The one reason I created Category:WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games is to show which article are within out scope. Thus when you add the template to a talk page it'll add a talk page which you are then able to look at what is in our scope through the category. It's for better organization to see what we tagged and didn't but if you feel it is unnecessary then feel free to delete it. I just created it for better organization. OrfenUser Talk | Contribs19:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Last Chaos
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Last Chaos is listed as a 'Requested Article', which I would love to write, but I really don't think it's notable enough for Wikipedia, and would probably just be AfD'd like Astro Empires. I'll slowly work on it at User:ShakingSpirit/Last_Chaos (feel free to edit) for now - give it a few months or so and see if Last Chaos is notable by then, and if so, it can be moved to mainspace. ShakingSpirittalk01:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not fully understand part of the article so far; is the game out or not? If that could be made clear, that would be great! Greeves17:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I recently created Portal:Massively multiplayer online games. I also put the portal link template on the WikiProject page. Only one problem... the link button is overlapping the text! If anyone could help I would be grateful!
By the way, this talk page (and WikiProject for that matter) is getting much more activity now! I hope that it can stay this way or even get better! Greeves17:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
MMOG technology in scope?
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Looking at the games template I see you're working hard at defining a format for cataloging the games themselves. I was thinking about trying to catalog the underlying engines of some of the MMOGs (when this is made public). I know IBM has worked with some key MMOG companies to refine high-availability, highly-scalable systems -- but that's just the low-level infrastructure. I've read non-Wikipedia articles about the software infrastructures that are put in place to support these games... and, from what I could glean, several companies use the same basic elements to construct their worlds. Anyone think a "technology" template is warranted? --DeweyQ22:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I made the assumption that you meant "Template:something". In response to your question however, I am not sure. First I would like to know how many articles under our scope the guidelines would apply to. Thanks! Greeves04:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion
I think that the project would benefit from a constant logo. Myself, I have not come up with any ideas for a logo. If someone could please create a logo that we can use in the upper-left hand corner of all WP:MMO sub-pages, templates, userboxes, etc. I think that the project would benefit greatly. Just to let you know, if you are using someone else's image it must be free use, not fair use, nor copyrighted. Greeves23:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what you're going for. The icons that the Icon King did are very cool looking and this goes in a totally different direction. I have an SVG version ready to go too. Feedback is appreciated. --DeweyQ04:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that could represent MMOs... alone. What would it look like if we were to paste the CVG project logo onto it? Greeves04:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
As something to represent MMOs I'm thinking of something like a computer in the center and a web of little people branching off or something to show the whole game is sort of connected. I don't know if we should use the CVG logo, even though we are considered part of their WikiProject sort of. I don't know, I think we should have something unique to show who we are. The CVG project logo is the video game controller, right? I think we should try and use something else and not that. OrfenUser Talk | Contribs05:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
How's this? I hope that the CVG people don't mind though... they shouldn't as this is free use and we are their sub-project and so we represent that. (By the way, in case there are too many pics that come on this page, mine is the circular one with the CVG logo aligned to the right.) Please, give me feedback! Greeves18:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The transparency setting on your drawing program should take care of that. It applies to the file format you're saving into, assuming that your original artboard or canvas doesn't have a layer of color/opacity built into it. Let me know which drawing program you're using and I might be able to be more specific. --DeweyQ20:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
As for your proposed logo itself, I really like what the circle does... it suggests that there are many many more participants (because we only see some of the ones around the edges). --DeweyQ20:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I am using Photoshop 7. I also think that around... let's say February, if no one submits any other logos we use this one. If there are other submissions for the logo, we could have a project vote or something. (I feel that this is getting too indented so I started indents again. Maybe we should always stop after about six.) Greeves21:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
So, since I am using Photoshop 7 too, I am not sure what I can do to help other than say that your background needs to be transparent and then you need to save the image in a format that supports transparency. On the "Save for Web..." dialog you have lots of options but one of them (for the appropriate formats) is a checkbox for Transparency. --DeweyQ17:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I added a link to the updated SVG file (Version 3.0 of Logo). It doesn't show up in my browser unless I am using the SVG viewer. --DeweyQ07:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, all I'm getting is a blank image and when I click to view the proper image page I get transparency. What would be the problem here? We can't have everyone downloading a special viewer for it! ;-) Greeves02:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I guess I'm gonna be bold and make this our new logo (as thankfully I have figured how to get the transparency and stuff to look right). Here it it! Also, this logo need not be permanent if someone can come up with something better. Although this flaw was not mentioned, the first copy that I created had the video game controller's wire above the circle, this is now gone too. Greeves(talk • contribs) 01:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia Day Awards
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker17:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I fully understand... are you wanting us to honor those within this project who have made significant contributions to it on Jan 15? Greeves18:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm more or less proposing that with any luck several projects do so on or about then. Actually, if there were a lot of response, maybe it would take a whole week. That probably ain't gonna happen, though. If this one wanted to take part, I would obviously welcome that. Also, if you happen to be aware of someone (maybe a wikignome) who might deserve recognition but whose actions are so scattered that they "fall under the radar" most of the time, this might be a day for them to be recognized for their efforts as well. And, potentially, if I can find people who know how to work the wikipedia channels better than I do (I know nothing about them), we might them be able to possibly embarass them with their deserved recognition in front of even more people. :) Badbilltucker18:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not think that WP:MMO is quite up to it yet as we are a recently created project and so far the only major contributers are Orfen and myself (as well as some newer people). Maybe next year! Greeves19:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
GCOTW
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
This should be done I believe when we get some more contributers. I mean we can start it, but maybe it should be longer than a week since it'll only be a couple people working on it and not as much work can get done in one week with a few people than a ton of people. Just my thoughts. OrfenUser Talk | Contribs03:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Getting together a collaboration system (like the CVG one) seems like a lot more work than I thought! I am going to be working on getting templates, pages, etc. over the next while. I think we will do it as a collaboration of the month thing... nothing is going to happen in a week at our current stage. Greeves01:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
MMOG Companies guidelines
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
