Haha, I love them. Ryan needs to have one as well, seen as tho he's the boss here ;)
The Watch Dogs page, Edit
Overhaul on content and design Edit
Hello, JBanton, I have been enjoying very much the opportunity to indulge my editing skills on some very interesting reading matter here (that reading matter is solely the Watch Dogs, for now any ways). I'm very excited about the game, and really want this site to have the best display of knowledge for it. So to be frankly honest, this wiki doesn't live up to those expectations as of now. Don't feel as though I'm knocking the work and efforts of others and yourself, its just that I think we can push that effort further and work harder. One of my complaints would be the design. I'm very aware that this wiki is a 'baby', per se, and it isn't all there yet, but I think we could at least improve the look.
- Main page;
- Page layout;
- Wordmark (just a little);
Are all things that rush into my mind when it comes to the design aspects. The templates would very much fall into the category of design, so I think those could be worked out too.
In regards to the content, I'm not really a fan of the page organization. I think we could tweak it a little.
- For character pages
- General information
- == Personality and traits==
- == History == (or biography, I personally prefer the former)
- == Equipment and skills ==
- == Relationships ==
- == Trivia ==
I myself am a 'category guy'. I can't stand messy or incoherent category structures on wikis. This wiki's category system seems to be okay, though there may be some left over unwanted hickups. I think the category "Protagonist" should be deleted, since Aiden can't be classified as one. He's more of an anti-hero. If you don't mind the excessiveness, I'll compile a list of categories that should be deleted and reasons as to why:
- British cars (not officially a category, but it's listed on the British Sports Car page. I don't think we should make it a habit to classify cars by their nationality, unless the game brings a big emphasis towards it).
- German vehicles (same reason)
- Automakers (as of right now, there is only one automaker, so no need to start a category)
- 4-door sedans and coupés and vehicle types in general (if the game is paying any emphasis towards these things, than we shouldn't either. I see vehicles are something you feel strongly about, am I right? If you can perhaps bring up a compelling argument as to why we should keep them, I'll bite).
- Social groups (Just change it to groups, may be?)
All in all, these are just my basic thoughts on what could improve this wiki a bit. I must admit, I do really admire your active presence in regards to editing, its one trait of the many traits that I think defy an administrator. I'm really looking forward to your response and hope to push this conversation ahead.
ps: sorry for this long a** message ;).
- I can agree on the design needing an update, considering I at least have been mainly focused on researching and building up article content. I've updated the background, the main page should be unlocked for registered for all users, so you can freely test out upgrades on it. With regards to page layout, we'll need to get more content flowing through the pages before we can fully work on structures. On ther topic of the wordmark, I'm not really sure what else we can do; it took a while to generate the one that we currently use and it is fully relevant to the game's title and font too.
- With regards to character article structure, three of those headings do currently exist. The current structure that we use is a happy medium between a number of other open-world wiki structures (looking at GTA, RDR and AC wiki as a few examples). Taking "biography" as an example, the heading seems to be a common feature across a number of wikis, so in the interest of making articles reader-friendly it's probably best to follow the status quo as it were and use the standard name. I think that including "equipment" in a section isn't really necessary considering almost every piece of equipment will be optional and will already have an article, going into detail depending on what it is.
- For country categories, they aren't really needed so they can be deleted, the automakers is there as framework, seeing as two exist so far and more are to come. but ones such as four-door sedans and coupes most certainly shouldn't. The developers have quite obviously gone to a lot of effort in modelling the vehicles and scripting handling for each vehicle, including the very finest details such as subtle speakers on rear interior panels, carbon fibre diffuser textures or models with aftermarket parts. The developers have also gone to the trouble of creating vehicles of various types to create a range of driving experiences and vehicles that can be used for a variety of situations. Ubisoft also included vehicle purchases, storage and the underground car contact, so to say that the vehicles in game aren't deserving of much attention would be rather inconsiderate, and I'll be more than happy to take note of the effort put in through the respective articles. The body style categories are there beceause there are a number of similar vehicles are available in them, and readers can then quickly access cars of a similar body style and performance quality.
- I'll get to work on removing the excess categories, I'll leave the main page organisation to you. Our weapons and business articles definitely need to get a consistent structure implemented, so I could probably use you input on those as well.
- Thanks for airing your views on the wiki design, I've been so busy building content that I haven't paid much attention to the design :/ JBanton (Talk | Contribs) 20:01, October 30, 2013 (UTC)
- NP. Running a wiki is hard work. I'm gonna skip around, okay. Regarding the wordmark, I just thought it looked a little small is all. The optional equipment took me aback and I feel rather foolish for not remembering that. With your argument on vehicle types, I think I can bite. Article structure for establishments should general if the businesses in question is some generic shop, though it seems with Watch Dogs that will not be the case. DB & R Weaponsmiths should have a table listing the weapons for purchase. I'll try to grab enough info on each of those pages. It should suffice until the launch. Also, thanks for the vote of confidence on the main page. I'm currently working on something. :) That's all for now. --Regularon *talk* ٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ 01:00, November 2, 2013 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can do about the wordmark, but I think we're limited with how big we can have it. I like the idea about having a stocklist for each of the weapons dealers; it would certainly be a convenient addition for those reading around. I don't know if you want to, but if you want the background to be changed then highlight an image for me to put. I'm going to try creating an image via Photoshop, that we have one that fits around the central content regions. Thanks again for your help, I and I'm sure the readers appreciate it.
- In other news, a a new gameplay video has appeared on the old YouTube. I expect that soon an official version of similar gameplay will become available. In the meantime, there are some good revelations in this video. I can't imagine it will stay online for very long though :( JBanton (Talk | Contribs) 21:27, November 4, 2013 (UTC)
- Ya think we could get an HTML guru over here? Know any? --Regularon *talk* ٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ 21:15, November 8, 2013 (UTC)
- Just looking at the work you've put in on the MediaWiki css, you're much more advanced than me; I'm only good with templates, images and content research and presentation. I'll get a few members that I know to leave you a message, hopefully they can help you out. JBanton (Talk | Contribs) 21:31, November 9, 2013 (UTC)
I'm back Edit
Sorry I've been MIA for awhile. My router's refusal to connect with the internet has totally bewildered me. Though after a few plays behind the scene, I found the source of the problem and I should be active from here on out. --Regularon *talk* ٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ 14:15, November 28, 2013 (UTC)
- Not a problem my friend, the information river appears to be drying up unfortunately :( On the plus side, at least we aren't under attack from trolls and spammers. Thanks for letting me know. JBanton (Talk | Contribs) 21:31, November 28, 2013 (UTC)
- That's actually a pretty good use of initiative. I have subsequently followed the aforementioned account. What do you plan to use the account for? (It could be used for info updates, wiki updates or as a means of contact to staff members, or all of those). 17:35, November 29, 2013 (UTC)
- Those all sound like great ideas. I've taken cues from major gaming wikis and they all seem to utilize their twitter accounts for news respective to their game and wiki community, so for us doing the same should suit. Reaching out to the staff members sure sounds like a great way to attract attention to the wiki, I like that. Since your an active administrator, do you want to operate the account? --Regularon *talk* ٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ 17:48, November 29, 2013 (UTC)
Considering that the account is yours I wouldn't want to intrude on its operation. Also I'm quite sure you can do a perfectly good job with its running on your own (you've done a great job around here so far). I may message through some news suggestions, but beyond that I'm sure you'll have it covered. JBanton (Talk | Contribs) 18:05, November 29, 2013 (UTC)
- A word of advice, we should start branching out and affiliate with more wikis. --Regularon *talk* ٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ 20:47, December 1, 2013 (UTC)