StrategyWiki:Staff lounge/2010/January

Need help, with formatting layout for StrategyWiki.
Thank you. --Playstation3owner 23:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Pleas see the user guide or let us know what problem you're experiencing specifically. Thanks, — najzere T 23:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleting a duplicate image
I have accidentally uploaded an image which has a duplicate and I can't delete it. What should I do? Chalkwriter 20:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Tag it with delete with a reason of why, in this case that it's a duplicate and point to the other version. -- Prod (Talk) 20:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Control table styles

 * First section archived: Part 1
 * Second section archived: Part 2

Decided to try to revive this discussion since it never really got resolved.

The issue was whether to revise the guidelines regarding control tables to be more in line with web standards and recommendations; in particular, recommending the use of body cells rather than header cells for cells that contain control images and leaving the job of styling to CSS.

Current known options are:


 * 1) Keep using the current method of using header cells. Nobody seemed to favor this.
 * 2) Use body cells for the image cells, but don't apply any special formatting, leaving the entire table left-aligned. This may be easier to code, but goes against the current guidelines regarding tables, which recommends centering for images and left-aligning for text because it looks nicer that way.
 * 3) Use body cells for the image cells, and make the image cells center-aligned and the description cells left-aligned. This way, it fits the table guidelines, it fits web standards, and it looks nice. I made a couple of templates (Controlstable and L) to make coding it as simple as possible. See User:Wanderer/Sandbox for an example.
 * 4) Disregard the whole thing and let people code the tables whichever way they want. As long as they're all functional, why should we care if they're all coded the exact same way?

I think a bot could probably be used to handle most of the conversion to the new format if one is chosen.

So, can we get a ruling on this or not? Wanderer 00:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the benefit of switching? Can you also please create a simple example? -- Prod (Talk) 07:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Simple example added. And as I explained at the start, the benefit is compliance with Web standards, which helps to improve interoperability. Wanderer 10:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, this is more a question of semantics about header cells than standards, since there is no css information being used. It somewhat extends into that kind of discussion since we're using the header markup to impart a certain formatting, but it's more just for it to be different from the description rows. I think making the change simply to be "compliant" is irrelevant, we should be looking at their reasons for making the recommendation and deciding based on that. Maintainability and size are two of the reasons for the recommendation, both of which are satisfied.  Can you please elaborate on how this improves interoperability? -- Prod (Talk) 17:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do we use Col for column layouts, when it might be simpler or easier to use a table? Wanderer 19:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Because col's main direction is vertical while stacking horizontally (e.g. you list a whole bunch of things that go in the one vertical column, and then move on to the next vertical column, etc.), whereas a table's main direction is horizontal while stacking vertically (e.g. you define one table row which spans all columns, and then move on to the next horizontal row, etc.). One of these makes it much easier to display things that need to be aligned vertically (such as table of contents), and the other makes it much easier to display things that need to be aligned horizontally (such as control tables). "Standards" weren't and shouldn't ever be a part of this decision, ease of use for both editors and readers should.-- 22:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a decent reason, but no, it's not the reason I'm referring to. Wanderer 23:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want ease-of-use, that would be the Colgroup HTML tag. This is filtered out by MediaWiki, and doesn't have a corresponding support under the MediaWiki table markup. Until then, users take the path of least resistance and apply the header tag to the control cells. With the current controls table proposed, I'm sure its not too difficult to copy from another example, and not too difficult to remember to left-align the text (the odd-one out.)  Most likely, it would be used.   --Sigma 7 00:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I know that this had a forum topic about this posted a while back. Can you please bump it by linking to this discussion and suggest it as a topic for the next meeting? I would like to have this resolved at this meeting. -- Prod (Talk) 07:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Month
It's nearing the end of the month, so everyone please vote. -- Prod (Talk) 05:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Digital distributors
There is some discrepancy on guide pages about where digital distribution services go in the infobox. I'm of the opinion that the systems field is for the hardware on which you play the game, while the service where you download the game should go in the distributor field. For games that are not available through retail channels, I likewise don't understand why the actual system would be excluded entirely from the infobox. For instance, a game which is available for download on Xbox Live Arcade or PlayStation Network still requires the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 to play the game. From a category standpoint, I'd expect to find all games I can play on my system in my system's category, regardless of how I obtain them.

The way we sometimes treat the online service as entirely separate from its console also affects achievement/trophy categories. We currently have separate categories for PS3 vs. PSN trophies, for instance. The trophies, whether you got them from a game on PSN or not, are shown on the console and on the PSN profile, with no distinction between them (Sony treats all trophies the same). I'm not sure if Xbox 360 is the same. Anyway, for achievements/trophies I can see how someone might want to see just games they can get off PSN/XBLA, but I don't know if it makes sense to have them missing from the PS3/360 categories. Anyway, here are my proposals: — najzere T 00:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Put digital distribution services (Steam, D2D, GameTap, all the console ones) in the distributor field and put the actual system in the systems field.
 * 2) Categorize the page by both the distributor and the system.
 * 3) Combine XBLA/PSN achievement/trophy categories into one, or at least categorize the XBLA/PSN categories with the system category as well.