User talk:Philcha

Welcome to StrategyWiki!
Hello Philcha! Welcome to StrategyWiki. Thank you for your contributions. If you have any questions, just contact a sysop through their talk page or post on the staff lounge, and they'd be happy to help. If you need help editing, check the StrategyWiki Guide. If you have a question about the content on this wiki, you can check out our staff lounge page. If you want to ask questions or hang out in IRC, we're usually around. On the other hand, if you have ideas for StrategyWiki, bring them up on the community portal talk page. Please remember to sign your name on, and only on, talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (    ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field as this helps to document all of your hard work. Feel free to delete this message from your talk page if you like, or keep it for reference. Happy editing! -- 21:01, 10 January 2008 (CST)

Total Annihilation
Alright I'll re-merge things, however we need to clean this up because the length is just way too large. I'm suggesting for each unit and tier that we combine each section to include the ARM and the Core unit (they have the exact same amount of units right?). That way we can double up and reduce the page size (and the massive Table of Contents). -- 15:11, 11 January 2008 (CST)


 * Well I haven't played the game in a while, but for the heading I was thinking like using the separators we have currently (i.e. vehicle/plane) and then "Tier 1 Unit: ARMNAME, CORENAME" for the two names of the unit (1 if it's special).


 * For the expansion pack, we'll have a separate section in the ToC for the expansion pack and a /Units page for that game (since they don't apply to the original game by itself, we shouldn't really have it on that page). However if you want to be redundant you could make an expansion pack units header at the bottom of the TA/Units page.


 * "Are we using "unit" in the technical sense, or mobiles only?" Uh, I don't think that matters, when I'm saying unit I mean all of them in general.


 * "Should we consider including unit stats later (costs, build time, speed, hit points, firepower and rate)?" In the description, yes of course!


 * "Do we use "level" or "tier"? AFAIK "level" is TA usage, "tier" is TA:K." Whatever is suitable, we could use level and then switch to Tier if it's not actually correct (like if I played again and saw for myself what it was references as...).


 * For collaboration, it's best if you join the abxy irc server and talk to me in channel #strategywiki (or private message me). I'm in the USA, GMT -08 (coulda found that out yourself if you went to my user page).  -- 10:43, 12 January 2008 (CST)


 * Yeah I don't/won't have much time for editing for the next couple of days. Also, I won't be very effective at merging the two faction units together because I don't have active knowledge about them, like I said I don't have the game.  Go ahead and try something and I'll comment/make improvements on it as it happens.  -- 18:32, 13 January 2008 (CST)


 * Thanks, but I thought I had made this clear (guess not) - I don't own a copy of the game (yet, I'll get one next time I go back to work) but I've played the first few levels of (one of? I can't even remember if you get to choose ARM or Core factions in the campaign... Is there even a campaign? AHHHHH) the campaigns.  It's a fun game, and I've never played an RTS like it (very strange economy and units).  -- 06:02, 14 January 2008 (CST)

A few pointers
Please read through the StrategyWiki guide to see how to lay out pages. New links should belong in the Table of Contents, the Getting Started is for basic information, and Controls is for the controls of the game (to name a few examples). Also, do not put links to other sites that contain strategy guide content. If you like the guide, use it as a basis when writing your own. The guide here on StrategyWiki should be as in-depth as possible, giving many details and strategies instead of just basic information. Please check out our completed guides and our currently featured guide as good examples for your guides. -- 15:27, 12 January 2008 (CST)
 * Sorry about not signing... my bad. Anyway, the basic format of the guide must be consistant with the rest of the site (read the guide for more info), it is a requirement. I am only advocating and upholding official policies of the site, which must be followed by every user. Also, I asked Notmyhandle to rearrange the pages to fit with the layout policies. I suggest you read the guide and our policies before making any other edits. -- 15:27, 12 January 2008 (CST)
 * The basic layout of certain pages, mainly /Walkthrough, /Controls, /Getting Started, and /Table of Contents, should all remain the same throughout every guide for browsing consistancy of our readers. While you can have whatever content you want in those pages, it should fit in with the scope of the page according to the StrategyWiki Guide. For example, /Controls should contain a list of controls in the game, /Table of Contents should be the sole listing of the guide's pages. /Getting Started generally contains the information needed to start the game, and /Walkthrough generally is a place where either the basic beginning plot is explained, or it is a pretty placeholder linking to varying main parts of the actual Walkthrough (the contents of which are completely up to your discretion, but it should accurately lead someone through fulfilling the purpose that the game set out for them). As for why everything must be this way, not only is it an official and enforced policy, but the Header Nav and Footer Nav both have a hidden Table of Contents in them for easy navigation, and the Header Nav contains links to the key points of the guide itself. So, there are technical reasons as well as just policies that dictate why things are the way they are. While you are welcome to stray somewhat from the format to personalize it for you, you are encouraged to keep the basic layout the same. If you wish to change how things are laid out, feel free to open a thread in community issues explaining how you want the new layout to look like (being as detailed as possible), and the community can discuss, improve, and perhaps even implement your new idea. -- 16:04, 12 January 2008 (CST)
 * Hi, for a turn-based Strategy game, I'd suggest setting it out a bit like Civilization III and People's Tactics but as we don't really have many turn-based strategy guides on here at the moment so feel free to add any pages that you think are necessary. A units page, strategies for Single Player, some Multiplayer tactics and a list of civilisations is a must. The page you wrote is a bit long, so maybe you can make a new page called Installing the game and copy/paste the content into that to make it a bit smaller. Also, maybe you could shorten some of the paragraphs e.g "Playable Races" is a bit big, so maybe you could put a small definition of how the races work, copy/paste most of the playable races section into Master of Orion II/Playable Races then link to the main article. Hope this helps and if you have any other questions, feel free to ask.-- The preceding signed comment was added by Rocky (talk • contribs). 16:18, 12 January 2008 (CST)

If you can, please sign onto IRC -- here if you have a client, or here if you don't (click on the chat link in the top bar, then type "/join #strategywiki" once everything is loaded). I'd like to clear the confusion you have over my intentions of formatting and perhaps work out something that works good for your guide (although your Community Issues layout is very nice) in a live conversation. -- 20:26, 12 January 2008 (CST)

Drop the 'tude.
Dude, if you're upset about the way that guides are arranged, and would like to debate the matter on Community Issues, that's fine, you're more than entitled to do that. But saying crap like, "SW has boxed itself into a corner" is not going to win you points in anyone's book. If you don't like it, fine, but don't criticize the policies of the site. It took people a long time to come up with a format that works well for most guides, and even for the ones that it doesn't work well with, there are work-arounds. It's not SW that needs to be more flexible, it's you. Work with the system to find a good solution, or don't bother, but don't bash the site. Nobody wants to hear that. Procyon (Talk) 09:09, 13 January 2008 (CST)


 * I have to lol @ Procyon every time he does this (Philcha, I call him the Iron Fist for a reason xD), no matter the circumstances, but just for Philcha's sake... Debating the policies can sometimes lead to new developments, but yeah most of the time it's stuff we've already debated. If you really were uptight - relax man, we'll find a way.  -- 05:59, 14 January 2008 (CST)

TA controls
Hi. The following paragraph needs to be removed from here, and replaced with the controls and basic gameplay information: "It will not cover the controls, or basic gameplay - it is assumed that you own or intend to get a legal copy of the game, and so will have the instruction manual, either in paper form or as a PDF." We cannot assume that people have the instruction manual (they may have lost it, for example, and are coming to us for help), and the guide would not be complete without such basic information. Thanks. --DrBob (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2008 (CST)

Master of Orion II
Hm, I had thought we had resolved this. I'll respond in depth tomorrow or when I'm feeling better (I had my Wisdom teeth pulled this morning). I apologize for my incompetency. -- 01:26, 22 February 2008 (CST)
 * Alright - I've subpaged the installation instructions, you can delete the duplicate content and subpage as you wish. Re-organization is also up to you, depending on what you wish to do within the bounds of our standards.  -- 21:15, 22 February 2008 (CST)
 * I'm fine now. Any more questions?  -- 16:23, 1 March 2008 (CST)

Emulators
As I said (although briefly) in the deletion summary, that wasn't an appropriate place for a description of an emulator. I've moved some of the content from the article to the DOSBox article itself, which is where I think it should be, since we will never have many articles on different emulators, and so there's little need – especially at the moment – to put things such as what you wrote in a common place. --DrBob (talk) 10:22, 1 March 2008 (CST)


 * We do have a Category:Emulators, so I've redirected the Emulator and Emulators link to the category. You are free to add whatever descriptions you'd like to that page.  Procyon (Talk) 13:03, 1 March 2008 (CST)


 * Actually, I hadn't quite expected you to write so much. But I suppose it's fine.  I would trim it back a bit, since emulation isn't precisely in the scope of SW, but more of a tangential subject.  I would also point to the Wikipedia article for any one who wants to find out more information if they are truly curious.  But maybe I'm being too nitpicky.  My comments aside, nicely written article.  Procyon (Talk) 18:20, 1 March 2008 (CST)