StrategyWiki talk:Community Portal

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

PC keys?
Should there be a Category:PC keys? I think it would be useful, but I'm not good at graphics, so I'm bringing it up here as the template told me to :). -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 20:38, 22 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I'd say something more like Category:Keyboard buttons since it isn't for only PC's but all computers (minor distinction :P). -- Prod (Talk) 21:07, 22 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Separated out other talk so we can get more comments about this. -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 15:29, 25 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Yea, sorry about that. I kinda hijacked your thread. The category is probably needed, especially for games like Final Fantasy VII.  My image skills are pretty bad, but I'd suggest probably white keys, black borders, raised inner square with a nice large letter in the middle.  Also an Enter button shaped like the old ones (the triangle thing).  -- Prod (Talk) 16:34, 25 October 2006 (CDT)
 * DavysBigKeyCaps is a nice font for that. Another way to make keyboard buttons is to make a template with a plain square keyboard image as a background and the letter centered, with special cases for irregular keys. Then, it'd be more accessible as well. --blendmaster 11:45, 29 October 2006 (CST)

Strategy guide for... Strategywiki?
I think that one of the things that this site needs is a guide on how to use it. We should upgrade the help page to have all of the scripts for strategywiki such as how to categorize, place things such as stub tags on articles, how to write the guide correctly and to clean-up. It'd make more sense for new users to know how to use this stuff correctly rather than to have more experienced members use their time to clean up their articles and add the proper tags. --Navy White 13:10, 14 November 2006 (CST)
 * We are slowly putting together a couple of pages here, which describe things in decent detail (I think; if you think otherwise please bring it up on the relevant guide's talk page, and I'll see what I can do). I believe that if we imposed all this "red tape" on new users it would discourage them from contributing. It's better to have a core team of people who really know what they're doing cleaning the place up, rather than a load of people who've quickly read some documentation and are using their own interpretations of it. That said, having the documentation there doesn't hurt. :-) --DrBob (Talk) 16:37, 14 November 2006 (CST)
 * I started Help:Writing guide which covers various things, but there's still a lot missing. GarrettTalk 18:42, 14 November 2006 (CST)
 * Though it's a bit of a tanget, I actually think this could be a really good idea. In the interest of being less Wikipedia-like (and I have always hated the inherent difficulties of locating instructional Help and Special pages for editing wikis), we could use the strategy guide book-format to walkthrough various levels (beginner, advanced, etc.) of editing, and to collect all pertinent information in a single easy to understand place. This would be easy enough to over-complicate and turn into a complete disaster, but I think it could also turn out well. The goal would be to organize the creation of a new strategy guide into a minimal set of simple steps, and to use lots of images to drive points home. A Table of Contents could look like (I would expect the In-Depth guides to grow somewhat rapidly, and have included these only as a sample of how the overall guide could work):
 * The Basic steps for creating a strategy guide are in bold. Other steps cover more In-Depth concepts you may want to skip.
 * Sign Up -- ''Would contain a brief explaination that to edit any pages you must sign up for a user account, hint at the fact that content will be in the public domain, and walkthrough the process of signing up (with pictures)
 * Change Your Preferences -- ''A quick explaination of user preferences and what they do
 * Ask Questions -- ''Introduce the various places for getting help, how to use talk pages, and how to leave a signature
 * Create a Guide -- ''Searching for any existing guide, creating a new page,, basic wiki markup
 * Do Your Homework -- ''Minimum game info, where to find info, how to handle uncertainty
 * Add Pizazz -- ''Images, nav bars, sidebars, other common templates
 * Save Your Work -- ''Previewing and saving, edit summaries
 * Look For More -- ''How to stay involved with StrategyWiki, a complete outline/list of help pages and policy pages
 * And almost all Footer_Navs would contain two links in each direction, the most noticeable ones leading to the nearest Basic step, and the alternate ones leading to In-Depth steps, probably identified with icons and font sizes:


 * [ID]  = In-Depth guide
 * --inarius(T) 01:35, 15 November 2006 (CST)
 * Sounds good. Do you want to have a go at doing this? Once you've laid out the basic structure you're envisioning, I'm sure people will be able to help. :-) I suppose this would render the pages I linked to as policies, rather than help. --DrBob (Talk) 11:05, 15 November 2006 (CST)
 * I definitely won't have time to get to this until the weekend, and don't have anything against someone else who wants to get it started. I'll make sure to work on it when I get some time. --inarius(T) 14:03, 15 November 2006 (CST)
 * If anyone wants to help make a basic guide, I'll pitch in. A good idea would probably be a starter's page with some basic wiki-code and how to use it as well as strategies to writing a strategy guide. I'm thinking a page called Beginner's Guide for this stuff and later creating pages with all of the fancy things like templates.--Navy White 16:35, 15 November 2006 (CST)

Going mainstream
There are a few things which I think we need to get done (in order) before we can become a "mainstream" website. -- Prod (Talk) 13:26, 30 November 2006 (CST)


 * 1) (done) Set up the website, get the admins, basic stuff.
 * 2) (in progress) Set up policies, tell people how to use it. 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) (mostly 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) 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".

This is quasi on-topic, but I put a blurb about us in the latest Retrogaming Times Monthly, and that gets a good amount of traffic, so hopefully some new users might start showing up from there. Procyon 16:25, 30 November 2006 (CST)
 * We should probably keep all these promotions together on one page, just to see what kind of reach this site has. Perhaps Promotions? -- Prod (Talk) 17:54, 30 November 2006 (CST)
 * Let's make that Statistics (and some various related/subpages). We'll just copy Wikipedia on this one--they have a good format.  ech elon  22:30, 30 November 2006 (CST)

Logo Image for MonoBook
Yo, I'm a noobie, fresh off Wikipedia. I changed my prefs to MonoBook, and discovered there's no logo there. Instead, it says "Set $wgLogo to the URL path to your own logo image. Can anyone fix this with a good logo? Meowster 17:13, 11 December 2006 (CST)
 * I wouldn't be the best person to do this, but I'll see whom I can run the idea past. A difficulty would be matching any MonoBook logo with the BlueCloud logo's style; I'm not sure how we could do that in a square logo very easily. It'll take some skill to do this properly.  ech elon  22:47, 17 December 2006 (CST)
 * We could use a higher resolution version of this logo.--Dan 18:01, 20 January 2007 (CST)

Protection and help
--Prod (Talk) 10:39, 8 January 2007 (CST)
 * 1) Copy over the wikimedia help. It would give our help section a nice boost and somewhere to build from.
 * 2) Protect All Game Nav, Footer Nav, Continue Nav, Infobox.  These are major templates, and they have become fairly stable.
 * 3) Move Community Issues to StrategyWiki Talk:Community Portal.
 * I've dealt with #2, but I'm leaving the others for now. --DrBob (Talk) 11:43, 8 January 2007 (CST)
 * I can take care of #1, just want to know if I should go ahead with it. The reason being that we will have to go through the pages and clean them up for use here. -- Prod (Talk) 12:14, 8 January 2007 (CST)
 * I'm not sure I understand the purpose of #3. I'm not against it, I just don't understand it.  Could you explain the reasoning?  Procyon 12:17, 8 January 2007 (CST)
 * I just thought it might be something to discuss, so here are a few points.
 * We don't use the talk pages for either the community portal or the issues pages.
 * As most of the major issues have been cleared up (new users don't really need this page) the link can maybe be removed from the sidebar and replaced with Staff lounge or something.
 * The community portal is afaik unused, moving it there would draw more attention to it (it could use an overhaul anywayz)
 * We would get the "Edit +" link at the top since this is a discussion page, not an "information" page, and fits in with the community portal "theme".
 * I still haven't decided if I think it's a good idea or not yet, but I think it's worth a bit of thought. -- Prod (Talk) 12:42, 8 January 2007 (CST)
 * Cool, thank you for explaining it. I understand your points about the community portal, and my only argument against moving this page is because I'm so used to it being here, which isn't necessarily a good argument, so I would support the move. Procyon 12:45, 8 January 2007 (CST)
 * Now that you've explained your reasons (I probably should've asked, but I knew they would be good ones regardless), I would support #3. Do you want to do this Prod? For the moment, I say we should leave the Wikipedia help where it is, and just refer people to it where necessary. We could link to it from our help if/where appropriate. --DrBob (Talk) 15:11, 8 January 2007 (CST)
 * Are we going to leave this page redirecting to there? Should I have the talk pages changed to point there (the one's already subst: as part of Welcome)? Should we move the Archives? (My answers: Yes, No if there's a redirect yes otherwise, Yes) -- Prod (Talk) 15:43, 8 January 2007 (CST)
 * Sounds good. :-) --DrBob (Talk) 16:56, 8 January 2007 (CST)
 * I agree with the points brought up on #3. The talk page for the Community Portal is indeed unused and moving Community issues there would bring more attention to the Community Portal page. I have to admit, in the time I've been at Strategy Wiki, I've never really visited the Community Portal. 0-172 00:26, 9 January 2007 (CST)
 * DrBob took care of #2, I took care of #3. About #1, just to note that the help pages are public domain, so we can just copy them over whenever we deem necessary. -- Prod (Talk) 12:28, 9 January 2007 (CST)
 * The sooner the better I say. --Notmyhandle 12:45, 9 January 2007 (CST)
 * I say we leave them where they are. That way, we can direct people to them, but we also get the benefits of wikipedians constantly maintaining them. --DrBob (Talk) 16:57, 9 January 2007 (CST)
 * PD O'rly? :) -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 08:56, 18 January 2007 (CST)
 * YA RLY!!!. -- Prod (Talk) 16:54, 18 January 2007 (CST)
 * Neat, very well :) -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 09:07, 19 January 2007 (CST)
 * Actually, I don't think it changes that much looking at the recent changes (looks mostly like vandalism). -- Prod (Talk) 13:42, 20 January 2007 (CST)

Wikipedia linking
I've noticed that there's a fair amount of linking to wikipedia with the wikipedia template. I'm wondering how much linking is necessary. Having the template on every game shouldn't be necessary, since our pages should have enough information about the game. Company pages I guess would be a good place to put the template, since I think that's fairly borderline relevant to StrategyWiki's mission. Series pages are almost self completing, as historical information isn't that important, though it could be useful to see the changes in a game based on the developer. -- Prod (Talk) 15:33, 13 January 2007 (CST)
 * I'd just like to point out that something in the wikipedia template can really cause havoc with page layouts, especially when you've got an embedded table of contents. --aniki21 18:48, 13 January 2007 (CST)
 * I believe how necessary the linking is depends on the completion of the guide. If the guide has a fair amount of information, then the link isn't needed. But if there is no, or if Wikipedia has more information, then maybe the linking could be used. Having the link template on each game article isn't necessary, only on articles that might need it (if at all) or with guides with minimal information. Other than that, I believe that the wikipedia template does clutter up pages. As for wreaking havoc with page layouts, it really could mess things up, I can see how would mess things up with an embedded ToC. 0-172 2:25, 14 January 2007 (CST)
 * The only reason I like to include a link to WP is because frequently there is information in WP that does not belong in a strategy guide such as pop culture references, merchandise, and more detailed descriptions of the technology used to develop the game. In the long run, I don't personally care too much either way, I just provide it as a courtesy.  Obviously if someone really wants to look a subject up on wikipedia, they can figure it out.  Procyon 21:08, 13 January 2007 (CST)
 * Thus the WP template should be used on 1)stub-like articles and 2)articles with additional non-game guide information. --Notmyhandle 01:39, 14 January 2007 (CST)

Genesis Buttons
I've noticed that there aren't any Sega Genesis buttons avaiable to use. As a result my contributions keep getting tagged that they need buttons. If someone could make them, that would be awesome--GameboyHippo 12:43, 20 January 2007 (CST)
 * User:Blendmaster is the one who's made most of our button icons so far...but he's busy with school at the moment. -- Prod (Talk) 12:53, 20 January 2007 (CST)

Protection of copyright on StrategyWiki
I'm trying to work with existing guide writers (for example those who submit their works to GameFAQs) to use their work on StrategyWiki and the concern about using their work while abiding by their request for copyright. For images this isn't really a problem because you can place the notice on the page; but for text, it either becomes jumbled in with non-copyrighted information (am I using the right term here? should this stuff be deemed copyleft?) or isn't noted on the page.

Basically what I'm asking is: is there a template or something to note that the information contained on a page should be noted as not 100% copyable? OR is that sort of text not allowed on StrategyWiki?

Need clarifications, also this sort of thing should be listed somewhere with notices in places that people see it.--Notmyhandle 03:47, 21 January 2007 (CST)
 * IANAL, but StrategyWiki can't accept contributions which aren't allowed to be copied. Anything which goes on StrategyWiki has to be copyable, as per the GFDL. --DrBob (Talk) 04:20, 21 January 2007 (CST)
 * I should point out that legally, anybody who copies stuff off StrategyWiki does have to keep the attributions (i.e. edit history) in tact and with the copied content. --DrBob (Talk) 04:21, 21 January 2007 (CST)
 * As stated within the GFDL I might add. Yeah I understand.--Notmyhandle 14:48, 21 January 2007 (CST)

Thoughts on Google Adsense?
Abxy.org, the source of this server's funding, has unfortunately come into a bit of a dry spell. I'm not sure why, and we're still trying to diagnose this, but traffic has fallen enough to the point we're not getting as many new visitors, and this leads to us not getting as much money from adsense as we're used to. We're working on refining the website completely, but this is going to be a slow process. Nicholas Weinberg, one of the people who moderates at Abxy and gives SEO and advertising advice, has suggested that we could earn a good deal of income through a small (probably one) unit of adsense on StrategyWiki, more than enough to pay for the server and bandwidth, and perhaps enabling us to go colocated.

I know this is a very unpopular topic at Wikipedia, and any mention of ads draws an entire contingent of boos and hissing, but there's no way that a niche wiki such as ours can be driven with their model; can we really expect to get over $100 a month in donations every single month? And what about when traffic grows?

I firmly expected Abxy to provide 100% of the coverage for StrategyWiki, and my belief is that one day it will, but development of that site and service is going to take more time than I had previously expected, especially with all of us developers currently enrolled as full-time students. (I'm taking 21 hours at two different colleges, plus I'm also teaching.)

GameFAQs and Wikia both provide similar services to StrategyWiki (in two different ways), and they are both ad-supported. While I believe GameFAQs is over the top in terms of both licensing and advertising, I think Wikia has a fair enough model. What do you guys think of this?  ech elon  20:57, 21 January 2007 (CST)
 * As much as I know this will turn certain people off, I am in support of the idea. If it comes down to seeing ads on StrategyWiki, or seeing SW disappear, I vote for the ads.  I've lived with them on gamefaqs.com long enough, and I don't want to see all my, and everyone else's, hard work go down the drain.  I say bring them on, and let's continue to build this site to what we know it can become.  Procyon
 * Ads. I don't give a damn about click throughs or ugly white space, etc.  SW must survive! Btw, wouldn't we be able to conveniently shove the ads into the toolbox/right side panel? --Notmyhandle 22:38, 21 January 2007 (CST)
 * I would support having adsense links. Just some info to put things in perspective. SW is almost into the top 100k webpages according to Alexa!  ABXY on the otherhand is somewhere around 300k.  Now, depending on where it is put, having more than one link may look better. A PayPal link would be good too.  However, with donations, I would want to see where the money is going (ie. $XX received, $YY spent on server costs, $ZZ excess).  This isn't so much an issue with adsense since it isn't really a person donating their money, just their clicks. -- Prod (Talk) 22:55, 21 January 2007 (CST)
 * I agree with Prod about the Paypal link. It could be very neatly placed under the menu on the left, with an explination of its purpose on the front page. Procyon 10:03, 22 January 2007 (CST)
 * While this does sound like a good idea that could really jump start our funding, I think it should be taken into consideration that StrategyWiki, like ABXY, is still managed, (in this case) written, and read by mostly experienced users and/or users with a history with ABXY/DSmeet/SW. We are only a niche of ad clickers compared to the enormous amount of ad clickers we call the casual readers. I can't speak for every one of the 4,500 average visits per day of course, but I feel it will do more harm than good if we allow ourselves to throw an adsense advertisement box on the side of the page and expect our number of contributions per day to stay put. Readers, who we would love to become regular contributors, would see the ads and instantly think of this site being a for-profit site. Even though this isn't really the case, this could scare potential contributors away, leaving us with the small group of hard-working contributors we have now. New writers and contributors will have no reason to why they should write in favor of someone else's wallet.--Dan 15:18, 22 January 2007 (CST)

People put up with all the ads on gamefaqs all the time. So long as that they don't seriously interfere with the regular operation of SW, I don't see any reason to object.--Froglet 03:16, 22 January 2007 (CST)
 * I agree as long as the ads aren't too flashy or annoying. It sucks to have ads that pop-up in the middle of the page and stay there when the page is scrolled down or up.  I don't know a whole lot about Google Adsense, but I'm in support of placing ads on SW until we don't need them anymore.-- Duke  Ruckley  10:51, 22 January 2007 (CST)
 * Google Adsense adverts are the sensible ones you see which say "Goooooogle!" at the bottom. ;-) I'm in support of this. --DrBob (Talk) 10:55, 22 January 2007 (CST)
 * Like I said, we have space for ads on both the left and right side; and they would not take away from the site; I mean we have whitespace, why not make use of it. --Notmyhandle 17:24, 22 January 2007 (CST)