Talk:Boothook's Rumbling Guide

Article name?

Should it just be "Bookhook's Rumbling Guide" with a tutorial category? I'm not a big fan of having a user's name in the article name because of the whole group editing issue where changes can be made that don't necessarily reflect things that Boothook thinks/wrote/whatnot. --Guppymomma 09:38, 16 June 2006 (PDT)

I had thought of that, but considering that the article itself is borderline NPOV (when you get down to it, this is an opinion of how to play the puzzle well. It's an extremely learned and accurate opinion, but it remains a strategy as opposed to proven fact, and as always with tutorials and learning, YMMV.) I thought a psudonamespace would give us a bit of protection. Besides, if we acquire more and different rumbling technique tutorials, I'd prefer they be identified as "Boothook's Tutorial", "Susan's Tutorial", "Al's Tutorial" and so on instead of "Tutorial A", "Tutorial B", etc. --Ponytailguy 09:43, 16 June 2006 (PDT)

There's always the {{opinion}} template & the tutorial category for the "Tutorial:" reasoning. Perhaps we should derive some sort of warning that although it's got "Boothook's," due to group editing it's possible that things have evolved since the original article creation. I don't know. Other examples of guides that were originally from one person, but haven't got the person's name there include the blockade coordination & admiraling articles. Just food for thought. --Guppymomma 09:52, 16 June 2006 (PDT)

We need to have a settled policy on this, one way or the other: The tutorial event entries, despite being created for a specific event by a specific person, are not individualized in name (eg., Carpentry tutorial, which, incidentally, doesn't have the opinion template). Then we have Admiraling a blockade, which is a more generally-created article, yet its owner has attempted to exert editorial control over its contents, making it not a group-edited project (at least not substitantively; I'm referring to this edit). Then we have drinking, a puzzle article with strategy pieces in its body, as well as seperate pages for different drinking strategies. And then we have this. It's really a hodgepodge of different ways of handling this on the wiki right now. We need to come to a consensus on this, but in the meantime, I'm moving this out of the "Tutorial" namespace, simply because that namespace does not exist.

Anyway, my vote is this: Each puzzle gets a strategy page, which may be edited by all. Specific strategies may be given seperate headers or pages, but they too are open-source. This would go either on Category:Tutorials or, perhaps, a Category:Strategy, and their titles would follow the format, "[Puzzle] strategy" (or we could do Tutorial:[Puzzle] or Strategy:[Puzzle] if we wanted to use a seperate namespace). Guides written by a specific person could also be added to the wiki, under the format, "[Player's] [puzzle] [guide]," under Category:Guides (or, again, we could use a namespace for this if people wanted to). These would remain the intellectual propery of their creators, and would simply be using the YPPedia as a repository for easy accessibility to the general playerbase. (Would this be possible within a project which is mostly open-source?) What do you all think? --Emufarmers 22:50, 16 June 2006 (PDT)

This doesn't seem to have really been resolved. --Emufarmers 21:39, 10 July 2006 (PDT)

This article is specifically Boothooks work and research that he's posting publicly. Truthfully, this IS a guide on HOW to rumble, but it also gives HIS opinion on how to do it. Thus, Boothook's Rumbling Guide. I dont think it's fair to call it a 'tutorial', because tutorials just show basic how-to-play. Boothook's guide is clearly much more than that. And this article is waaay too big to inject into the official rumbling tutorial. Plus, Boothook did a lot of work on this, and I think his name should be attached to it. ~Jegregious 16:40 November 2006 (EST)

wikifying

I'm up to this page in my cleanup regime.. and I wouldn't have the foggiest where to begin. I mean I read the guide but this page is just so intensive. Anyone got any suggestions for me? Thank you. --Lizzie 06:34, 1 August 2006 (PDT)

(Bump) I'm not sure if we want to wikify this or leave it as is and tag it as opinion, seeing as the above discussion wasn't really conclusive. Gail 20:24, 9 October 2006 (PDT)

Both actions are fine. It's mostly been wikified. Just needs a little more formatting tweaking & occasional link & other such things. --Guppymomma 20:50, 9 October 2006 (PDT)

Yeah, I gave up on this page back then.. I'm a bad bad person! :p Can someone tell me if there is a way to make the text float around the contents box? --Lizzie 23:58, 11 October 2006 (PDT)

organization

Ive looked through this guide, and it's extremely comprehensive and in depth. BootHook did a LOT of research on this. But I think it would be so much better if it were just a bit more organized. Such as having a section specifically on the basics of strikes (What they are, what they look like, how to make one, and a picture of one) and THEN have the strategies in another section. Same for sprinkles. Have a section their basics, and THEN their strategies. (I think im going to make this one of my little projects. Stick in a few picures too. Oh, and Lizzie? The best place to start is usually the beginning.) ~ 16:27 Jegregious 14 November 06 (EST)