View source for Thread:Spectre Leeloo Shepard/@comment-1814425-20200627023359/@comment-25356303-20200627163259

Hey, thanks for linking me here. I'll take the optimistic route and remark that, as far as ''Cyberpunk 2077'' is concerned, this wiki's categorization system is actually pretty good relative to many of the communities that I look after: you already have a categories for [[:Category:Pen and Paper RPG‎|Pen and Paper RPG‎]] titles as well as [[:Category:Video Games|video games]], and even a number of categories related specifically to ''[[:Category:Cyberpunk 2077|2077]]''. The categories that exist are clearly distinct and neatly organized. This is actually the hardest part about maintaining a database, since so much work (especially large-scale bot work on your or my part, which is going to become a very regular thing here with a game as massive as ''2077'') relies on understanding how articles relate to each other in the [[Special:CategoryTree|category tree]].

Come release, I would suggest focusing near-100% of your attention on ''2077''. It's not possible to work on everything on the wiki at once, so naturally you have to pick and choose: the critical part is that you do this strategically. The pen and paper games are important, but in order to maximize editing efficiency, they do need to be put on hold while everyone is focused on ''2077''. For reference, when ''Skyrim'' came out in 2011, the wiki got around 40 million pageviews in a week (possibly more?), and something like 4,000–7,000 edits per day, if I'm not mistaken. During the peak, very few of those views were directed to the other games. Obviously, as part of an established series, such high numbers were to be expected; ''Cyberpunk 2077'' is the first video game in the series, so I'm not sure I would anticipate quite that many here. But it's certainly possible, especially given how much hype the game has gotten, and of course given the success of CD Projekt Red's past titles, especially ''The Witcher 3''.

The Cyberpunk Wiki is very much in the same position as The Elder Scrolls Wiki was in 2011 as far as [[Special:ListAdmins|staff]] are concerned; the reality of the situation is that there isn't an established patrolling team here, so errors will be made and things will be missed once the game releases. This is to be expected, and we can't demand perfection in a rapidly developing wiki under any circumstances. We should make an effort to promote more rollbacks/content moderators/whatever system this wiki uses, and lay out specific prerequisites and expectations for the role. We have a few unusually strict requirements on TES, like a minimum of 2500 edits for [[w:c:elderscrolls:TES:Patrollers|rollback]]; obviously that particular one would be unnecessary. But staff should have clear behavioral expectations, and we definitely definitely shouldn't permit toxic attitudes from anyone, no matter how good their edits are (they will always do more damage than good in the long run). For the time being, I'd suggest deciding on staffing changes through private consensus first (you should all be on the same page about someone), and then hold a vote on the wiki to formalize it.

When the game comes out, I would very much suggest creating articles for as many things as possible, ensuring that they each have at least a basic lede, infobox, categories, and stub template (or similar), and letting users work from there (I'm sure that the Content Team will be able to help too). I know from experience that people are more likely to add content to an existing page than create an entirely new one, so that's something we should leverage. If these articles you're making are organized well, and have a basic structure, then it also becomes significantly easier for staff to patrol supplementary content that users add. Whereas if people are creating articles from scratch, that can be a little more time-consuming to fix as they probably don't know where to get infoboxes from, or which categories to use, etc., and it can just get messy.

You should determine what the most important types of content are to players, and focus on documenting that first. From my experience with ''Skyrim'' and ''The Elder Scrolls Online'', it goes something like [[w:c:elderscrolls:Special:Insights/popularpages|this]]:

#Game pages (''[[Cyberpunk 2077]]'')
#Game mechanics like marriage and skill training
#Quest walkthroughs
#Very notable items, locations, characters, and creatures/enemies
#Everything else

Obviously, you need to get it all eventually; every piece of content is important. But if you're deciding between whether to write a quest walkthrough or build up a bunch of relatively insignificant item pages, people are more likely to be searching for the quests, so that's where you should focus your time.

I think it's valuable to add all content you find, even knowing that it could change in the future. This actually provides a valuable history to some articles; occasionally, developmental changes like this provide readers a lot of insight into why the final product exists the way that it does, like the [[w:c:elderscrolls:Windhelm Pit|Windhelm Pit]] or cut dialogue from [[w:c:elderscrolls:Balgruuf the Greater|Balgruuf the Greater]] & family in ''Skyrim''. You can worry about merging pages and such down the line; it's not a huge problem if you have a bit of duplicated content under different titles temporarily.

If you're worried about how to name unmarked content, my suggestion would be to make use of the physical strategy guide that is (presumably?) being released alongside the game, in some Collector's Edition or other. On Elder Scrolls, the Official Game Guide for ''Skyrim'' provided names and various other pieces of missing information for a ton of unmarked quests and locations. People obviously aren't going to be searching for the names, but as long as you link to this content in an intuitive way on other articles, they'll often be able to find it.