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

Social media: Get in touch with Fire Emblem Wiki on Twitter, Facebook, or Discord!
Featured article nomination: Zelgius has been nominated for featured status. Check out the article, and vote or discuss the nomination here.

Talk:Main Page

From Fire Emblem Wiki, your source on Fire Emblem Wiki information. By Fans, for Fans.
Revision as of 15:46, 24 June 2016 by Espyo (talk | contribs) (Mistakes page)
Jump to: navigation, search

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...)AlpacaDoggie 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...)AlpacaDoggie 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)
I am not in favour of this idea. We are enough busy as it is with the wiki; it would be near impossible to work on something else. ~ Aria der Donau 08:09, 9 January 2012 (EST)

Shin Megami Tensei X Fire Emblem

I just joined, and noticed that there does not seem to be any news concerning Shin Megami Tensei X Fire Emblem. I was wondering if it was because no one noticed or it's not related somehow. The reveal/teaser is here. Parzival (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

My guess is a) no-one, or at least no-one with access to edit the main page, noticed, or b) something to do with how nothing has been mentioned of it since it was revealed. If anything is announced at E3, someone will hopefully get around to adding it. --Moydow (Support) 21:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I would just like to add on that the crossover now has an official name, "Genei Ibun Roku" and the release date, as far as I know, is December of this year. --gokuplayer
We still don't have an English name for the game, I'm pretty sure that's why the page is still at Shin Megami Tensei X Fire Emblem. L95 (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

TearRing/Berwick Saga?

Are you guys able to add pages related to the TearRing Saga or Berwick Saga? I have plenty of pictures about them if that'll help, but the information from said games will have to come from somewhere else. Alex95 (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, TearRing Saga and Berwick Saga are not part of our coverage. Try looking for (or creating) a dedicated wiki concerning that franchise. --Shiningpikablu252 (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, a lot of other FE sites do cover those games, owing to their extreme similarity to FE, and being made by the same director (Shouzou Kaga) as the early FEs. I don't think we should just rule them out like that. --Moydow (Support) 23:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
The other FE Wiki has pages covering TRS. L95 (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Mistakes page

Hey there. Just an idea: shouldn't we create a page with a list of mistakes in the series? I'm playing through Awakening at the moment, and I noticed a typo on the first support conversation between Nowi and Gregor: something akin to "an woolly jacket". I'm playing on the European version of the game. I've searched around the web a tad and found other mistakes that would be interesting to compile in a page. Espyo (talk) 08:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I've generally liked those kinds of pages, it would be pretty useful to also list things like translation errors. Off the top of my head, the Aenir issue in Fire Emblem and Fire Emblem Awakening's DLC had a quite a few translation issues. (Mostly issues with maintaining localization changes that occurred in the main game but were missed/forgotten? in the dlc. The dlc uses Japanese names of classes and items in a handful of places.) However, I feel like listing things like typos-by this I mean minor ones that don't lead to confusion-are't really worth of creating a page over. L95 (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I get what you mean. It's a bit interesting to have for the sake of completion, and for entertainment of the reader. Of course, a wiki isn't a fun house, but if a page can entertain the readers and fall within the scope and policy of a wiki, it sounds like a good candidate on my book. A list of typos would be objective, after all. Your call, anyway. I'll keep my eyes peeled and report any other typo I find just in case a page is ever decided to be created. Espyo (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Welp, found another one. At the end of chapter 12, Basilio says "The town is in a shambles, as is my army." That should be either "in shambles" or "in a shamble", in my opinion. This won't mean anything for the creation of the page, sure, but I did say I'd keep an eye out for further typos! Espyo (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Another: the description for Relief ends with a comma instead of a period. Espyo (talk) 08:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Found another; this time for Fates. Instead of bloating the talk page for the main page every time I find something, I'll just slap it on my user page and warn readers from the future to check out the list there. Espyo (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)