StrategyWiki:Staff lounge/2008/April

When do contributions show?
I know that the wiki pages update and show the changes the moment I press the 'Save page' button, so this question isn't regarding that. As someone new to the wiki forums, and a bit of understanding of html to which I'm certainly no where close to fluent, I've clicked the edit button a few times to find out the encoding to make tables, same-page links, and inter-page links.

So my question is this. For my contributions history, does the times I hit edit and then use the 'Back' button on my internet browser [IE7] show up as a contribution? Should I have been using the 'Cancel' link each of this times of refrence finding?Dartmoor 15:34, 3 April 2008 (CDT)


 * I may be misunderstanding your question, but if I follow you correctly, the only thing that counts as a contribution is if something in the contents of the page is changed and saved. Merely clicking on the edit button doesn't count as a contribution.  Even showing a preview of your changes doesn't count.  The only thing that will add your name to the history of edits is if you actually commit your changes to the database by saving them.  Did that answer your question?  Procyon (Talk) 15:41, 3 April 2008 (CDT)


 * You certainly understood my question alright. Because my first few edits were only linked to my IP Address, before I signed up, I wasn't fully certain when I went to check out my history several edits later. Thanks for the quick reply, Procyon. Dartmoor 17:49, 3 April 2008 (CDT)
 * You may want to see the Guide, in particular this page and this page, which detail how wiki markup works and how to make tables. -- 19:07, 3 April 2008 (CDT)

When trying to upload unsupported image formats
I was uploading some images today, and when I hit the upload button Firefox gave me the error message "Connection to the site was renewed" or something like that, and wouldn't upload. Safari was doing the same thing. A bit later I realized I've been trying to upload a bitmap file, which I now know is not supported. But I had a question: Shouldn't SW just display a message saying that I'm trying to upload an unsupported image if I tried to do that? How come it doesn't even load a SW page? It worked when I switched to jpg, so I'm assuming the image format did have to do something with the error message. Baejung92 18:43, 8 April 2008 (CDT)
 * Check the filesize. It was probably over 1.5 megs. Use PNG instead, since even mspaint can handle that (and reduces the filesize significantly). -- Prod (Talk) 18:55, 8 April 2008 (CDT)
 * JPEG is ok too right? Because I already uploaded them... :) Baejung92 19:40, 8 April 2008 (CDT)
 * Yeah it's ok, but since you're using MSPaint, they force you to use a lower file size while making the image quality worse (and creating artifacts). You may not notice the difference that much, but trust me, the quality is terrible.  GIF also works, and I know MSPaint can save those cleanly.  We recommend you use GIMP.  Thanks though - no real need to upload new versions of the images unless you have the originals and would like to make them better =) -- 01:46, 9 April 2008 (CDT)
 * I use Image Analyzer for all manipulation (except for transparencies); it's got a much simpler interface than the Gimp and the like but still has all the necessary features. As for GIFs, they should only be used for animation; properly optimised PNGs will always be better than GIFs, and MS Paint generally doesn't reduce the GIF palette in the ideal manner. GarrettTalk 02:55, 9 April 2008 (CDT)

Master of Orion II - request for comments
I've done quite a lot (? 60% - 70%) of  Master of Orion II and would appreciate comments. Besides the usual aspects, I'd like to know whether this is the kind of thing StrategyWiki is interested in - I've got the impression from various discussions that StrategyWiki may be more interested in console games, FPSs and RPGs.

Notes:
 * I'm still thinking about how to structure the military stuff, and the Contents Page is only my current thoughts. The problem is that by this stage a fairly experienced player is thinking on several tracks simultaneously, and they all feed back into each other. I may have to draft the whole thing as a text file to see how best to make it hang together from a newbie's piont of view.
 * The current content is mainly oriented towards medium, large or huge galaxies and games that start at the lowest tech level. If that goes well I'll add major sections on small galaxies (dominated by blitz and anti-blitz techniques) and on higher-tech starts.
 * There's probably a lot of wikilinking needed, but I'll leave most of that until the end, when I know where everything's final position is.
 * There's lot of scope for images, but I'll leave many of these to the end.

Please post comments at my Talk page. Philcha 07:01, 22 April 2008 (CDT)

Total Annihilation/Units
I've tried out in Total Annihilation/Units an idea that was discussed sometime ago on my Talk page. The point is that for many classes of unit ARM and Core mostly have equivalent units, so a lot of space can be saved (especially in the TOC) by combining them - IIRC the main exceptions are Level 2 K-bots. So far I've only done Level 1 K-bots. Should this approach be extended to all classes of units in which near-equivalents are common? If so, how much in the way of unit stats should we display? IMO apart from costs most of the stats are fairly meaningless and it's more informative to say e.g. "A is a little faster than B and a little tougher than C" (note: so far I've been unable to fint data on hitpoints). If we cut the stats to the bone I can change the orientation of the data table in each section, and that will save a little more space.

Please post comments at my Talk page. Philcha 12:55, 22 April 2008 (CDT)
 * I would suggest keeping this kind of discussion on the talk page for the specific guide. Most people don't really have the insight into the game that you do, so can't really comment knowledgeably about the topic.  As for the page specifically, you have a few options.  If you could merge the ARM/Core sections together, that would probably save plenty of space.  Another suggestion would be to split the page up a bit by unit type (Aircraft, K-bots, Ships, etc.). You could also convert some sections into tables with each row being a unit, and the columns: Class, weapon, comments, and maybe even tier (using sortable tables). -- Prod (Talk) 01:18, 25 April 2008 (CDT)


 * Hi, Prod, thanks for the comments!
 * I posted my questions here because I thought relatively few people would watch the TA guide specifically, and because I hoped others would have come across similar layout issues in other guides.
 * I agree it will probably be a good idea to split pages by unit type - Level 1 K-bots, Level 1 vehicles, ..... Level 2 K-bots, Level 2 vehicles, ....
 * I'm happy to use tables where appropriate (see for example Master of Orion II/List of Colony Leaders). But I suspect they won't work so well for lists of TA units because the comments vary so much in length (especially for the Commanders!).
 * OTOH I think tables are good for presenting the most basic facts about each units, followined by paragraphs of comments.
 * In my previous post I mentioned an alternative layout for these basic facts. Here's an example, I'd like to know which you prefer.
 * (a) in the current version:


 * (b) the alternative, (and I'd omit "Weapon 2" for 1-weapon units, this is just a layout example). This saves a line, but would adapt less well to providing additional stats (hit points, weapon damage, movement speed turning speed, acceleration); but I'm less keen on the additional stats as the HP and damage can be summed up as "X beats Y in a one-on-one" and the movement stats are meaningful only to modders.:


 * Philcha 07:03, 27 April 2008 (CDT)
 * They both look fine to me. As for subpaging, from the length of each of the sections in the current page toc, it looks like having tier1/2 kbots on the same page would work, if that's useful for readers. -- Prod (Talk) 11:10, 27 April 2008 (CDT)
 * Thanks. I'll put Level 1 Vehicles on the same page - I want Level 2 to be on a different set of pages from Level 1, as e.g. "premature moves to Level 2 technology are a leading cause of Commander deaths" (from one of Cavedog's own strategy pages). Philcha 11:57, 28 April 2008 (CDT)

What do I do if I accidentally erased a portion of my favorite wiki???
Specifically, I deleted level 28 of the Solomons Key walkthrough map screen... and I am super bummed and really really sorry! I am inexperienced and was only trying to share some notes on this very difficult game! Any tips? Is there a way to reset the changes? Can I contact the original poster to find the necessary image?

-Mike
 * It's ok, I fixed it for you. Did I miss anything? If you go to the Recent changes link on the side navigation and look for the tiny links to the left of every edit there will be one that says (diff). If you click on that it will display what is different on the page compared to what was there previously. It's pretty cool, I use it often to double-check my edits so I didn't miss something while editing. Every line that had something added, moved, or subtracted will show up beside the previous version with the changes a different color.--Zaiqukaj 05:45, 25 April 2008 (CDT)
 * Note that you can also access this using the "history" tab shown on every page. You can even use this to check the difference between several edits. GarrettTalk 04:58, 28 April 2008 (CDT)

Posting answers to games
Hello StrategyWiki sysops,

I would like to know if it is okay to post answers to online games found here on StrategyWiki. Thanks in advance.
 * I believe you are asking if you can create guides for the games at that website? I'm going to have to say no - these are small flash games and would only be included if the administrators decided that they were acceptable.  Please see Guide/Scope.  The games themselves don't seem to need a guide, but simply a cheat or answer repository - I'll bring it up at the next meeting.  -- 03:07, 28 April 2008 (CDT)
 * Yes, those games are all out of scope for StrategyWiki. I do realize that a majority vote by the community can override the scope, but I do not see that happening for games with such low difficulty levels strategy-wise. -- 15:29, 28 April 2008 (CDT)
 * This comment refers to Live Search Club. -- Prod (Talk) 23:36, 28 April 2008 (CDT)