9) Within a work/game page, which items should it be a priority to include? (Scroll down to see example images.)
(This question allowed people to choose multiple options.)
A) Award icons: 58.3% (21 votes)
B) Icons for genre, setting, and type of IF: 41.7% (15 votes)
C) “How it Begins” summary: 22.2% (8 votes)
D) Notable Features section: 47.2% (17 votes)
E) Cover art: 22.2% (8 votes)
F) Infobox text: 30.6% (11 votes)
G) Title, Author, Release date, and Platform/Authoring system (as text): 66.7% (24 votes)
H) Serial number line: 5.6% (2 votes)
I) IFID (interactive fiction identification number): 13.9% (5 votes)
J) IFDB link: 75% (27 votes)
K) Competition and placement (as text): 44.4% (16 votes)
L) Download link: 30.6% (11 votes)
M) Testers: 16.7% (6 votes)
N) Details for multiple versions: 22.2% (8 votes)
O) Review links for individual work/game: 61.1% (22 votes)
Other: 5.6% (2 votes)
(“Other” responses mentioned source, walkthrough, hints, and tag line.)
10) Any comments/suggestions you have about IFWiki: (There were 10 responses)
Information people said they tend use IFWiki for, or that they think that IFWiki does well, includes information about:
- competition entries and results, award results
- lists of reviews of competition games
- items that aren’t easily categorized (e.g. the IF Theory Reader).
- on individual work pages: links to reviews and hints
Regarding lists of competition reviews, it was also pointed out that it’s possible these reviews could be gathered elsewhere, maybe using the Editorial Reviews feature on IFDB, or listing them in some other place, especially since reviews for a particular comp may be meant as a more immediate resource, as part of comp-related discussion. (I think–though I’m not sure–that the implication here is that this would be a way of allowing these reviews to be collected quickly even if there were no wiki page (yet?) for a particular work.–bg)
Kind of information people said they tend not to use IFWiki for:
- game information (because IFDB is more complete, more easily edited)
Kinds of content people said they’d like to prioritize:
- things that IFDB doesn’t keep track of
- among elements on an individual work page, possibly IFIDs (in addition to the things that had been chosen in question 9)
Things people said they would not prioritize or do not see as useful:
- work pages/basic game info that can be found elsewhere
- maybe to add pages for including RDF data.
- to look up Semantic Mediawiki (for autofilling reference lists and such).
- that wiki maintainers focus on developing templates and tools, e.g. for automatically backing up the wiki, or dealing with dead links, or getting game info from IFDB.
- It’d be nice to include as much info as possible on IFWiki. The limited resource is time, not space, and individual contributors will focus on whichever things they think are important.
- IFWiki is an excellent resource.
(And to whoever said thanks, you’re welcome.)
Once again, thank you very much to everyone for your responses!