Talk:Main Page: Difference between revisions

From Fire Emblem Wiki, your source on Fire Emblem information. By fans, for fans.
Line 14: Line 14:
:::: "Would the site be serving the same purpose as Strategy Wiki? Tacopill 17:28, 3 January 2012 (EST)." Well I'm not sure. What's the point of having a site at all if we have SW everywhere and stuff? The sake of the reason I have Zelda Sanctuary right now is for the fact I want to have more and better information than the other Zelda sites. What's the point in having a Zelda site if there is ZD? So I was thinking we could do a friendly competition between sites to produce better information than the last... Eventually it helps everyone. I mean you guys are already doing that VS. our wikia counterpart. [[User:Eliwood|'''''<span style="font-size:18px; color:#FF6600; font-family:Times New Roman">-- Eliwood</span>''''']]&nbsp; ([[User_talk:Eliwood|<span style="font-size:11px; font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:#2ea417;">My Talk Page</span>]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Eliwood|<span style="font-size:11px; font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:#00F7FF;">My Contributions</span>]])  22:25, 5 January 2012 (EST)
:::: "Would the site be serving the same purpose as Strategy Wiki? Tacopill 17:28, 3 January 2012 (EST)." Well I'm not sure. What's the point of having a site at all if we have SW everywhere and stuff? The sake of the reason I have Zelda Sanctuary right now is for the fact I want to have more and better information than the other Zelda sites. What's the point in having a Zelda site if there is ZD? So I was thinking we could do a friendly competition between sites to produce better information than the last... Eventually it helps everyone. I mean you guys are already doing that VS. our wikia counterpart. [[User:Eliwood|'''''<span style="font-size:18px; color:#FF6600; font-family:Times New Roman">-- Eliwood</span>''''']]&nbsp; ([[User_talk:Eliwood|<span style="font-size:11px; font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:#2ea417;">My Talk Page</span>]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Eliwood|<span style="font-size:11px; font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:#00F7FF;">My Contributions</span>]])  22:25, 5 January 2012 (EST)
:::::We need to focus on getting content we actually need before we focus on expansion into unnecessary features, such as walkthroughs. We already have ones per chapter on each chapter page, anyways. '''''[[User:SuperAlpaca|<font color="OliveDrab">Super</font>]]''''' <sup><small><small>''[[User Talk:SuperAlpaca|<font color="#644b80">(duh...)</font>]]''</small></small></sup>'''''[[Special:Editcount/SuperAlpaca|<font color="SteelBlue">Alpaca</font>]]'''''[[File:Doggie Mask.png|link=Special:Contributions/SuperAlpaca]] 23:26, 5 January 2012 (EST)
:::::We need to focus on getting content we actually need before we focus on expansion into unnecessary features, such as walkthroughs. We already have ones per chapter on each chapter page, anyways. '''''[[User:SuperAlpaca|<font color="OliveDrab">Super</font>]]''''' <sup><small><small>''[[User Talk:SuperAlpaca|<font color="#644b80">(duh...)</font>]]''</small></small></sup>'''''[[Special:Editcount/SuperAlpaca|<font color="SteelBlue">Alpaca</font>]]'''''[[File:Doggie Mask.png|link=Special:Contributions/SuperAlpaca]] 23:26, 5 January 2012 (EST)
::::::Amy, it is simply not an idea I don think is feasible, necessary, or even actually beneficial, to us or to readers.
::::::First of all, as many have mentioned, we really are not ready to take on that. We need to focus on filling up the necessary wiki information rather than thinking about new projects already. So it's not really feasible. It's true that we could set it up without too much difficulty, but trying to maintain it would result in three things: neglecting the wiki, which is horrible, equally neglecting both, which would cause us to lose a lot of time for actually posting information on BOTH sites, or neglecting that site, in whose case it would become useless (which I think it would be regardless; continue reading). The problem is that we don't have the userbase to support a website. That's why the forums were so inactive - everybody active enough to post there was active enough to be in the Skype chat anyway. We don't have enough people to help out even with just the wiki. And even if we got enough, I still don't think it would be a good idea. Continue on...
::::::Next, I really don't understand your idea of how friendly competition is really a good or needed thing. While, yes, it might be a bit enjoyable to do it, I just don't understand why there is a need to compete anyway. If it's for more pageviews, it won't work because most viewers are just going to go to Serenes Forest (and its forums) and GameFAQs for Fire Emblem walkthroughs, because they are the reputed sites that have existed and been amazing for years. We don't need to have better information because they already have great information. And we already include strategy tips on our own pages anyway. As others have said, look at StrategyWiki! I do believe it would be a bit discourteous to try doing this, and also very, very futile in general. It's just not necessary to do this, and even if you did try this, I wouldn't work on it because I'd focus on the wiki. And I'm sure many other editors would as well.
::::::Competition with Fire Emblem Wikia is different. We are trying to be a high-quality ''independent'' wiki, an information base that is not farmed for dollars by a corporation. And that's a huge part of it - it's a moral motive, to provide information that is not used for commercial purposes, as well as one on which the users make democratic decisions themselves, rather than an administration forcing changes onto users as Wikia has done. You cannot use Fire Emblem Wiki's competition with Fire Emblem Wikia as an example of "friendly competition" when we have a moral reason to compete against a competitor rather than just merely trying to be better.
::::::Lastly - will it help us? As I've said, it won't help us. We won't get any substantial amount of increased pageviews or anything because other strategy websites have existed already. Strategy Wiki exists! And I think it would be just a little bit discourteous to try to take their territory, as a fellow NIWA wiki. And, drawing from the "neglection" stuff I was saying earlier - it'll hurt us if we try to work on it. And considering the server load Tacopill deals with, it'll maybe even slow down the wiki. As for helping readers, I don't think any of us here actually have played Fire Emblem levels enough times to give strategy tips on them. So we don't have anyone qualified, or enough people in the first place, and we're starting from scratch - we won't end up actually helping people for a looong time if we attempt this. And most people aren't going to read us anyway.
::::::So, in the end, I really don't think trying to make a strategy site will help us. [[User:Seritinajii|Seritinajii]] 00:52, 6 January 2012 (EST)

Revision as of 05:52, 6 January 2012

Archive

Talk:Main Page/Archive1

FEW Main Site??

Not so sure if you guys would like the idea, but since I did run the place in the past, I was thinking we could have a main page dedicated mostly to just strategy and guides for the games... As in walk throughs and stuff. Information on characters and things like abilities will remain on the wiki. Maybe even eventually having forums and the like? I'm not sure. but that's up to you guys.

Just a thought... -- Eliwood  (My Talk Page) (My Contributions) 17:21, 3 January 2012 (EST)

Would the site be serving the same purpose as Strategy Wiki? Tacopill 17:28, 3 January 2012 (EST).
Also... we don't have a lot of that at all so far. Most of our content is the wiki stuff. I don't think making a blank main page would serve us very well currently. Maybe if we built up strategies/walkthroughs for all the games, then put them on the main page somewhere, I guess... My point is that we're in no position to do that right now. BrandedOne 18:07, 3 January 2012 (EST)
Leave that to StrategyWiki. We do not want to steal their people! Anyways, besides that, the main page is currently how a normal wiki main page is, so changing it would make it weirder and make us isolated from the norm of a wiki. Super (duh...)AlpacaFile:Doggie Mask.png 00:41, 4 January 2012 (EST)
If our interesting is doing strategies, then I am sure they would appreciate all the help that we can give them. It helps them, expand there current info, and it helps you guys spread the word of Fire Emblem. :D. Tacopill 17:26, 5 January 2012 (EST).
"Would the site be serving the same purpose as Strategy Wiki? Tacopill 17:28, 3 January 2012 (EST)." Well I'm not sure. What's the point of having a site at all if we have SW everywhere and stuff? The sake of the reason I have Zelda Sanctuary right now is for the fact I want to have more and better information than the other Zelda sites. What's the point in having a Zelda site if there is ZD? So I was thinking we could do a friendly competition between sites to produce better information than the last... Eventually it helps everyone. I mean you guys are already doing that VS. our wikia counterpart. -- Eliwood  (My Talk Page) (My Contributions) 22:25, 5 January 2012 (EST)
We need to focus on getting content we actually need before we focus on expansion into unnecessary features, such as walkthroughs. We already have ones per chapter on each chapter page, anyways. Super (duh...)AlpacaFile:Doggie Mask.png 23:26, 5 January 2012 (EST)
Amy, it is simply not an idea I don think is feasible, necessary, or even actually beneficial, to us or to readers.
First of all, as many have mentioned, we really are not ready to take on that. We need to focus on filling up the necessary wiki information rather than thinking about new projects already. So it's not really feasible. It's true that we could set it up without too much difficulty, but trying to maintain it would result in three things: neglecting the wiki, which is horrible, equally neglecting both, which would cause us to lose a lot of time for actually posting information on BOTH sites, or neglecting that site, in whose case it would become useless (which I think it would be regardless; continue reading). The problem is that we don't have the userbase to support a website. That's why the forums were so inactive - everybody active enough to post there was active enough to be in the Skype chat anyway. We don't have enough people to help out even with just the wiki. And even if we got enough, I still don't think it would be a good idea. Continue on...
Next, I really don't understand your idea of how friendly competition is really a good or needed thing. While, yes, it might be a bit enjoyable to do it, I just don't understand why there is a need to compete anyway. If it's for more pageviews, it won't work because most viewers are just going to go to Serenes Forest (and its forums) and GameFAQs for Fire Emblem walkthroughs, because they are the reputed sites that have existed and been amazing for years. We don't need to have better information because they already have great information. And we already include strategy tips on our own pages anyway. As others have said, look at StrategyWiki! I do believe it would be a bit discourteous to try doing this, and also very, very futile in general. It's just not necessary to do this, and even if you did try this, I wouldn't work on it because I'd focus on the wiki. And I'm sure many other editors would as well.
Competition with Fire Emblem Wikia is different. We are trying to be a high-quality independent wiki, an information base that is not farmed for dollars by a corporation. And that's a huge part of it - it's a moral motive, to provide information that is not used for commercial purposes, as well as one on which the users make democratic decisions themselves, rather than an administration forcing changes onto users as Wikia has done. You cannot use Fire Emblem Wiki's competition with Fire Emblem Wikia as an example of "friendly competition" when we have a moral reason to compete against a competitor rather than just merely trying to be better.
Lastly - will it help us? As I've said, it won't help us. We won't get any substantial amount of increased pageviews or anything because other strategy websites have existed already. Strategy Wiki exists! And I think it would be just a little bit discourteous to try to take their territory, as a fellow NIWA wiki. And, drawing from the "neglection" stuff I was saying earlier - it'll hurt us if we try to work on it. And considering the server load Tacopill deals with, it'll maybe even slow down the wiki. As for helping readers, I don't think any of us here actually have played Fire Emblem levels enough times to give strategy tips on them. So we don't have anyone qualified, or enough people in the first place, and we're starting from scratch - we won't end up actually helping people for a looong time if we attempt this. And most people aren't going to read us anyway.
So, in the end, I really don't think trying to make a strategy site will help us. Seritinajii 00:52, 6 January 2012 (EST)