On 4/13/07, Melissa Parish <beautifulfool@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I started this who thing by suggesting we vamp up the Categories... then > that we go all-in with an actual custom database that tells a user EVERY > game he or she could play with a given collection. But I wish I'd kept > my mouth shut, if the whole discussion is going to come full circle > with "resolutions" like: Also, I did read all of the vamping-up of categories discussion, and from I saw, it went nowhere. People said "oh we should do this" or "we should do that" or "wow, that's a great idea", but no one DID ANYTHING. The whole point of a wiki is that anyone can edit it. So, once you think of a good idea, GO DO IT. No whining that nothing got done. Go fix it yourself.
Seconded. If you think it's a good idea and you really care about it, just go do it. How likely is it that someone will disagree with you *so*strongly* that they would undo it? The best (some would say only) way to fight wiki-apathy is to bust out the corporate slogans and Just Do It (tm). -- - |) () /\/ That being said, personally, I am a HUGE fan of categories. Categorizing by required components will be difficult (until you get in the groove) and involved (no way around that), but worth it in the end. I'm talking hugely desciptive names like "Games that can be played with four stashes of any color" and "Games that can be played with five stashes of any color and Volcano caps". Better yet might be templates that can used with the "you need these parts" sections of most games which will insert those category descriptions automagically. See, now you've got me motivated. Off I go to get an icehouse wiki account...