Table Row Templates[edit source]
The following table row templates may be inserted into the tables on the article page (after the first, heading row). See the article page, in edit mode, for a variety of implementations that you can copy, if they work for you better than these templates.
FOR A SINGLE GAME ADDITION: <tr valign="top"> <td>[[User:your_user_id|your_display_name]]<BR />[[User:collaborator_user_id|collaborator_display_name]] <td>[[game_name]] <td>...description... </tr> FOR MULTIPLE GAME ADDITIONS: <tr valign="top"> <!-- INSTRUCTIONS: CHANGE "#" below to the number of games under your name! --> <td rowspan=#>[[User:your_user_id|your_display_name]]<BR />[[User:collaborator_user_id|collaborator_display_name]] <td>[[game_1_name]] <td>...description... </tr> <!-- INSTRUCTIONS: COPY everything between "<tr>" and "</tr>" for each additional game! --> <tr valign="top"> <td>[[game_2_name_and_so_forth]] <td>...description... </tr>
Totally reformatting?[edit source]
Pretty as the table is, I think a simple unordered list with heading levels might be just as informative while being much easier to edit and maintain. Something like:
- FirstGameAndLink — Description of first game
- SecondGameAndLink — Description of second game
And then they'll even be indexed in the table of contents.
Donsheldon 08:53, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
- Well, if folks really think the table editing is too hard, fine by me; though I have been diligent about double-checking every edit to this page and the other "level-2" navigation pages, for formatting errors or omissions. (David Artman)
- But I see a problem with designer names as headings: the TOC list would probably fill the first screen of the page, which could look kind of wonky and which would require even more scrolling than the tables already do. Do folks really look for games by designer? Maybe an entire re-org is in order, to better focus browsing users on games they'd like to test? Tough to say, really--I wouldn't want to go through listing a game as it is on What Can I Play? when I first begin, only to have to re-do it later on WCIP itself. (David Artman)
- Maybe we could come up with some very generalized "play-style" headings based on mechanics, theme, or game genre to sort out games under development, and let each game be listed with game name, designer name, description, and stage of development all on one bullet line under the most relevant play-style heading? (David Artman)
- In the end, what is this page supposed to do beyond just keeping a list of games not ready for prime time listing on Existing Games and What Can I Play? Is it supposed to promote designers (what it seems to do with a designer name in the first column or on a sub-heading)? Or is it suppose to attract testers (in which case it needs a play-style-based re-org, I believe)? (David Artman 12:20, 5 November 2007 (EST))
Any Ready For Prime Time?[edit source]
I am wondering if any of these games are done playtesting and ready for prime time on Existing Games and What Can I Play?. Some of these games have been in "playtest" for years, probably actually abandoned by their designers (or the whole site has been abandoned by those designers). --David Artman 11:49, 27 November 2007 (EST)
- Up until now, it's been left up to the designer's discretion as to which stage of development their game is in. As such, the designer has exercised sole authority in moving their game(s) from Initial to Playtesting, to Nearly Completed, and finally to Existing Games. The only games to go on the fast track are LL designs, and pre-wiki games. In the four years of the IceWiki, very few games have moved up the ladder from start to finish, and most have languished in developmental stasis. I attribute this to designer inattention and lack of community focus.
- I would like to see IceWikiPedians develop guidelines for moving games along the Design Spiral, with or without the designer's participation. I stop short of suggesting the community actually modify the design, but rather just decide together that a particular game is a doodle, design on progress, or done. - Cerulean 19:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)