<p>Hello, editors. Thanks to all those who have participated in bettering Robopedia while I was unable to.
</p><p>Maintaining a good wiki takes a lot of care. I'd like to form a section layout (i.e. the headers) for the parts pages that will be the same on every page. As it is now, many pages go with Strategy, Sets, Notable Users, Gallery, How to obtain, Trivia, roughly in that order. First, changing the headers themselves. I think it is best to cut down on a few: Sets and Notable Users. Sets can be listed beneath Strategy to make a more seamless article. Notable Users does contain the names of real players which was fun a few years back when the community was different. However, to best continue the "professional" nature of wikis and Wikia, let's put an end to that. Character notable users can be mentioned in the body up top. Also, Trivia is an optional section that should only be there if applicable and relevant. Finally, about the order--let's try infobox, body, table of contents, How to obtain, Strategy, Gallery, and Trivia. How to obtain a part is quite important as it's typically what is searched for when searching for a part. Using the part builds on that. Trivia is last because it's trivia.
</p><p>Okaaay, to summarise that block of text.
</p><p>New header layout:
</p><p>1. How to obtain
2. Strategy
3. Gallery
4. Trivia
</p><p>Please let me know of your opinions! Once we get robos out of the way, guns/bombs/so on will follow easily. In no way is this set in stone, but I'd like to get to work on these parts pages asap. Thanks. :)
</p>
798
pages
ALL POSTS
<p>Gotcha. Only the 1st word is capitalized and "Strategies and Sets" should be just "Strategy". That seems pretty simple. :)
</p>
(Edited by The One Who Wrote This)
<p>All of the robo pages have been adjusted to fit the new criterion. In addition, I modified the Stub template to add a category known as "Articles That Need Expansion" to articles flagged as stubs (articles that need strategies in this case).
</p><p>I also created a new template known as "Images" that gives articles the "Articles Needing Images" category. Basically, those are articles that don't have images in their gallery section.
</p><p>
</p><p>Also, Jameson, Hellfire, and Hadron had sections known as "Plot related details". I put that after gallery and before trivia for the record. </p>
</p><p>Also, Jameson, Hellfire, and Hadron had sections known as "Plot related details". I put that after gallery and before trivia for the record. </p>
(Edited by The One Who Wrote This)
<p>They seem fine or do you think any adjustments should be made? I just went down the list on the Category:Robos page and applied it from there (and changed the attack stat of V2 robos from a number to the multiplier as there never was a visible number for the stat).
</p>
(Edited by The One Who Wrote This)
1
<p>Nice work. I actually have now moved the "plot related details" into the top of the article. If that part of the article gets lengthy, then it can be split up. It's okay for now.
</p><p>Different topic: I was wondering...the gun/bomb/pod pages have Use and Defense sections--which are more specific aspects of strategy. Most of the robo pages don't include how to defend against that robo. I think a Defense subsection under Strategy can be added only if applicable. As in yes, we want to include how to dodge certain types of powerful charges or stay in the air/ground versus certain bosses, but not include how to defend against inconsequential charges like Pipit's. Defense versus a robo immensely depends on the parts it is customized with. What do you think?
</p>
(Edited by Limxzero)
<p>
Those seem fine to me. :) </p><p>As for the Use vs. Defense section and whether we should put them in the Robos section, that's a good idea. However, it would be hard to implement due to the robo part changing the stats, aerial action, charge, and frame. </p><p>Maybe have an atributes section similar to this page. That way, the strengths and weaknesses of each robo can be seen. Saying how to defend against a robo is hard to do because of how parts work. For example, Metal Bear could opt for a Long Range set in one case (like Max does with his Rayfall set in almost all of his appearances) and opt for a rushdown set with a Magnum Gun in another case. Different players will use the same robos differently, but similar part combinations have similar playstyles. </p><p>Using the Metal Bear example, we could take SmashWiki's/Smashpedia's (both have very similar information for some reason) way of listing attributes and modify the Strategy section to highlight strengths and weaknesses. For example, we could say something like this: </p> <h2><span class="mw-headline" id="Attributes">Attributes</span></h2> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Strengths">Strengths</span></h3>
</p><p>And then maybe have the sets be a sub-section similar to how Smogon does it. Either that or keep that merged with Strategy. </p><p>
</p><p>How is this idea? And if we go with it, should Strategy be a subset of Attributes or should it be separate from it? </p>
Those seem fine to me. :) </p><p>As for the Use vs. Defense section and whether we should put them in the Robos section, that's a good idea. However, it would be hard to implement due to the robo part changing the stats, aerial action, charge, and frame. </p><p>Maybe have an atributes section similar to this page. That way, the strengths and weaknesses of each robo can be seen. Saying how to defend against a robo is hard to do because of how parts work. For example, Metal Bear could opt for a Long Range set in one case (like Max does with his Rayfall set in almost all of his appearances) and opt for a rushdown set with a Magnum Gun in another case. Different players will use the same robos differently, but similar part combinations have similar playstyles. </p><p>Using the Metal Bear example, we could take SmashWiki's/Smashpedia's (both have very similar information for some reason) way of listing attributes and modify the Strategy section to highlight strengths and weaknesses. For example, we could say something like this: </p> <h2><span class="mw-headline" id="Attributes">Attributes</span></h2> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Strengths">Strengths</span></h3>
- Metal Bear has exceptional defense that allows him to tank hits while not receiving as much damage.
- Metal Bear has enhanced offensive power, which allows him to dish out more damage than most of the other robos.
- Because of his high endurance, he won't be knocked down often. As such, Metal Bear can tank a hit and hit the opponent while they are still experiencing the recoil of firing their gun.
- His charge, while having slow start-up, deals exceptional damage, often being one of the most damaging moves in the games that he appears in.
- His single air dash covers more distance than other air dashes.
- Metal Bear has a LARGE frame, so he is more likely to get hit with attacks than other robos. Also, this makes
- Metal Bear has slow ground AND aerial mobility, so he has a hard time approaching other robos as well as evading attacks.
- While his charge is strong, it takes longer to start-up when compared to other charges, which results in it missing mobile opponents.
- While his air dash reaches far, he only has access to one of them per jump, which means he has to commit to a dash until it ends.
</p><p>And then maybe have the sets be a sub-section similar to how Smogon does it. Either that or keep that merged with Strategy. </p><p>
</p><p>How is this idea? And if we go with it, should Strategy be a subset of Attributes or should it be separate from it? </p>
(Edited by administrators)
0
<p>Should the strategy section be considered opinion? The idea of strength and weaknesses seems like a great addition. I'm just wondering if a strategy section really more or less belongs with sets. But I can see how it'd work here.
</p><p>Completely Different Topic: Does anyone else feel it would be appropriate for the characters to have a screenshot section? Mostly it would be things like the various emotions boxes that they display. The images would be in good quality of course . Just wondering
</p>
(Edited by Ray01Geo)
0
<p>Hmm, this actually requires decent thought.
</p><p>Attributes does sound broader. Thing is, there's not much to expand on aside from the listed infobox stats which overlap for same style robos, same model robos, etc. See, I wish to avoid a general blandness from page to page. Like every Little Sprinter and Raider page not repeating the capability they have in common as a fast hit-and-run option. What does a particular robo have that is or could be perfectly unique? Obviously charge where applicable, sometimes hitbox/size as you mentioned, sometimes defensive notes. Stuff like Pipit's style and model combining to give it 100% attack power--<i>that</i> is great to know. Comparing and contrasting, say, maneuverability of a robo between different games also seems good.
</p><p>Overall, I feel like any of that can be written about in Strategy.
</p><p>There is also the issue of bosses and story battles and other battles (e.g. arcade battles). If someone can't beat a certain battle, there is a good chance they will look for how to beat it. Therefore, we need to list
</p>
</p> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Story_battle">Story battle</span></h3> <p>Before reaching such a location, you will be confronted by so-and-so. </p><p>
</p> <table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" style="width: 400px"><tr><td> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="margin: 0 auto; width: 200px"><tr><th scope="row">Robo </th><td scope="row">{{{1}}} </td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Gun </th><td scope="row">{{{2}}} </td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Bomb </th><td scope="row">{{{3}}} </td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Pod </th><td scope="row">{{{4}}} </td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Legs </th><td scope="row">{{{5}}} </td></tr></table></td></tr></table><p>Beat him with such and such a method. Here's what happens after that battle. </p>
- that exact set via Template:SimpleSet
- that exact situation, and
- how to beat it.
</p> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Story_battle">Story battle</span></h3> <p>Before reaching such a location, you will be confronted by so-and-so. </p><p>
</p> <table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" style="width: 400px"><tr><td> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="margin: 0 auto; width: 200px"><tr><th scope="row">Robo </th><td scope="row">{{{1}}} </td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Gun </th><td scope="row">{{{2}}} </td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Bomb </th><td scope="row">{{{3}}} </td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Pod </th><td scope="row">{{{4}}} </td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Legs </th><td scope="row">{{{5}}} </td></tr></table></td></tr></table><p>Beat him with such and such a method. Here's what happens after that battle. </p>
(Edited by Limxzero)
0
<div class="quote">
<p>Ray01Geo wrote:
Should the strategy section be considered opinion? The idea of strength and weaknesses seems like a great addition. I'm just wondering if a strategy section really more or less belongs with sets. But I can see how it'd work here.
</p><p>Completely Different Topic: Does anyone else feel it would be appropriate for the characters to have a screenshot section? Mostly it would be things like the various emotions boxes that they display. The images would be in good quality of course . Just wondering
</p>
</div>Strategy is more or less...consensus. So yes, we might have to occasionally weed out a poorly designed set/strategy like Ray Sky + Knuckle Gun, but information like the game-changing capabilities of Ray 01's charge is practically indisputable fact.
<p>And yep, a gallery section for the different character heads seems perfectly apt.
</p>
(Edited by Limxzero)
<p>@Limxzero:
</p><p>Good point about the generic stuff. Didn't think about that (that would make the GX pages REALLY boring). I could add the stuff I said about Metal Bear to the Metal Grappler page instead and mainly talk about key areas that separate him from the rest or the cast (i.e. charge, unique tidbits (i.e. Tiger Roar has the highest attack in the game, Peregrine is the fastest robo, Ray 01 lost speed from the transition from BR to Arena, etc.).
</p><p>Regarding Story battles, it's a good idea to have them mentioned. However, I'm afraid of clutter happening for pages like Metal Bear and Metal Ape due to how many times they are used in the series. Maybe have the Robo pages have the minor battles point to location pages while having major battles listed on their page. That way, all battles are covered, but only the major ones are highlighted.
</p><p>@Ray01Geo:
</p><p>Basically what Limxzero said abut the strategy section. Combination of unique facts + general opinion.
</p><p>As for the portraits for the character, I think that's a good idea. Some characters like Akira from CR1, your mom from CR1 and V2, Akane from GX, Sherry from BR, and so on lack official artwork, so those would capture their essence a bit better. Plus, some of the portraits are golden (especially Marv's in V2 and Earnest in BR). I'm all for it and I'll try to get as many as I can find.
</p>
(Edited by The One Who Wrote This)
0
<p>Agreed. All the robo model pages (Shining Fighter, Big Boy, etc.) are pretty short and stub-like. Attributes including strengths and weaknesses would fit well there.
</p><p>Regarding the raw amount of sets that could be listed on a single page, I had been thinking about either a show/hide toggle or a subpage. I don't think we're at that point yet though.
</p>
(Edited by Limxzero)