StrategyWiki talk:Community Portal

http://media.strategywiki.org/images/4/49/SW_CP_Banner.png

Archives

---

2006	2007	2008
January	January	January
February	February	February
March	March	March
April	April	April
May	May	May
June	June	June
July	July	July
August	August	August
September	September	September
October	October	October
November	November	November
December	December	December

This page is for discussion of general community issues; if you just want to ask a question to more experienced users of the site, please use the staff lounge. To start a new thread click here. Resolved threads are gradually archived; see the archives box to the right.

A new skin is under development. If you have any suggestions, please add them to the list

Feature Guides Template

Ok so breaking off from that other thread, I decided to make one of my own (I made a cleanup one for Wikipedia with an optional small parameter). Anyways, you can check out the template in use at User:Notmyhandle/Sandbox2 and you can use the template (until it gets moved to the correct name) by using {{User:Notmyhandle/Sandbox|small=yes}}. How does it look? Thanks Garrett for some of the things (icon filename, feature guides page link). --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 10:18, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

Why is your CSS more complex--what's difference does it make? Also, why is it further over--we don't have any other header templates do we? Garrett^Talk 20:16, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

<_< >_> I just couldn't get yours to work so... can you show me an example? I don't even know how to subst/place yours. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 21:40, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

I've only just restored the .topicon class, which is probably why it didn't work for you. Do a hard refresh (Ctrl+F5) of this file to ensure it displays correctly. All going well, you can see it in action at the top of StrategyWiki:Sandbox. Garrett^Talk 21:54, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

Mmk. Looks delicious, why isn't it at Template:Featured guide yet? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 21:57, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

Cause we don't have StrategyWiki:Featured guides yet. -- Prod (Talk) 22:25, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, we don't have a featured guides voting system or anything. My idea was to have it sort of like a sixth stage where only the best of the best would be. But first we need some way of determining what makes a "better than simply being complete" guide. Garrett^Talk 00:41, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

One way of determining "better than simply being complete" guides would be to have candidates for featured guide be reviewed, as on Wikipedia. Currently, level 4 guides aren't reviewed, are they? --DrBob (Talk) 14:23, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

Nay they aren't DB. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 17:30, 1 July 2007 (CDT)

Does anybody else think that we should go ahead and get started on this? We came to a general agreement that we should have featured guides, so all we need to do now is come up with policy and standards. Here are some important things I've been thinking:

• To be nominated, the guide must be at level four completion.
• A featured guide should:
  • Have all the features of a lvl 4 completed guide
  • Contain no drivel
  • Make good use of images
  • Be easy to follow and understand
  • Have very few spelling/grammatical errors
  • Have no red links
• Majority rules
• Confirmed and approved by sysop/bureaucrat on look/feel committee (this I'm unsure about, any thoughts?)
• Featured guide, once approved, gets a star in place of lvl. 4 completion

Would there be a way to prevent people from making a guide a featured guide without going through the process? That is the only real concern I have (especially when SW becomes larger).--DukeRuckley 13:02, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

I would say no to the look/feel committee, as they have more to do with standards. Actually, forget all committees whatsoever. What we should do is have a page similar to the Collab page and Promising page, where we have a discussion and voting process by the community lead to a consensus. Then, once a certain day comes (say like 5 days before the first of the next month), a few volunteer sysops look over the nominated guides and judge what they think best follows the outlined points of a featured guide. Then, whoever is in charge weighs what the volunteers think with the votes and comes out with a winner (actually, forming a Featured Material committee might be nice for that). As for people making fake ones, that's why every registered user on StrategyWiki (besides blocked ones) have the ability to revert edits. --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 13:22, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

How does StrategyWiki:Featured guides sound? *Edit* Er, Skizz, just create the page. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 11:21, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

??? --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 11:27, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Just create StategyWiki:Featured guides, outlining what they are and discussing the creation/voting process. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 11:29, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

OK. I've promoted Garrett's template to {{featured}}, since I was going to use it. However, some low-life dissidents on IRC put up a fuss, and we need to clarify: Should the star be intrinsically linked with stage 5 status, and always be displayed on guides at stage 5, or should it only be displayed on the guide most-recently promoted to stage 5? I'm going with the former, because the latter doesn't really make sense IMHO; the star is there to promote that the guide is of exceptional quality, and this should always be happening for all stage 5 guides. --DrBob (Talk) 12:16, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

Yeah that second idea is just strange. Make them all have a star. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 14:23, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

I say no because the Template:Tl is already confusing and long enough as-is. Since we're not going to make a featured guide every day, it isn't that difficult to just manually add in the template. Also, you should be adding the featured template not to the game's main page (which is what would happen if it was tied into the HN with num=5), but to the table of contents so that it gets transcluded in every page on the guide. As for how long we keep the star there, I've changed my mind because the star looks really cool, so we'll keep it up there forever. --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 11:34, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

The simplest idea would be to just change the num parameter to five (which would display a star in place of the usual box) AND to add the featured template...--DukeRuckley 12:50, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

Which is what I just suggested, except that Template:Tl be added to the Table of Contents instead of the Main Page so that EVERY page in the guide has the star in the upper-right corner. --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 13:23, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

OK. I agree with you now Ryan, due to your suggestion that every page in the guide should display the star, which makes sense. The rest of your comment is complete tripe, though. :-P Saying that a template is "already confusing and long enough" is sort of ignoring the point of using a template; to abstract away confusing code. It's not like people are editing HN every day, so what's the problem with a little more complexity? HN as it stands isn't half as complex as the infobox, and I don't see you complaining about that. ;-) So yes, I'm now for keeping {{featured}} unlinked from HN, and putting it in the ToC, but not for the reasons you've specified. :-D --DrBob (Talk) 14:22, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

Since the guide's been promoted, I've added {{featured}} to the top of the infobox, but it doesn't show up on pages except the main page unless you expand the ToC (due to the ToC section's contents being display:none). I think we can live with that; the only solution otherwise is to use JavaScript to move the star out of the ToC and into the title bar, or to manually put it on each page, neither of which is particularly elegant. --DrBob (Talk) 05:46, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

I've fixed that by adding a simple clause to the Template:Tl. Instead of putting Template:Tl in the ToC, put it in game/Table of Contents/Featured instead, as this will include it on every page in the guide without having to expand the show/hide thingy. --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 12:47, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Only now it doesn't show on the front page :/ Procyon (Talk) 12:52, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Wait for the job queue to die down, it might not have been changed yet. --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 13:02, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

We've developed a better solution, using JS to move the star, and you can see it in action right now. Unfortunately, this has put the job queue up to 18000 (due to reverting the changes to HN). What a pity. :-D --DrBob (Talk) 13:26, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Sorry, just a question. How come the JS for the star works but the transparency JS doesn't do anything?--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 14:30, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Are you still on IE4, or something? Upgrade to something from this millennium, please! --DrBob (Talk) 14:55, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Yep, I'd just like to know, btw with screens with long titles, the star overlaps with the text.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 15:00, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Pages with titles that long are going to run into problems with the title layout anyway, so there's no regression there. --DrBob (Talk) 15:54, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

WikiProject

As wikipedia has WikiProjects, we could have something similar, perhaps with a gaming theme. Some options:

• StrategyWiki:Achievements StrategyProject
• StrategyWiki:Achievements Taskforce
• StrategyWiki:Achievements quest
• StrategyWiki:Achievements party
• StrategyWiki:Achievements guild
• StrategyWiki:Achievements clan

Others could be Move lists, Box artwork, Categories, Series. -- Prod (Talk) 00:57, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

I like the idea. We could probably get things done a lot faster. Oh, and I like "quest". It is certainly a gaming theme, and... I don't know, it just sounds better than the others. Baejung92 12:09, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

Can we hack the software to put in a WikiProject namespace, that'd be good.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 12:14, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

Hmmm...What exactly would this be for? I'm not opposed to the idea, I'm just curious what this would be for exactly. Lunar Knight ^{(Talk to me + Contribs)} 12:22, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

It's like an ongoing collaboration. On wikipedia there are groups like WikiProject Video games who focus on improving the video game guides. Since we are only video game guides here, we can have more specialized ones. For example, we already have the StrategyWiki:Cleanup project (which would be renamed to the StrategyWiki:Cleanup quest). -- Prod (Talk) 13:40, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

I like this idea, it would be really good to have a sort of 'co-ordination list', where people can look in, see what needs to be done (eg, categorise all the pics involved in Final Fantasy games or something), and do it to cross it off the list, and people involved can send wikilove to them :-P.--Froglet 22:02, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

Actually, we don't have to use any hacks to add namespaces. If we decide to implement this as a namespace, it's as simple as editing the configs. echelon 00:05, 1 July 2007 (CDT)

We could have games in the scope of the Project, It'd be really good, also, we could have a Game help project which lists all the games completed and will give advice.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 01:38, 1 July 2007 (CDT)

Er, what? --DrBob (Talk) 10:00, 1 July 2007 (CDT)

I like this idea, but I think it'll only be useful for large projects (such as achievements and cleanup). I don't think it'd be useful to have organised "projects" for single games (such collaboration could just happen on the game's talk pages), although large series such as Pokemon could have projects. I'm opposed to calling them anything silly like "quests" or "clans", as I think that's just confusing and not very professional (OK, so I'm boring :-P ). Projects could easily go in the StrategyWiki namespace, just like the cleanup project (which is not being renamed!). --DrBob (Talk) 10:00, 1 July 2007 (CDT)

I agree with DrBob about the professional aspect of it... It may not be as fun, but it will save a lot of confusion in the future. I like the idea though. It won't really work out much until we have more people though.--DukeRuckley 13:00, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

Cleanup quest... lol. Yeah, keep it simple! Why not just create the various namespaces for now? We don't need to wait for more people. So what ones do we want? Cleanup, Featured guides, Completion Ratings, game series? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 11:57, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

We've already got StrategyWiki:Cleanup project. The only other one I can see us needing is StrategyWiki:Achievements project. Featured guides, completion ratings and game series aren't really worthy subjects for a project. --DrBob (Talk) 12:21, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Well what is a project? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 12:48, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

An organised group of people working towards a common goal which would benefit from a collaborative effort, and be largely ignored otherwise. That description isn't particularly good, but hopefully you get the gist of what I mean. --DrBob (Talk) 16:57, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

How About a Top Ten

Could the bottom section of Special:Statistics be modified to only include Category:Games and a copy placed on the main page? I really like the top 10 on GameFAQs. If implemented, it would add some mercuriality (there's the word I was looking for) to our otherwise fairly static main page. It would also link to popular content. Like a featured guide, but voted on by pageviews. -- [[ blendmaster | talk ]] 23:11, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Sadly, I don't think that is possible without code modifications, and we don't really want to start making them. --DrBob (Talk) 07:26, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

We would need the DynamicPageList extension in order to do so, and even then I'm not sure If it would work (link). Special pages are very touchy with what kinds of content you can include in them, as you must edit the MediaWiki namespace to change their content, and there is no documentation out there (that I can find) that explains what all the various strings are (like $1, $2, etc.). Even then, it might require code modification, and that is one thing that should be avoided. --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 10:21, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm not suggesting we change the Special page. I'm suggesting we put a Top 10 on our Main Page. Which is what DynamicPageList would be perfect for, it seems. -- [[ blendmaster | talk ]] 13:20, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Dan has installed the DPL. Check out the sandbox to see it in action. --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 14:26, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

So, should we put this into Special:Statistics or on the Main Page (or both, or somewhere else, or nowhere)? --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 15:42, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Main page, for sure. I'll start up another WIP page so we can work on integrating it. The Special pages are hard to change, as you mentioned, so Special:Statistics can stay the same. -- [[ blendmaster | talk ]] 19:35, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Yes, I thought modifying MediaWiki:Sitestatstext would work, but it doesn't put it in the right location, so we're not putting it on Statistics. --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 19:53, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

I added this to Category:Nintendo GameCube as well. What do you think? -- Prod (Talk) 23:48, 11 August 2007 (CDT)

Nice, maybe the games need a little pic or something e.g link's head but it looks good, needs to stand out a bit more though because first time, i didn't see it.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 04:12, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm not sure if this is the thread I want to be posting in, but I'd just like to point out that DPL is extremely heavy on server resources. I'm even a little motivated to try to get the front page top 10 off the front page. Thus, until we get another server to distribute the processing load, please use DPL sparingly.

(I can see a server crash happening if we were to, say, get dugg. If that's the case, the front page will have to return to being mainly static.)--Dan 08:14, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

Donate?

I don't mean a big donation drive with a bar at the top of every page, or anything that big. However, some of the more philanthropic people on the internet would probably click a paypal donate button or link, if there was one. How about it? --blendmaster 17:32, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

I'm willing to donate periodically. What I really want is a bluecloud themed SW shirt with admin on the back XD --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 18:36, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

That would be a totally kickass shirt, not to mention it could seriously interest others in joining our cause:

"Hey, where'd you get that shirt?"

"Oh, I got it at this cool website, StrategyWiki.org..."

I like that idea a lot. Perhaps Teddy could bestow upon us some heavenly design of his. echelon_talk 23:09, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

Only for admins? I want one but not with the word "Contributor" or something on it... haha Baejung92 14:30, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

The idea of a shirt is pretty good, though a few diffirent versions would be required. It could be fun to have a few that had odd titles like minion. I would buy one to go be a billboard at some of the local cons in my area. I imagine if we make good guides that leave users satisfied they would want to donate. --Zaiqukaj 03:16, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

Well we can probably just leave the text totally customizable. Most print shops allow only upper case letters and numbers, no symbols. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 11:04, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

How 'bout cafepress? --blendmaster 14:18, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

Cafe Press would work well for white and black shirts. We just need a good bluecloud themed SW logo (not just the text, but with clouds behind it). --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 12:01, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

I don't really care about any merchandising, but a paypal donate button seems easy enough to add to either the bottom, near the "Powered by MediaWiki" icon, or Wikipedia style, with a link in the left navigation. Is any progress being made on this? -- [[ blendmaster | talk ]] 14:47, 11 August 2007 (CDT)

Unresolved CI discussions

I'm going through the old CI archives looking for stuff that we didn't full complete but archived due to inactivity. I'll be bringing them up as I find them here. -- Prod (Talk) 14:40, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Can you delete them once they've been resolved or are you going to wait for a full archive? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 00:28, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

Category renaming

Only ones remaining from this are:

1. Category:Super Nintendo -> Category:SNES (Official name)
2. Category:Super Nintendo controller buttons -> Category:SNES controller buttons

Super NES and SNES are the official names if you visit the website. SNES is more common and matches the Category:NES name (showing that it's an extension of the NES). This change would take about 1 day with my bot. -- Prod (Talk) 14:40, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Fine by me. --DrBob (Talk) 14:54, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, go for it. --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 18:03, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Done the 2nd one. First one I'll wait till tomorrow to give other people a chance to reply (it would take longer to undo). -- Prod (Talk) 21:36, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

I say yes, change Super Nintendo to SNES. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 23:51, 22 July 2007 (CDT)

Done. -- Prod (Talk) 23:07, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

Trademark/copyright

This was about having a short trademark/copyright notice at the bottom of all image pages. Not sure if this one was completed. -- Prod (Talk) 14:40, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Looks like it's already been done. --DrBob (Talk) 14:54, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

I only see the GFDL message. Don't we need something like All trademarks are the property of their respective owners, or something similar? -- Prod (Talk) 21:39, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Top of this section. --DrBob (Talk) 03:30, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Where is that shown? ([[1]] links to it). -- Prod (Talk) 09:34, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

In BlueCloud, at the bottom right corner of every page is a link called "Disclaimers", which leads to it (it's right under the About StrategyWiki link). In MonoBook, it's located at the bottom center, also called "Disclaimers". --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 10:18, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Should there be a link to it in SW:Guide? Also on SW:Guide should we have a section for just SW related info? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 12:09, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Er, what? I don't think there's any need to link to it in the guide, and I've got no idea what you're on about with your second point. :-P --DrBob (Talk) 12:22, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

We don't have a page that lists all SW pages. I think, rather than throwing them onto the SW:Guide that we make Category:StrategyWiki. Why would we do this? To help locate things like disclaimers, SW:Mettings, projects, admins, etc. We don't have a single, easy to locate, portal. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs)

Um... Special:Allpages anyone? Just choose what namespace you want. --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 13:11, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Hm, I didn't know that existed. Special All pages StrategyWiki: worked for me. But is that a good way for our community to look up SW pages? Seems a little... unorganized compared to a category. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 13:16, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Posters

Anyone else have some posters they'd like to share? Perhaps some kind of competition? -- Prod (Talk) 14:40, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

/ping echelon --DrBob (Talk) 14:54, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

How about setting up an "official" contest at StrategyWiki:Poster contest? --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 18:03, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

I've kept one continually posted at the entrance of our campus' CS lab year-round, but it's not really noteworthy. It'd be cool to have a sweet graphical poster/ad that draws attention. echelon_talk 21:22, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

I know it isn't really widespread right now, but this image of QR code is a link to our site and might look "cutting edge" on a poster (or just confuse them all :P). -- Prod (Talk) 22:16, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Very few phones have the software for QR codes in the US... :( echelon_talk 00:59, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

I'll see what I can come up with next week, but for now, Ech should take the bluecloud SW logo and extend the boundaries of it, then release the image. Also, isolate the text and release that by itself as well (as like .psd's and other file types). If you help spur the competition, more submissions will come! --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 12:24, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

We just got the old PSD, and I think Teddy has worked with it some. I'll ask him which version we should release. echelon_talk 16:29, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

I got one too--Image:SW Poster stumped.png. --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 11:23, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Competition has been spurred: [2]. --blendmaster 13:31, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Nice. How about this? --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 14:58, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

No... If I have to spend more than 5 seconds reading an advertisement, they don't get me. Blend's is most effective so far. I think we also need something along the line of Red vs. Blue. Procyon (Talk) 15:39, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Here's my submission, based on Procyon's suggestion. Image:Prod StrategyWiki Poster.png -- Prod (Talk) 22:45, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

What do you mean something along the line of Red vs. Blue? I'm imagining a sitcom set in wikicode, where sysops battle for two contested page revisions; perhaps they make jokes about a certain user's lightish-red signature. But no matter. Concerning Prod's design: It's nice and simple, but something about that Microsoft(c) WordArt(TM) doesn't tickle my pickle. It's just so, well, PowerPoint. Those garish letters superimposed upon a low contrast background conjure memories - bad memories - of long hours wasted watching my fellow students' presentations fly, sparkle, roll, and explode onto one of those chintzy canned backgrounds, while they recite an equally entertaining harangue, consisting completely of the composition ( 4 bullets, no more than 6 words each ) on screen. --blendmaster 23:39, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

OK, my turn. These were some ideas that I was tossing around with Echelon. They're meant to be short, simple, and too the point. I present Mario, Street Fighter, and Sonic. Also, when I was a little kid, Atari ran advertisements like this one for Ms. Pac-Man, so I replicated it a little bit for StrategyWiki here. I would consider these by no means well done. They're just to communicate a point. Teddy could do a much better job with these than I could. Procyon (Talk) 16:34, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

This is Skizzerz's idea, and I think one of his best quite frankly. I did the execution of the idea, but I didn't use very good source materials. Anyway, Skizzerz, this is what you were thinking of, right? Procyon (Talk) 19:19, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Nice. Blends in well too. *sigh* Why can't I make them like that? :P --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 19:27, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Can we also get some suggestions for black and white versions that don't cost a ton of ink. -- Prod (Talk) 20:27, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

I like Procyon's so far, but they need to mention StrategyWiki's actual URL (could we integrate the ".org" part into a version of that logo, somehow?), and as Prod says; they need to be slightly less colourful. To be printed cheaply, they need to mostly consist of two or three major colours. --DrBob (Talk) 01:25, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

Someone needs to make a head on (2d) logo for StrategyWiki. The 3d logo looks horrible on anything but the website header. Are those word balloons perhaps word spheres, and the letters extend inside of them? Also, a domain name extension definitely needs to be appended, lest consumers think we are a book, magazine, or perhaps some sort of custom Ouija board, designed to illuminate video game strategies.

I do, however, like that Triforce ad. If anyone knows their way around POVray of Blender3d, they could probably render a pretty nice looking Triforce, and superimpose it upon a white background with black text, thus creating a low cost as well as attractive poster. One thing though. No more Times New Roman, okay? --blendmaster 10:37, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

As I said, my work is strictly conceptual, and should in now way be used as a final product. I leave it to more skillful artists such as yourself or Teddy to make more professional looking versions of what I did. Procyon (Talk) 12:47, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

Here is a two color poster ( I do like that shade of blue ). However, I kinda borrowed-without-permission the robot model, so it's not final. The small text can be safely ignored as well. --blendmaster 13:37, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

What is it with that shade of blue? Is the gamma different on my monitor, because that is almost blinding me. :-\ However, I do like it, although the text could use some hyphens and correct capitalisation. --DrBob (Talk) 15:53, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

This is my black and white poster submission. Enjoy. Tedbradford 21:23, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

I don't think you need "StrategyWiki" twice at the top; the ".org" could just be below the logo (which looks nice, btw). Perhaps the text could mention we're not just plain-text, or that we're a wiki? And WTF is a "thwart", other than a verb?? --DrBob (Talk) 15:53, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

I think advertising that we're not plaintext is speaking to the wrong crowd. If these posters are meant to be posted in public places, why are we advertising the the GameFAQs crowd? There's a chance that many gamers don't even know what GameFAQs is--but that doesn't mean we don't want them to visit. I think the only thing we need to mention in our ads is that the purpose of the site is for videogame guides. echelon_talk 17:39, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

I must disagree. We're advertising to gamers (the only people who would want walkthroughs and stuff). Pretty much all gamers have heard of GameFAQs and similar sites, so we should (at least in passing, and probably not directly) differentiate ourselves from them. --DrBob (Talk) 18:33, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

I halfway agree with DrBob. Most gamers do know the GameFAQs brand, but no doubt some are still conned into buying printed strategy guides. "Free guides" is good marketing. Myself, I kind of like the "Wikipedia for game walkthroughs" angle. Although the main point is that we're editable by anyone, the comparison also suggests we have a damn lot of content. Not a bad suggestion, for sure. --blendmaster 11:52, 22 July 2007 (CDT)

I personally feel that it is best to have multiple posters with different "themes" anyway. We could have a "Wikipedia for game walkthroughs" theme, "death of plain text" theme, and maybe even a "be bold" theme. We don't necessarily have to stick to one thing only.--DukeRuckley 10:34, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

Zelda Partnership

This was a thought to have a partnership with ZeldaWiki. Did this ever get finished? -- Prod (Talk) 14:40, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

They seem to be linking to us already (see infobox), so I think we should get some sort of partnership going (unless this has already been done?). --DrBob (Talk) 14:54, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

There seems to be no record of such a partnership anywhere on the site, plus it was added by an anon (125.238.138.145) on April 8th, and then slightly modified by another anon (24.57.132.221) on April 21st. No registered users took part in the modification of their game template. However, a sysop (Adamcox82) made a comment on the talk page for The Legend of Zelda NES, and is seemingly in favor of linking to us. Therefore, it seems no official partnership was ever discussed. --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 18:03, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

I'm going to solidify this, Bulbapedia-style. It'll be worthwhile for us in that I think I can get us some better recognition there (and extra Google credit), plus it will help them out with incoming traffic too. echelon_talk 21:31, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, and I always felt a Triforce external link icon would be really cool, too... I'll work on one once I find out how big it should be. --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 10:24, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

I just talked with Jason (their webmaster) about this deal, and he seems enthusiastic about it. I think we may eventually be able to do more cross-promotion for each other than what has come of the Bulbapedia deal. As you can already see, I've uploaded the logo he gave me (sorry Ryan--I guess you could still make one though) and added it to the css. I've tested it out in a couple of places, usually where a term appears first or a link might be most useful. What do you guys think? We might also be able to make something that functions in a way similar to Template:Wikipedia in some instances. I don't know if that would be overkill though. Any thoughts? echelon_talk 23:44, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

It might be good to include on the front page, but it depends how many links that we get in return. If all they are doing is linking to us in their infobox, then the inlines are good enough. If they do more, then the box on the front page might be in order. Oh, and how's File:Zwlink2.png as the link image? It's 15x15 so it won't be cropped when it's used as the link image (like the current 16x16 one is). --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 08:40, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

That blends in with the background a little too much, I think. --DrBob (Talk) 13:49, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Dan added some interwiki links ZW: and ZeldaWiki: to make linking easier. :) -- Prod (Talk) 20:27, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Shortcuts

I don't think this was solved. The reason for it has something to do with adding items to the toolbox instead of tabs. Not sure how difficult it is to solve. -- Prod (Talk) 20:02, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Going mainstream

Bringing this up again since we've finished more steps.

1. (done) Set up the website, get the admins, basic stuff.
2. (done) Tell people how to use the site. Essentially, have enough documentation so that within 10 minutes they can start editing, but easily find more in depth info after (or at least some direction).
3. (done) Set up a good amount of background guides which follow the policy and are good examples of how to continue other guides. Having one main example is good, but we should probably have a few that show different aspects of what can be done.
4. Plan a specific opening date. Get lots of advertisement (probably should have a page with suggestions for this). Plan some kind of event for that day (abxy should be able to help with that).
5. (done, good number of sysops) Make sure there are proper controls so that if we do get a lot of people, there are ways for us to make sure things stay under control.
6. By getting lots of people around the same time, it will show how active the site is, and it will help the any ratings that require a huge jump to become notable (ie. Alexa.com). To this effect, I might suggest allowing anonymous edits for a few weeks around that time, depending on how bad vandalism is. Once people are hooked they may be more willing to register (just my opinion).
7. Profit!!! A new layout would be great to release at this time. Something to show that the site is going from "Beta" to "Official".

-- Prod (Talk) 20:14, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

So all we need is 1) an anniversary date (you can't re-open a community!) 2) a new theme and 3) advertising! --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 12:13, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm not so sure we need a new theme, actually. I quite like BlueCloud, and while it has a few bumps (which can and should be fixed), I see no need to replace it. --DrBob (Talk) 12:24, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Yeah that was Prod's idea, and I'm not for replacing but having another awesome one just like BC as an alternate (perhaps a dark themed one? Our current ones are all white and a lot of people prefer dark because it's easier on the eyes). --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 12:53, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Endorse Firefox?

Not really a topic about endorsing firefox, but what issues are there with the other browsers? -- Prod (Talk) 20:20, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Lots. :-P We should try to support them all, but I certainly wouldn't be against putting a Firefox link in the footer. --DrBob (Talk) 03:39, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

The main one that we HAVE to keep standardized is the div widths. IE cannot have the widths add up to 100% while other browsers can, thus when we have 3 columns, it's 33% each. Now that I think about it, I'm not sure about using 25%, I thought it worked at one point, but if someone can find me a ToC with four columns, please post a link so I can test. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 12:28, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Pokémon Gold and Silver/Table of Contents--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 12:51, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

As I've said before, IE should be able to have the widths add up to 100%, but only if there are no paddings and margins interfering, because its box model is b0rked. --DrBob (Talk) 17:16, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Regular "staff" (IRC) meetings

Topic says it all. Plenty of discussion, no actual result. -- Prod (Talk) 20:23, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Everyone needs to get in touch with me ASAP. I have something to discuss concerning our meetings. echelon_talk 00:58, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

I should clairfy. Please email me or get in touch via AIM when you can. It's to discuss a meeting we'll be holding this upcoming Saturday at noon EST, and I want to give each of you various topics to consider before then. echelon_talk 16:27, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

So, seemingly the meeting occured. What the rest of us mere mortals want to know, what were the resolutions, and are there any logs of the discussions? I think I stumbled upon the log a while ago, but the computer crashed before it could fully load.--Froglet 19:55, 4 August 2007 (CDT)

The logs were meant to be put on the staff lounge talk but they're not there, any1 help as i had to leave and came in halfway through?--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 03:35, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

The logs can be found at StrategyWiki:Meetings. -- Prod (Talk) 09:00, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

StrategyWiki Forum

Once again, topic says it all, lots of discussion, no result. -- Prod (Talk) 21:44, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

We're going to do this, but we have to discuss the short-term implementation details. I do not want a hack. echelon_talk 00:57, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

The phpBB forums aren't really a hack, but they do have limitations. A nice thing about them though is that you can put in an extension that lets you share the user database with the wiki. --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 11:19, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

phpBB is spaghetti code, and I refuse to use any of their software. :-/ We'll find another option. We may have to code our own. Anyway, this will be discussed I suspect this upcoming Saturday at noon EST in an IRC #strategywiki meeting we're holding.echelon_talk 16:25, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

"Getting started" vs. "How to play"

From what I can tell, we ended with "Getting Started", but I still see some with "Basics", "How to play" and other inconsistencies. I have a feeling there are too many opinions for this to reach a proper consensus, but lets try again. -- Prod (Talk) 21:56, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

I always liked Getting Started best because it denotes information just for noobs and such, it's like the stuff you'd find in the game manual and additional game features explained (that's for the getting started page itself). Then the sub pages under that ToC heading all make sense because it's like basic information. I just don't like using the term basic and Getting Started is like BAM hey noobs, read this. How to Play is too specific to like, doing things. Getting Started gives us a general term that lets us explain things beyond playing the game (i.e. controls/mechanics) like characters, background info, etc. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 12:36, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

^-- Agreed. --DrBob (Talk) 17:18, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Games that begin with "The"

Only thing decided was that it doesn't belong on the ToC page. Should we still add it to the main game page? Anyone know anything about the ability to have it named with the "The" at the end in the category lists? The only possible way I can think of right now (which I am highly against) is renaming those games with the "The" on the end. -- Prod (Talk) 21:59, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Priorities - What types are there?

For the TODO lists, we need to specify a priority for them. But shouldn't TODO lists on game guides all be the same (i.e. priority=Additions or something along those lines)? The only priority type I know of is personal - for user pages. We need a list of types and we need to put it on the TODO template page for easy reference. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 09:58, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

You may want to check out Template:Tl. --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 10:35, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

So I moved the info out where people will actually see it. The question now is how do we want the numbers to work and in what order? Does priority 1 mean "These tasks are our number one priority?" Or does it mean "These tasks are of the lowest priority?" How do we classify them? 1-9? We have a 1-4 scale for completion, should it mimic that instead? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 00:46, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

I don't think priorities are required for the todo's themselves. Each todo is for the game itself and there is no way to say one game is more important than another. I would say "priority" should be changed to "category" (ie. personal, project, etc.). -- Prod (Talk) 19:43, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

Yeah I don't like number rankings because they don't mean anything. But my suggestions are like Prod's, make them just the same as the type of article they accompany:

• Personal -> User/User page.
• Project -> Project portal (cleanup, collaboration, etc.).
• Game -> Game article.
• Category -> Category pages.

--Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 14:16, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

Wiki Merger

I've recently stumbled across a Gears of War wiki and discovered that they had a complete walkthrough, among other things, for Gears of War. Since they are GFDL, we could technically just transwiki everything over, but 92 articles and 51 images is a lot. Therefore, I am proposing that we offer to them that they merge their content into our site. Before I bring it up with their community/webmaster, however, I would like to hear what you all think about this. --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 18:23, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

I'm guessing they'd say no, but please try anyways. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 00:30, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

Don't propose that we merge their content; propose that we merge their community (+content) in. :-) --DrBob (Talk) 12:51, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past

For roughly the past month, I have been working tirelessly to complete this guide, and I think that tonight, I can finally say that it's done. The way I ended up working on it was quite funny actually. I was sitting the IRC channel, and I sarcastically asked what I should work on next (because I always have a laundry list of games I want to get to,) when Garrett suggest A Link to the Past, a guide that he started a while back. At first I thought the idea was funny, but since it's one of my all time favorite SNES games, I figured why not, so I got started on it. I would say that what you see tonight is the final result.

Unlike with Pokémon Red and Blue, I wasn't just shooting to construct a model guide, but rather to create the first guide that might be eligible for the distinction of being at level 5 completion. Unlike a level 4 completion which is pretty thorough, but not without some small room for improvement, a level 5 guide is one that you could not possibly add something to it and greatly enhance it. As we discussed some time ago, level 5 guides need to be voted upon. I don't know if everyone will agree that LttP is at level 5 yet. People may feel that it still needs work. It definitely needs proof reading. Since I've been using Firefox 2.0 my spelling error rate has dropped substantially (thank you Mozilla), but what it doesn't catch is when I mistype one word with another correctly spelled word (such as if I meant "through" but I typed "though"). So I really need people to analyze the writing and look for obvious mistakes.

Anyway, the point of this long winded message is to kick off the level 5 voting procedure. I suppose we could copy the format used for sys-op nominations. I just fear that someone like DrBob or Skizzerz is better suited to take care of that than I. But I'd also like to get people's opinions on the matter as well. Thanks very much to the usual suspects for their tremendous support. Procyon (Talk) 20:12, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Great! I've just proof-read all the pages in the first column of the TOC, and apart from a few mis-apostrophications, things look good. I've changed the layout on the enemy pages slightly (so that the TOC is less intrusive), and you should probably look at the Items page, as it says it's a WIP, and the description for the "Magic Hammer" looks wrong to me. Overall, the guide looks great.

As far as level 5 voting goes, I think Garrett did some stuff towards this before, didn't he? Something involving templates and golden stars in the top-right, or am I mistaken? --DrBob (Talk) 08:36, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

How about an 0005.svg? -- [[ blendmaster | talk ]] 13:34, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

That's cool. I think it'll work. echelon_talk 18:44, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Oh yes, and I'm against copying the format used for the sysop nominations, as it seems far too complex and prone to being mucked up. We should be able to come up with something simpler. Keeping things all on one page would be nice. --DrBob (Talk) 08:37, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Check out StrategyWiki:Featured guides/Current requests and voice your opinion about The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past. --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 13:19, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

I've just finished proofreading the pages in the second column of the ToC. Still looking good! :-) --DrBob (Talk) 14:38, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

I can't thank you enough for you efforts DrBob. There's still the matter of the GBA sections that needs to be resolved. I'll take my next point to the featured guides request page. Procyon (Talk) 15:17, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

Aaaand the third column's now proofread. :-) --DrBob (Talk) 10:12, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Archiving

I've just archived a huge amount of stuff from this page, but I've left a number of discussions behind, since they don't seem to have been resolved. Could people take a look at them, and hopefully we can resolve and archive them too? --DrBob (Talk) 09:51, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Permanent system browser

Don't you think that something as important as a system browser should be on every page, not just the main page? All the major gaming sites have their system list in the navigation at the top of the page. A lot of them even have navigation links at the bottom of every page. I think it would be good to have even just a text menu below the left navigation linking to all the systems and possibly the genres. -- [[ blendmaster | talk ]] 20:42, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

There's not enough room at the top; but if we could add it to the very bottom (like where disclaimers and the licenses are shown) I think it would work pretty well. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 23:30, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

You'd have to hack MediaWiki to get stuff down there, which is not going to happen. If they want to go to the system browser, they can simply click on the "Main Page" link and head from there. --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 10:07, 11 August 2007 (CDT)

But that's an extra click. I doubt that many users click on the links at the bottom of Gamespot and GameFAQs, but they're still there. Even if it's hard to put links at the bottom of the page, it should be easy to put more links in the left navigation. Right now, they're all pretty meta. They're what Wikipedia puts in the "toolbox" and "interaction" section. We need some more links to actual content. -- [[ blendmaster | talk ]] 14:02, 11 August 2007 (CDT)

Sounds good to me. On the left nav I would only like to see some visible break between the tool links we have now and what we might add. We need to keep things very simple when we do this, so what do we want? I propose the section (assuming we are only adding one) might have a title, perhaps "Guides" and then links to Systems, Genres, etc. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 22:34, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

When "one game, one guide" fails...

This topic has come up a lot recently in light of attempting to promote The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past to feature guide status. A permanent policy must be decided upon before the status of that guide can be determined.

Obviously, the "one game, one guide" philosophy is a desirable one. Very few games have more than one version, and we distinguish ourselves from other game info sites by presenting readers with one obvious choice instead of a multitude of gambles. However, when we encounter games that have more than one version, we run into quite a little conundrum. We have plenty of examples of this situation on our site already, and no consistent way of handling it:

• Super Mario 64 / Super Mario 64 DS: Clear redundancy of information, and no central organization between the two guides.
• Street Fighter II series: All pages share identical Table of contents that interlink all of the main pages into one guide.
• Super Mario Bros. / Super Mario All-Stars / Vs. Super Mario Bros.: We have a main guide, a portal page, and a supplimental information page.
• Pokémon Red and Blue / Pokémon Yellow: One is the main guide with an inclusive walkthrough, the other contains exclusive version information with a transcluded Table of Contents from the main guide.
• The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past / The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords: The very guide in question, we have a SNES walkthrough with GBA appendices.

So far, I have been in favor of the Pokemon guide's approach, but I have a feeling that I'm in the minority on this. If I were to guess Echelon and Prod's position on the matter, I think they would prefer the Zelda approach. I think we can all agree that the Super Mario 64 approach is terrible. The only reason the Street Fighter II approach works is because they are all "onepage" guides. As for Super Mario Bros., well, that's just a headache that can be solved if we adopt a better official policy (personally, I consider Super Mario All-Stars a compilation title, and is subject to compilation policies.) I will start this debate off with my opinions. Procyon (Talk) 10:16, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

I personally prefer the Pokemon guide approach for the following reason: I like the segregation of version information. If I'm looking at Pokemon Red/Blue, I don't want to know anything specific about Yellow that does not pertain to Red and Blue. If I'm looking at Yellow, I only wish to know what's different about Yellow. The introduction page should educate the reader that Yellow is a tweaked version of Red and Blue, and that the walkthrough information of Red and Blue pertains to Yellow. The Yellow guide is simply where you can locate specific Yellow information. Therefore, I propose that I would like to see GBA information about A Link to the Past excluded from the SNES version of guide, and only specifically included in the GBA version of the guide. Now, having said that, I'm already prepared to accept the majority opinion of the community, which I believe will be along the lines of the inclusion (that is, one Link to the Past guide that includes all version variations.) However, should that be the case, problems that currently exist with all of the other guides that I mention above need to be addressed, especially the Super Mario 64 guides. Procyon (Talk) 10:16, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

I must admit that I'm a bit crazier than even you Procyon. While I'm also in favor of exclusion, I would also create a modified walkthrough that pertains to the other guide instead of making them go back to the original version (So Four Swords would have its own distinct walkthrough, much like the GameCube version in Twilight Princess has its own distinct walkthrough). Of course, you don't have to type out the walkthrough again, a simple {{:The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past/Some page}} would suffice if there are no differences in the walkthrough itself, but I'd say give the other version a full walkthrough as well (of course, that also means that I'm under the opinion that Red and Blue should be split up, but I'm probably outvoted on that one). --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 10:59, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

I realize that it's not uncommon for use to have some issue remain unresolved, but I really don't think that this should be one of them. Please try and add your input this to conversation if you haven't already. Thanks. Procyon (Talk) 19:53, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Without going through this point by point, we should be minimizing redundancy, while making it as easy as possible to edit. This involves minimizing the number of noincludess. We have two main "issues", many names to one game, and one game under many names. We need to go through these under as many variations as possible. Please add whatever you can think of. -- Prod (Talk) 20:36, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Many names, one game

• Translated names: One guide with from alternate names
• Releases on different consoles with different names/rereleases (No additional content): Main page for each game with transcluded toc or redirect? (Outstanding)

One name, many games

• Concurrent release on many consoles with different gameplay: Most popular game goes at that name, with disambig link to less common games.
• Rereleases (new content - Super Mario 64/Super Mario 64 DS): Common guide under original name, significant new content gets new pages in new guide space, minor changes to existing content goes in sidebars to original guide.
• Expansion packs (Diablo II/Diablo II: Lord of Destruction): Similar to the way rereleases are handled, the expansion transcludes the original game, with all new content under the expansions name.

For "many names, one game" I think we should just use redirects (categorised as determined in the stage 4 discussion below), and have a sentence or two about each re-release/different name on the guide's main page. This minimises noinclude/transclusion mess, and a couple of sentences on each re-release isn't much to put on a guide's main page, especially as it's related information. For "one name, many guides", I think it'd have to be determined by just how varied the gameplay is. Depending on the level of variation, we could have different guide layouts (in order from minor to major variation):

• One guide with inline/sidebarred information about variations
• One guide with above and extra pages about variations
• Two guides with the release one's pages transcluding the main one's, and adding stuff
• Two separate guides

I think this would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis. --DrBob (Talk) 02:51, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

(Edit conflicted, so I haven't read Prod's edit yet) Just to clarify, The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords is specifically about the multiplayer game bundled with ALttP, not about the GBA cartridge as a whole (which is officially called The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past & Four Swords, but that's another story). Since it's arguably a separate game, the only GBA-specific things needing coverage are the Riddle Quest (full text done, but maybe needs more screenshots), the Palace of the Four Sword (which needs more of, well, everything), and Unlockables (which probably only needs the two remaining screenshots, which I probably already have somewhere). Once the Palace is done that's probably enough to be featured as the Riddle Quest doesn't really need illustrations and the Unlockables are explained within the appropriate walkthroughs. Garrett^Talk 20:45, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

With very specific regard to LttP, I have been able to access the Palace of the Four Swords. I will be able to provide a walkthrough and screenshots, and if it doesn't kill me too much, a map. Procyon (Talk) 21:57, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Visual Boy Advance has a map viewer, but because it's reading it straight from the tile cache the offscreen area is partly jumbled and isn't as accurate as what you'd get from Hyrule Magic. Garrett^Talk 22:56, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

The problem is that the two have differences. There is one: in the village of the outcastas, the Item shop sells bees and faries and has a golden bee on display, if you catch a golden bee (not going to explain here) then you can buy that as well, from what I can tell, that isn't mentioned.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 15:39, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Yes it has, although it could be added to the Village of Outcasts page too, just to be thorough. Procyon (Talk) 15:47, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

So have we decided to add the GBA bits in the lttp walkthrough or what?--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 05:04, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

Completion Stage Four

Is there a reason the redirect Math has Category:Guides at completion stage 4 on it, when the actual guide Basic Math also has it? It adds two games to the completed games list when in reality it's only one... Think we should fix this?--DukeRuckley 21:13, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

Probably... as you said, it adds two games to the list, and so it needs to be fixed. Baejung92 21:25, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

Let the record show that I was against this from the beginning, but I was soundly overruled. Garrett felt that if one game's guide was complete, and that game was known by a different name, then technically there are two games with complete guides, even though the count only references how many guides are complete, not how many games the guide refers to. I went along with it for a little while, but lately I've just stopped cuz it got silly. The problem is, if you undo it now, we will likely "deflate" to under 200 level4 guides. Maybe not, I'm not sure. Procyon (Talk) 21:56, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

We aren't stat whores. I think it's absurd that you'd count it as two guides. I have multiple names but I'm the same, one, person. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 22:33, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

My reasoning behind this was that, otherwise, only the base name would feature in the completion category, meaning anyone who knew it only or primarily by another name would not find it there. The fact that this inflates the category is unfortunate. A similar argument could be made for the dozen or more versions of Street Fighter II, which are really just the same game with a few tweaks yet because of the design of Template:Tl each has its own completion state. Garrett^Talk 01:10, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Well we can't have the stat on the main page reflect "completed guides" then can we? It would have to be manually tallied from now on. I understand why you did it Garrett, but the system isn't that good yet. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 01:57, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

I unfortunately will have to call you crazy, Notmyhandle. Manually counting will be impossible at best. I also understand why Garrett is doing it, and the inflated count is an (unfortunate?) consequence. Anyway, it probably will drop to under 200, which simply cannot happen (as we have some blogs - namely digg - that have stories of us reaching 200 completed guides). Of course, as I said elsewhere, I'd be for actually replicating the guide on that page instead of just making it a redirect (but I'll be sorely outvoted, plus it would be bad SEO according to Echelon). --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 08:46, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

I must have missed this discussion back when it happened. I can see the reasoning for it, but I think it would have been better left to just redirect without adding the categories. I can understand it for example with Pokemon Red and Blue. If we had two separate guides (each with the same content, but on different guide pages) it would make sense. But in this case, if it is the exact same game under a different, there is no point in calling it two games that have completed guides.

If the reasoning behind it is to make it easier for someone to find the game by a different name under the completed guide list, I have this to say. Most people are not going to be searching for a specific guide under that category. If someone wants to find a guide for a specific game, they will most likely search for it or browse first through systems or genres. I'm okay with putting system, genre, date, and publisher categories on a redirect page in this case. But I think that the guide completion category should be reserved for the completed page itself.--DukeRuckley 09:17, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

I hate to say it, but I completely agree with Duke on this matter. I can't imagine that anyone will ever search for a title by using one of the completion categories. I would personally prefer to see that number accurately reflect the number of actual guides completed than the number of games that the guides pertain to. I was considering a correctional policy where from this point forward, every time a guide reaches level 4 completion, a redirected guide gets removed. That way, we neither inflate or deflate the number of completed guides until the situation has corrected itself. Dunno if people prefer this or not. By my count, there are 44 extraneous guides on that page. Procyon (Talk) 11:22, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

I agree with Procyon that we should follow the correctional route. --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 12:24, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Header Navs on user subpages

Yeah, I agree but can we also add about not having a all game nav on any user subpage even if it's as a test.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 11:27, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Thank you "way out of left field" Rocky o_O; Yes, we can agree on that, but couldn't you start a new topic for this? Procyon (Talk) 12:21, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

User:????????

I welcomed this user and now am not sure what to do, I can edit the talk page by using this link I've asked them to them to change their name to something more suitable but I don't think they'll be able to see the page or edit it. Can anyone suggest anything?? The only way I can think about getting the message across would be a change to their css or JS file, a rename or a block--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 04:35, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Block him infinitely, and leave a kind message on his talk page explaining why. Accounts with names like that are a right PITA to patrol, and I don't want to risk any vandalism from his account. --DrBob (Talk) 05:57, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

The thing is because of his name, he can't see his talk page, it gives a bad title error.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 06:58, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

We could put an explanation in the block's "reason" box; he should get told that when MediaWiki tells him he's been banned. --DrBob (Talk) 07:01, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm almost wary of banning him, mystery??? always turned to mystery when you tried to talk to him so I'm a bit worried what a ban would do with this glitch.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 07:05, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

and clicking block leads to a blank form, it's a bit disconcerting.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 07:07, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Is there a way to force users to create usernames without ?'s in them? Maybe some kind of hack that recognizes there is an illegal character in the name and gives the new user an error, telling them to change it?--DukeRuckley 08:26, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Unfortunately, that's the problem. It isn't an illegal character and there is no way to make it one (as ? is needed to start query strings). I'm proposing that we define a policy, outline it on the signup page, and instaban+polite message on the talk page for anyone that broke the policy and picked a bad name. Also, I've managed to successfully block ???????? after much trouble (had to view the page source so I could figure out what the IP box was. Turned out it was wpBlockAddress, so I had to go to http://strategywiki.org/wiki/Special:Blockip?wpBlockAddress=%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F in order to make the block). External links don't show up as such in Recent Changes and the block log, but they are parsed correctly in the blocked box. --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 08:41, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

I think I have a really good idea... Although not toooo useful. Why don't we just create every single version of ?????? that might exist (I'm not talking about combining other characters with it)? Is there a maximum number of characters a username can have? --00:32, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Unless you want to create and block 256 (according to Wikipedia's longest word in the english language usernames, hopefully wrong), Check the history of Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention for some long ones. I don't think so, you'll probably reach the block limit long before then. We'll need to find another way.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 04:40, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Um, it would be WAY more than 256, considering this: More than just ? causes problems, +, %, and / do as well (the rest of those in StrategyWiki:Guide/Account naming will make you pick a new one, as MediaWiki doesn't allow them). Also, just one of those characters has to be there to make the account invalid, so there would be way too many permutations to create and block (well over 9 thousand, or 9 trillion even). --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 08:39, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Wouldn't the best action be to report this and just wait for the developers to take care of the bug? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 12:48, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Just asked them, you may find it at [3]. --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 13:16, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Looks like an easy fix, but do we have to download something or is it already installed? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 00:36, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

Account naming

Branching off from the previous discussion, I've decided to whip up a policy for naming accounts at StrategyWiki:Guide/Account naming. However, I need the community's approval/acceptance before it becomes a true policy. Please go to that page and let us know what you think of it (wording, what should/should not be allowed, the consequence, etc.). Once it becomes approved, I will put a basic outline of it on the sign up page and a link to the full policy so that new users can see what is/is not accepted as a good user name. --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 10:12, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Weekend meeting

I would like to hold a weekend meeting this Saturday at 2PM EST (tentative date). Attendance is not required, but it would be welcomed as I am trying to get some opinions on our organization and how to best apply our programming efforts. I am also inviting people from Abxy to attend the meeting. Subjects will include developing additional features for Abxy and finishing its new backend as well as developing a forum system for StrategyWiki. We may also conclude with talks about how to coordinate advertising initiatives to promote both websites. If you can make it, it'll be a great help! echelon_talk 01:08, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

That's 7pm GMT, isn't it? I should be able to make that. --DrBob (Talk) 02:54, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Sorry, I can't go to that one. My Eagle Court of Honor is on that same date, nearly same time and that cannot be rescheduled. So, someone will need to take the log for me. Also, is this a replacement for the scheduled meeting on the 25th or just an extra one? --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 08:23, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

I should be able to make it so long as I'm not sleeping in. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 15:12, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

More release dates

Time for phase two of my revamp of the release date system...system-specific release dates. Also included in this is the creation of the {{co}} template, so that icons can be displayed for country- or system-specific companies (i.e. publishers). The {{co}} template is in testing on Medal of Honor: Frontline. This template is based on the {{icon}} template which I've created, which will take an ID, and turn it into an icon (or text-based equivalent if no icon yet exists). When Blendmaster gets back, I hope he can start filling in the missing icons, and standardising them all as icons of the actual hardware (rather than the system logo). So far for the system-specific release dates, I've created {{xboxrd}}, {{ps2rd}} and {{gcrd}} and applied them to Dead to Rights for testing. I want to know what you lot think of this so far, and whether I should stop and revert changes, or continue to create the rest of the system-specific release date templates. Last one to reply's a mashed potato. --DrBob (Talk) 06:17, 15 August 2007 (CDT) Oh, and see Template:Rd/Documentation#System-specific for examples of how you can use {{icon}} to replace the old text-based stuff in brackets after release dates. --DrBob (Talk) 06:22, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Looks great, I'm going to protect the images because they're on the main page.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 07:20, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Done--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 07:29, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Using a format like the one in Breath_of_Fire_II is better than having to deal with a combination of a console and country release date template. Why not use that? --Tathar (talk|contribs) 10:35, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

If, for example, you've only got one date when it was released on a particular console/in a particular country (and it also needs an icon for a country/console). The new templates can be applied to Breath of Fire II though; the edit I've just made to it should demonstrate. It's a bit messy though, since this game seems to have an inordinate amount of complexity in the publishing. Thankfully, most games don't. --DrBob (Talk) 11:11, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

As you can see, doing that for the release dates would be impractical if not outright messy. I propose that the method used in Breath of Fire II and a few other guides for re-released games be the standard for re-released games and games released on multiple consoles. --Tathar (talk|contribs) 11:19, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Maybe we can use the icon themplate for the systems it was released on.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 11:47, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

I tried that, and it didn't look so good. --DrBob (Talk) 12:01, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

As I said, Breath of Fire 2 is a case apart from everything else; it has one of the most complex release date setups on the wiki (believe me, I've edited hundreds of them). For the moment, I think release date setups should be decided on a case-by-case basis, at the author's discretion, but in the future I hope to write some guidelines. Something similar to how it's done for the actual release dates (not the publishers) for that game should be as you say, one pattern people could use. --DrBob (Talk) 12:01, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Super Mario Bros. 2

That page currently links to a disambiguation page which leads to Super Mario Bros. 2 (Japan) and Super Mario Bros. 2 (US). In reality, the Japanese version is what NA refers to as Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels (see this page). Shoud we move the Japan page to Lost Levels and the US to just Super Mario Bros. 2? I've been following the American naming scheme when working with the Wii Virtual Console page and I think it would make more sense to continue that way. What do you guys think?--DukeRuckley 11:54, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Technically, this would not be the correct way to handle the problem. While Nintendo of America may have refered to SMB2j as the Lost Levels, there is no such game title as the "Lost Levels". The official title of these two different games, in both regions, is "Super Mario Bros. 2", so the region must serve as the disambiguation. While the Wii Virtual Console page is free to refer to the game in any one particular format (in this case, American as you have chosen), the naming convention for the main pages on this site must stick to official names only. Procyon (Talk) 12:44, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

I thought it was official, since it was released in America under Super Mario All-Stars as the Lost Levels. Either way works for me. In fact, if we don't change anything that's less work to do!--DukeRuckley 14:07, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

It's official as the English translation. He said that. But what he's saying is it was first released, officially, as Super Mario Bros. 2... in Japan. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 16:16, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Redirect Pages

I was think about redirect pages (don't we all), and it occurred to me that some people might come to this site and type the name of a particular boss or world, etc into the search field. So would it be acceptable to create redirect pages for popular bosses/worlds? For example, Meta-Ridley could redirect to the relevant page in the Metroid Prime guide and Wario Stadium could redirect to it's page in the Mario Kart DS guide. It would be a little harder for characters that appear in several games, such as Ganon or Bowser, but they could also redirect to the relevant series/category page. Would this be useful to the casual SW-user or am I just being pedantic? --RamonSalazar 14:45, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

I highly doubt that that would be useful, and to pick apart your examples...

• Meta Ridley is in Metroid Prime, Metroid Prime 2, and (sorry for those of you that don't like spoilers, but...) Metroid Prime 3, and maybe a few other games. Which one would it point to?
• Wario Stadium is not only in Mario Kart DS, but also Mario Kart 64 (and maybe a few others).

Plus, there are thousands of redirects that would have to be created then. I really don't think that it would be useful (if anything it would just clog the database). --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 14:59, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

The reason we don't need to redirect to disambig pages for these terms is because by searching you'll be returned all relevant (and non-relevant) pages with the term in it. People should be able to find what they're looking for with just that. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 15:08, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

Ok, point taken, they are not really needed. But the excuse of having to create thousands of redirects is a pretty weak one - only the most popular ones would need to be done right away. The rest would just be created as and when. Secondly, would the extra pages really clog up the database? When redirect pages were the Collaboration of the Month, people were advised to make as many pages as they could, even covering common mis-spellings of game names. --RamonSalazar 15:25, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

How do you gauge which ones are more popular? :-P I don't think we advised people to create redirects for misspellings of names, unless they were really common ones. My memory must've faded. Anyway, I disagree with this too. :-) --DrBob 17:39, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

Ok, I admit defeat on this one guys. But just so you know I'm not mental and making this stuff up, look here. --RamonSalazar 18:54, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

Yeah that is right, it's one of my first memories of strategywiki lol--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 05:12, 17 August 2007 (CDT)