Football Manager Wiki

[arsenal_2111]

54 entries into the competition now, doing pretty well!

[ssestig]

Just to let everyone know i'll be sorting out screenshots for all players on the site for the new patch over the next month or so.

Here is the FM wiki Facebook group those that are interested in joining it.

[ssestig]

Down for anyone else?

[J lambden]

Down for me

[arsenal_2111]

Yep, seems to be down again I'm afraid - I'll ask JJ to see if he know why it may be

[arsenal_2111]

Hey guys, just to let you know we're back online now - sorry about the delay!

The winner of the competition, which attracted over 80 entries, is now finished and I'll be announcing the winner within the week. Hope everything's going okay, let me know if anything needs doing!

[ssestig]

Any numbers on how many for the this month's competition which has about a week to run?

[ssestig]

Just to let everyone know that April's competition has been extended into May and can be found here - http://www.footballmanagerwiki.co.uk/index.php?title=Competition_(April/May_2011)

[ssestig]

Just a reminder that this month's competition ends on Tuesday here - http://www.footballmanagerwiki.co.uk/index.php?title=Competition

[snootyjim]

Google says site may be compromised, don't know if that's a new thing.

And also, it looks like it's turned into a fan site... is that true?

[ssestig]

The site will be staying as it is Jim. Not sure about the google bit as I just have a link on my favourites bar.

[snootyjim]

Just saying it's hardly going to attract people to look at the site when Google's warning them to steer well clear.

And I'm not criticising or asking you to change it, just a genuine question about what role it is actually trying to perform.

[Guest markyosullivan]

sticky this is really good

[Fabio MVP]

sticky this is really good

Sticky?

I don't want anyone to get me wrong as I appreciate the work that you guys from FMWiki do, but shouldn't this thread be in Fansites section as every other fansite thread?

EDIT: Just checked and I see that you already have a thread over there, so I don't understand how this one can be in GD?

[snootyjim]

This thread is here because it started off as a concept to start a wiki.

Obviously at some point it has turned into a fansite, but was never moved across.

[arsenal_2111]

Google says site may be compromised, don't know if that's a new thing.

And also, it looks like it's turned into a fan site... is that true?

Just saying it's hardly going to attract people to look at the site when Google's warning them to steer well clear.

And I'm not criticising or asking you to change it, just a genuine question about what role it is actually trying to perform.

What is it exactly that makes you think it's turned into a fansite? That's definitely not what we're planning for the site - whilst things like competitions may make the site seem like a fansite more than an information source, they are intended purely to attract more guests to the site, to try and increase widespread knowledge about the game.

That, for what it's worth, has been successful. Whilst there have only been 1,679 visits to the April/May competition page, there were over 270,000 page views overall in the same time period. Compare this to the 185,000 that we got in January/February, and you can see a marked improvement which I have no doubt is linked to some of the changes we've made.

Since the formation of the site, we've been aiming to pass on knowledge from people who know large amounts about the game to those who may need assistance in certain areas. An increase in over 40,000 views a month would, to me, make it seem as thought we've been successful with this. If just 10% of those 40,000 views have resulted in someone learning more about the game, that's still 4,000 pieces of knowledge we've passed on. That's the aim, and as far as I'm concerned we're well on the way to meeting it!

As always, if there are things that you'd like to see changed on the site, we'd really appreciate your comments on it - feel free to email jammy@footballmanagerwiki.co.uk with your comments, I'd love to have a conversation with you!

sticky this is really good

Well, thanks for what I suppose is a compliment, but it should most definitely not be a sticky, it's purely a discussion thread for the site.

Sticky?

I don't want anyone to get me wrong as I appreciate the work that you guys from FMWiki do, but shouldn't this thread be in Fansites section as every other fansite thread?

EDIT: Just checked and I see that you already have a thread over there, so I don't understand how this one can be in GD?

Basically, footballmanagerwiki was made as a result of this thread and it has been consistently used since then as a thread for discussion about the site - the majority of this is from the site's staff. If you look in the fansites forum, you'll see threads which advertise the sites (of which, like you correctly pointed out, we have) whereas this is for discussion. I'm not necessarily saying that this thread should be in this forum but, given that it has been so notorious over the past couple of years, have to say I don't see any real reason for it to be moved, deleted or otherwise. If you disagree with this, feel free to say and again I'll try my best to answer any questions you may have!

Cheers guys

[Fabio MVP]

I disagree!

Nah, not really. All cool Jamie (IIRC that is your name ).

KUTGW guys.

[arsenal_2111]

I disagree!

Nah, not really. All cool Jamie (IIRC that is your name ).

KUTGW guys.

It's normally Jammy, but that's a minor technicality!

[Fabio MVP]

Ahh right.

Cheers.

[snootyjim]

What is it exactly that makes you think it's turned into a fansite? That's definitely not what we're planning for the site - whilst things like competitions may make the site seem like a fansite more than an information source, they are intended purely to attract more guests to the site, to try and increase widespread knowledge about the game.

That, for what it's worth, has been successful. Whilst there have only been 1,679 visits to the April/May competition page, there were over 270,000 page views overall in the same time period. Compare this to the 185,000 that we got in January/February, and you can see a marked improvement which I have no doubt is linked to some of the changes we've made.

Since the formation of the site, we've been aiming to pass on knowledge from people who know large amounts about the game to those who may need assistance in certain areas. An increase in over 40,000 views a month would, to me, make it seem as thought we've been successful with this. If just 10% of those 40,000 views have resulted in someone learning more about the game, that's still 4,000 pieces of knowledge we've passed on. That's the aim, and as far as I'm concerned we're well on the way to meeting it!

I was one of the early editors, although I didn't really get that stuck in. IIRC I took issue over the inclusion of fan-made "team guides" that were published on these forums, for two reasons: firstly because it meant an enormous workload that could never possibly be completed (i.e. the wiki could never hope to have a comprehensive guide on every team going, especially not when each year it needed updating), and would therefore direct work away from other parts of the wiki that needed serious attention, and secondly because it went against the whole concept of a wiki (i.e. you can hardly start editing someone else's guide when it's attributed to them, and if you can't edit what's already there, it's not really a wiki).

Going back to the site recently (I only remembered it when I saw this thread bumped), I feel as though it has continued in that theme. The new landing page was the first thing that surprised me... maybe I'm a bit old-school or something, but it doesn't feel like an editable wiki.

Two examples: firstly, the Q&A sessions with SI staff. It's not verifiable, it's not editable, it's not related directly to the game. Especially Ter's interview in the last instance! Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that you've got them, but to me, personally, it doesn't seem in tune with the concept of a wiki, and has much more in common with a fansite. Rather than saying it should all go in the bin (I'm really not attempting to slam the whole thing!) and be forgotten about, I think it would probably benefit from more division/separation from the wiki itself, because if that's an uneditable wiki page, then it's setting a precedent to new users of not touching anything.

Secondly, I've just looked at a few of the articles I edited/wrote back in 2009. Regrettably, apart from yourself and ahmufcwafc there have been very few users making continued edits to those articles. Compare that to what I consider one of the best game wikis out there, UESPWiki for The Elder Scrolls, and it's a whole different ballgame. People are dropping in their own thoughts and experiences in wherever they think they're apt.

Maybe people just aren't bothered enough about FM to make the effort, but that seems unlikely. I'm concerned that it seems to much like an authored fansite for people to feel confident or able to edit the articles, and furthermore that the direction of articles on repetition of available of guides and historical information wasn't attracting people to make the effort to read and give their own thoughts.

When I look at game wikis, it's often to find out what I've done wrong, to find out how to get over a difficult patch, or to better educate myself about a feature I don't understand. The FM Wiki doesn't seem to be doing that. Searching for team talks for example doesn't turn up anything at all, other than an article reproduced in full from FM Britain with an obscure title.

I accept that in part, the charge leveled should be "it's a wiki, if you don't like it, go change it", and fair enough. But when I initially started editing, it seemed as though I was the only one on that page. And looking now, it seems that more than ever, that's the case. I started off hoping for a massive repository of user-submitted information where people shared ideas on how training benefited their players, what team talks helped what kind of players, and how much each stage of ground improvements could cost, based on research from their own games, but it never seemed to be going that way.

In essence then, it's not so much the fansite aspect that I'm worried about - it's really a question of whether it's meant to be a "gamewiki" as I perceive them to be, comprehensive guides on every aspect of gameplay as represented by UESPWiki, even if the information is self-researched and potentially wrong, or a gamewiki not as I perceive them to be, serving a different purpose and/or goal. The fansite part comes in because I suspect it may be inhibiting editing, and thus preventing any move towards the aforementioned "ideal" that I laid out.

If I've got the wrong end of the stick, then feel free to call me out on it . And if you would rather converse via email as previously mentioned, then that's fine... just wanted to outline my reasons on the forums initially.

[arsenal_2111]

If I've got the wrong end of the stick, then feel free to call me out on it . And if you would rather converse via email as previously mentioned, then that's fine... just wanted to outline my reasons on the forums initially.

The forums are fine - in a way, I think it's useful for visitors to the site to be able to see discussions that take place about the site.

I was one of the early editors, although I didn't really get that stuck in. IIRC I took issue over the inclusion of fan-made "team guides" that were published on these forums, for two reasons: firstly because it meant an enormous workload that could never possibly be completed (i.e. the wiki could never hope to have a comprehensive guide on every team going, especially not when each year it needed updating), and would therefore direct work away from other parts of the wiki that needed serious attention, and secondly because it went against the whole concept of a wiki (i.e. you can hardly start editing someone else's guide when it's attributed to them, and if you can't edit what's already there, it's not really a wiki).

The team guides are something that, like you, I've always looked upon with some scepticism, and that's something I've never been afraid to show - this is an area of the site that Stig focusses on, along with player profiles, and one which I've left him to do the majority of time. Whilst I'm not particularly involved in this, I feel as though Stig has done, and is doing, a good job with this area of the site and although I'll continue to focus on other areas, I'm not about to intervene in an area which I'm not particularly involved in, especially when the person who has done it is doing what I see as a fairly good job.

Going back to the site recently (I only remembered it when I saw this thread bumped), I feel as though it has continued in that theme. The new landing page was the first thing that surprised me... maybe I'm a bit old-school or something, but it doesn't feel like an editable wiki.

The main reason for the new home page is that it is a lot easier to customise and change which, as it is me who does things like that, is important due to the lack of time I have. Rather than spending a lot of time coding, I can use the time to make improvements to the site.

Two examples: firstly, the Q&A sessions with SI staff. It's not verifiable, it's not editable, it's not related directly to the game. Especially Ter's interview in the last instance! Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that you've got them, but to me, personally, it doesn't seem in tune with the concept of a wiki, and has much more in common with a fansite. Rather than saying it should all go in the bin (I'm really not attempting to slam the whole thing!) and be forgotten about, I think it would probably benefit from more division/separation from the wiki itself, because if that's an uneditable wiki page, then it's setting a precedent to new users of not touching anything.

To be honest, I think you've picked on a very strange point here. The interview with Ter, to choose the example you mentioned, was done in September 2009, in the weeks prior to the release of Football Manager 2010. To choose such an old example (which, I believe, is one of the only examples around) seems rather strange - I can't imagine many people judge websites on what happened almost two years ago.

Secondly, I've just looked at a few of the articles I edited/wrote back in 2009. Regrettably, apart from yourself and ahmufcwafc there have been very few users making continued edits to those articles. Compare that to what I consider one of the best game wikis out there, UESPWiki for The Elder Scrolls, and it's a whole different ballgame. People are dropping in their own thoughts and experiences in wherever they think they're apt.

You've a valid point here, and one which I really don't know how to get over. Users provide the basis of the majority of wikis, the one you've linked to having 29,950 users compared to our 166. Part of the reason we have done competitions in the past, which may make the site seem more like a fansite, is to try and attract more people to sign up to the site, but unfortunately this hasn't particularly happened. I think I'm going to talk to JJay, our webmaster, about reducing the security on the site, meaning people will be able to edit before signing up. In case you weren't aware, the reason for this being introduced in the first place was that we had a lot of 'Spammers' on the site. I'd be more than happy to do a 'trial' run to see if this returns if the site were to be unprotected.

Maybe people just aren't bothered enough about FM to make the effort, but that seems unlikely. I'm concerned that it seems to much like an authored fansite for people to feel confident or able to edit the articles, and furthermore that the direction of articles on repetition of available of guides and historical information wasn't attracting people to make the effort to read and give their own thoughts.

When I look at game wikis, it's often to find out what I've done wrong, to find out how to get over a difficult patch, or to better educate myself about a feature I don't understand. The FM Wiki doesn't seem to be doing that. Searching for team talks for example doesn't turn up anything at all, other than an article reproduced in full from FM Britain with an obscure title.

Another plan for the coming months is to reduce the number of articles from other websites that we have on the site. Ideally, we wouldn't have any of these and we would write our own but unfortunately one can't be an expert in all fields and sometimes, especially with so many editors, it is best to increase the number of places that someone can access the same article rather than not having any content on a page. If you look on my user page (http://www.footballmanagerwiki.co.uk/index.php?title=User:Arsenal_2111) you'll see a list of articles which I hope to have written as soon as possible - school work means it's not always easy to fit work in.

I accept that in part, the charge leveled should be "it's a wiki, if you don't like it, go change it", and fair enough. But when I initially started editing, it seemed as though I was the only one on that page. And looking now, it seems that more than ever, that's the case. I started off hoping for a massive repository of user-submitted information where people shared ideas on how training benefited their players, what team talks helped what kind of players, and how much each stage of ground improvements could cost, based on research from their own games, but it never seemed to be going that way.

If you have ideas as to how we could increase the number of regular editors we get then I'd be extremely grateful to hear from you. At the moment, we don't, and despite trying various things this doesn't seem to be changing, meaning that what you've mentioned above - which I'd agree should be the aim - doesn't seem to realistic in the coming months.

In essence then, it's not so much the fansite aspect that I'm worried about - it's really a question of whether it's meant to be a "gamewiki" as I perceive them to be, comprehensive guides on every aspect of gameplay as represented by UESPWiki, even if the information is self-researched and potentially wrong, or a gamewiki not as I perceive them to be, serving a different purpose and/or goal. The fansite part comes in because I suspect it may be inhibiting editing, and thus preventing any move towards the aforementioned "ideal" that I laid out.

Your comparison between us and the UESPWiki, whilst understandable that you're looking for an example, isn't the best you could have chosen. On their website, it says 'The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995' - that's 16 years of collecting knowledge. We've been going for around two years, so it's understandable that we're not quite at their level.

Also, at present, on the entire site, there are just nine pages which are 'Protected', meaning only admins can edit and make changes to them. The interviews make up three of these, and I cannot see that there is any good that could come out of these pages being editable - an interview is an interview, you can't edit what was said in it. Absolutely any content page is editable by users - it's only the 'official' pages which are not.

Thanks for your reply!

[snootyjim]

To be honest, I think you've picked on a very strange point here. The interview with Ter, to choose the example you mentioned, was done in September 2009, in the weeks prior to the release of Football Manager 2010. To choose such an old example (which, I believe, is one of the only examples around) seems rather strange - I can't imagine many people judge websites on what happened almost two years ago.[/Quote]

I didn't purposefully pick it as an odd example to base a theory around, it just happened to be one of the very few things I happened upon when I was looking round the site, and struck me as a bit odd. If you consider it an outlier/freak example, then fair enough.

You've a valid point here, and one which I really don't know how to get over. Users provide the basis of the majority of wikis, the one you've linked to having 29,950 users compared to our 166. Part of the reason we have done competitions in the past, which may make the site seem more like a fansite, is to try and attract more people to sign up to the site, but unfortunately this hasn't particularly happened. I think I'm going to talk to JJay, our webmaster, about reducing the security on the site, meaning people will be able to edit before signing up. In case you weren't aware, the reason for this being introduced in the first place was that we had a lot of 'Spammers' on the site. I'd be more than happy to do a 'trial' run to see if this returns if the site were to be unprotected.

I see where you're coming from. I guess this is going to be the difficulty - to get more edits, you need more users; to get more users, you need more attractions; and to be more attractive you need to be more of a fansite. Ideally the content would provide that draw but clearly that hasn't actually happened yet - and the only way that's going to happen is when the number of users and editors reaches critical mass... regrettably that seems a while away.

I wasn't aware of the spamming, no, I must've missed that period.

Another plan for the coming months is to reduce the number of articles from other websites that we have on the site. Ideally, we wouldn't have any of these and we would write our own but unfortunately one can't be an expert in all fields and sometimes, especially with so many editors, it is best to increase the number of places that someone can access the same article rather than not having any content on a page. If you look on my user page (http://www.footballmanagerwiki.co.uk/index.php?title=User:Arsenal_2111) you'll see a list of articles which I hope to have written as soon as possible - school work means it's not always easy to fit work in.

Again, fair enough. I think your list is definitely heading in the right direction. If we want people to read the wiki, then we need to be giving them useful advice to help them during their game. You see a lot of people dropping into GD saying "what should I say during team-talks" and so on, so if just some of them started to look on the wiki for that kind of information it would be a great start.

Your comparison between us and the UESPWiki, whilst understandable that you're looking for an example, isn't the best you could have chosen. On their website, it says 'The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995' - that's 16 years of collecting knowledge. We've been going for around two years, so it's understandable that we're not quite at their level.

I wasn't really using it as a comparison - I agree that would be extremely unfair. As far as I'm concerned it is the best gamewiki on the web, so if I'm using it as a comparison, I'm only doing so in a very loose sense. Above all, I'm presenting as a target, an example of what to aim for. I would absolutely love to see an FM wiki with that level of detail and participation in the future - there's certainly a keen enough community to achieve that.

That's what this is all about really - I was very disappointed to see that it hadn't really taken off, as I originally expected it to, and became concerned that the reason for it was a change of focus. It appears that there hasn't really been one, so that's a plus point in my view.

I'll probably do a bit more editing over the next few weeks again, and hopefully I'll keep my interest for a bit longer... I do have a habit of starting projects then forgetting about them and doing other things

FM definitely deserves a proper wiki

[ssestig]

As Jammy has said above about the player and team guides i'm working as a 1 man team atm and obviously I am going to miss some things within the transfer windows due to work and life in general. Hopefully there will be more interest as I get more guides from both on here and 'around the FM scene' (the many fansites) and we will get more editors on board.

It'll be nice to have you back on board anyway Jim and hopefully you'll stay a bit longer this time

[arsenal_2111]

Two months since a post in here, ouch!

Anyway, with the announcement of FM12, the work begins once again - if anyone sees any think that isn't on the FM12 page, let me know and I'll put it in!

http://footballmanagerwiki.co.uk/index.php?title=Football_Manager_2012

[ssestig]

Still here and good to see the site still going strong.

[ssestig]

We are still here and we'd like a number of knowledgable posters from here to help out with updating the wiki with the new regen dates for youth players, updating squads and player profiles. If you are interested request an account on the site and i'll accept it so you can start the work.

[Cosmo-poof]

Would it make sense to add The Hut (http://www.llamaland.co.uk/phpBB3/) too to the Wiki as a fansite or would that not match the criteria?

Nevertheless, I want to congratulate you a lot to the wiki, you're doing a great job.

[Guest]

That place exists because of FM but I wouldn't say that it qualifies as a fan site.

[Michael F]

went on today and it says account suspended

[ssestig]

Same here and i'll let J-Jay know.

[JJay]

My fault! My debit card for hosting expired end of January and I hadn't updated with a new card. Done it now so should be back up ASAP - normally the Billing team start about 8am so should be done by 10am!

Edit: 4 mins later - site back up

[ssestig]

Just to say that we are still around and are looking for you to be involved in the community. If there is anything on the site that you feel you can contribute to you can sign up to the site and update the page(s) you have knowledge of or add the changes in here for those who have an account to edit for you with a disclaimer stating that it is your work.

Onwards and upwards for the site

[ssestig]

Wow - hadn't realised it had been this long since the last post.

Anyway i've started a new feature on the twitter page called #wikiwednesday which will contain a page from the wiki website which is on the site. I'll be looking to different types of pages and any page on the site could be part of the thing so keep your eye out to find out what is on the site.

[CaptainPlanet]

My OP

[ssestig]

Most of which wasn't wrote by you

Anyway's enough of the OT talk. Anyone else interested in helping with the writing of any of the league structures that are in the game currently?

[ssestig]

Just to let everyone know, we are still going strong and adding pages that we have permission for from the GTPG forum on here. I'll be going on some of the unofficial sites around 'the scene' to see if there is any useful information around that can be added.

Anyone got any ideas what else to add to the site?

[Astrix]

Just went on there... 14 bots and crawlers!

The forum looks dead.

I have seen some FM13 of the guides on your website however that are very very good I must say.

Keep up the good work

Perhaps you should make a thread on this forum asking players to give their evaluation of a player... the player could then be included on a sort of shortlist on your website... i,e - wonderkid... cheap player... good backup etc.

thats all I have to add.... keep up the work!

[ssestig]

Thanks for the feedback Astrix.

The forum on the site was hardly used except for the time that here was down for a couple of weeks near the start of the wiki site. As far as the thread on here goes, we have had a thread in the GTPG section of these forums for the last few years regarding permission to use people's threads within that section and IIRC we had a few of the player evaluations done in this thread but there wasn't too many of them unfortunately.

My last point of this post is there are few on-site members compared to a lot of the sites out there especially at this time of night.

[GiorgosAth]

Where can I get unlockable material from (especially no manager sacking option)?

[Herbert Fandel]

Where can I get unlockable material from (especially no manager sacking option)?

Its only for the FMC mode, Football Manager Classic.

If you are playing the "full fat" mode they don't feature at all

I don't know exactly where in there, but I'm sure they won't have made it hard to find seeing as it potentially gets them money. I understand the purchasables can also be unlocked through achieving various things within FMC mode though.