Talk:Grand Crafting Puzzle Project

I just started this page to hopefully focus the discussion on the boards to the new puzzle. I realize it's very rough, but it's a start. A seed that will hopefully result in the next crafting puzzle! --Jdnx429 18:07, 18 August 2006 (PDT)

This might have some ideas for formats of entries. That is, in that thread is a couple of outline formats I've used. Uh, probably has some ideas in it too. Heh. --Gotagota 19:45, 18 August 2006 (PDT)


 * I've added more information on the main page and also created a Template (Template:Grand_Crafting_Puzzle_Project) with some ideas based on that thread and on the Forum thread. --Jdnx429 21:09, 19 August 2006 (PDT)

= Wiki Organization = There are a few things I'd like to accomplish on the YPPedia before the submission process begins in full force. My list includes several mini-tutorials (how to log in, how to create a new page, how to upload an image, how to "tag" the image properly, how to leave a message for other users, how to sign comments, how to discuss a page, and how to include categories into an article), some templates, image tags, and a few categories come to mind.

One idea I had mentioned to Bia was to have each project pick a code name (either random or from a wide list i.e. Ironmonger puzzles pick a butterfly, tailoring puzzles pick baked desserts and so on) and prefix this code name to all images and articles they include on the wiki. This will just make it easier to find all pages and images related to a project if something gets lost along the way.--Fiddler 22:46, 18 August 2006 (PDT)


 * Couldn't sleep. Created the template for the image tag Template:Grand crafting image and the associated categories for the event.  If we like the codename idea I can add that in to the template later.  I'll get started on the tutorials now.--Fiddler 01:44, 19 August 2006 (PDT)


 * I'd like to add links to the yppedia Howto's, and Events pages from here and I'll give it a try later if no one objects.--Mournful 16:37, 19 August 2006 {PDT)

Page Naming
I propose that we YPPedia Pages should be set up similar to E2:

Proposals must be created as a sub-page to this page. The sub-page must be named GCPP/Proposal_Gamename. The reason I think it should be Gamename instead of Username it's that people may have different proposals or different people may have collaborated on one game. (And by the time anyone reads this, GCPP should redirect to Grand Crafting Puzzle Project)

The proposal page must use the GCPP Template and all Template Sections must be completed. Use the Template and explanations as your guide for crafting your Game Proposal. Once the first draft of your entry has been completed, it will appear on the Grand Crafting Puzzle Project Category page.

What do you think? --Jdnx429 19:35, 22 August 2006 (PDT)


 * I like the idea of the pseudo namespace a bit better, though this works just as well if we decide not to travel that route.. I stil recommend, in order to avoid "Tailoring puzzle x" as game names, that projects choose a code name.  My preference is to have them pick a name from either the list of known ship name fish names or the list of known swabbie names.  Also, to reduce wiki clutter it'd be nice to see all image uploaded for the project prefixed with "GCPP-codename-".--Fiddler 20:03, 22 August 2006 (PDT)
 * I personally love the code name ideas, however I'd prefer picking names off of this list, just because there's more of them and they're a little more fun. Aye, I also agree with the GCPP prefix for images. --Jdnx429 23:54, 22 August 2006 (PDT)

Pseudo-Namespace
I'd like to establish a pseudo-namespace for not only the GCPP entries, but discussing the project. With the establishment of (helpful!) articles like GCPP:Crafting puzzle dimensions, there will probably come a time when really want speculative, creative articles to be separate from the main namespace. Thoughts? --AtteSmythe 11:47, 22 August 2006 (PDT)
 * I like it, since we're likely to end up with dozens of supporting articles in addition to all of the actual proposals.--Fiddler 20:03, 22 August 2006 (PDT)

=Initial Guidelines Discussion=

This might a bit premature for this, or it might be preferred elsewhere, but for now, this seems like a decent spot. My number one concern is the fact that people submit their ideas, and then we select a puzzle type. The puzzle type selection (weavery, ironmonger etc.) is going to have little to do with the related suggestions whether we want it to or not. People have their own agendas and they know the types of shoppes they want to see puzzles for already. If this is what happens, many a good design will be shot down entirely, without even a chance. The really sad part, in my eyes, about that road, is that probably at least half to two-thirds of puzzle ideas can be retooled to fit any puzzle. But if the puzzle is selected after submissions, and they didn't get lucky and select the right puzzle, they're out of the running. Though the way it sounds from Bia's outline, it'll be an effort to pick the "industry" that has the best puzzles attached to it, why not select that up front, and then have people build their puzzle around it? (Another point about picking the industry with the best puzzle submissions: What if, say, weavery has a large amount of bad suggestions and one suggestion that's superior to everything else?) Again, I think this would only negatively affect about a third or less of people who design the puzzles- who had an idea in mind that wouldn't work for that industry. But the alternative is to seemingly ignore 3 out of 4 suggestions from the initial phase. If this long-winded bit would be better off in the thread itself, let me know, but I think that the discussion and hashing out of the event will be more easily seperated from the "Wow, cool event!" posts if we handle it on the wiki. --Darkaardvark 08:19, 19 August 2006 (PDT)
 * I would think that if we end up with multiple awesome puzzles on GameGardens, then we might end up with more than one of them included in YPP eventually. Perhaps designers can include in their design bits about "tailor version: ....", "weavery version: ...." etc. if the design is appropriate for multiple types of shops.  Personally, I prefer a crafting puzzle that has some connection to the shop besides just the graphics being used. --Tcarr 16:53, 19 August 2006 (PDT)

Does a title go here

What I want to see is lots and lots of designs. Deciding where they apply is a problem for later--flavor is easily changed after all. However there's no reason to discourage someone from trying to capture the essence of an industry.

What I'm after, then, is "flavorless" designs. I want to see strong puzzles that work well, mechanically. If a designers sees it as appropriate for a given industry perhaps that should go in a separate "notes" heading. The idea here is to separate mechanical and emotional content. Emotional content will sell a five-minute card game, because you can laugh with friends. But a puzzle needs to stand on its own. --Gotagota 14:18, 19 August 2006 (PDT)


 * I agree with the notion that good puzzles come first, and we can figure out what industry we want to use it for later. If our best puzzle happens to be tied to Weavery, great, Weavery gets the puzzle, end of story. If it's not, we (either us or OOO) can figure out what to do with it later. Nifboy 22:16, 19 August 2006 (PDT)