User talk:DrBob/1

"Manoeuverability"
I changed it because manoeuverability isn't a word that is easily read at first try. I scanned through the sentence and put in "maneuvers at your pick" to make it easier to read, at least for me. Feel free to edit it back if you think otherwise.--Dan 13:18, 26 May 2006 (PDT)

Sorry for re-adding links
I thought that my edits just didn't end up getting saved, I didn't realize someone has removed them. Can you please epxlain to me how I make sub-pages though? I'd be more than happy to make them for Diablo II:Lord of Destruction if you tell me how.

-Azura

P.S. - Sorry If I'm doing this incorrectly. I think this is the proper way to reply, but I'm not sure.


 * A better method of replying is just to reply in your own talk page, using a colon and space before your reply to indent it. :-) Another good thing to do is sign your messages, using the signature button in the edit toolbar. Your edits were saved fine, but I removed all the links. To make sub-pages, simply create links to them (e.g. Diablo II: Lord Of Destruction/Kashya), follow the links, and create the page as you would any other page. (Or you could go straight to the URL, but it's easier to make the link first.) I removed the links instead of changing them to sub-pages as I didn't know if – for example – you wanted Diablo II: Lord Of Destruction/Characters/Kashya, or Diablo II: Lord Of Destruction/Kashya &mdash; it all depends on how you want things organised, and that's not up to me. --DrBob 15:18, 29 May 2006 (PDT)

Why have a category for individual Days?
In wikipedia, you often link to the day and year of something just as a novelty, and you'll often have a category for movies released in 1999, etc. It's useful to look up games or movies by a specific year to observe trends and see what it's comparable to. But categorizing games by the days on which they were released just seems fairly ridiculous, and the overlap of April 2nd games for example is just likely to be meaningless.--BigCow 21:40, 16 June 2006 (PDT)


 * As I'm told (I haven't verified it myself, but it came up in the discussion in community issues), if you link both the day and year of a date written like "April 1, 2006", MediaWiki will rearrange the date according to the user's date format preferences. Apparently this doesn't work if they're not linked. An upside of having a category of days when games were released is that you can look up (for example) what was released on your birthday. :-P --DrBob (Talk) 03:07, 17 June 2006 (PDT)
 * The number of people who are going to look up a game released on their birthday seems extremely small, and besides you could accomplish that exact same task by going to April 2 and seeing what links there. Categories take up room at the bottom, and they should only be used for actual categories the article falls into. Days of the year should be links rather than categories in my opinion, that should accomplish both those purposes and leave the bottom less cluttered.--BigCow 09:35, 17 June 2006 (PDT)
 * You should probably make these points in community issues. "The number of people who are going to look up a game released on their birthday seems extremely small" That was just an example, but I admit there aren't a great many uses. "Categories take up room at the bottom" There isn't a limit to the size of the bottom bar; it does stretch. "they should only be used for actual categories the article falls into" However much you argue that it's not worth it, a game will always fall into the category of its release date. --DrBob (Talk) 09:54, 17 June 2006 (PDT)

I've promoted you to SysOp
Based on the amount of work you're doing here, especially of the organizational nature, I've decided that you should have administrative permissions to better be able to do things. (So long as you don't mind having it, that is.) I'll probably make a few more of the regulars administrators as well. Enjoy :-) echelon  11:42, 17 June 2006 (PDT)
 * Coo. Cheers. :-D --DrBob (Talk) 11:45, 17 June 2006 (PDT)

Reconsider some deletions
I've included commentary on the talk pages of three soon to be deleted articles. (I deleted the rest). I think those three might not require deleting and function as navigational redirects (Wikipedia itself frequently does this). Let me know what your opinion is and then we'll proceed. echelon  22:00, 17 June 2006 (PDT)
 * I think I was in a bit of a strict mood yesterday. All those three pages are staying. Thanks for pointing it out. :-) --DrBob (Talk) 23:52, 17 June 2006 (PDT)

ah
I see I am now a user that has been persuaded to join by you, which I sort of am. I said I wouldn't go on this but I might in future.

More licensing boxes
Wikipedia has a whole page of licensing boxes which people might like to put on their userpage. That way we could automatically sort everyone who agrees to release their content under CC for example, and then if a page was edited only by CC licensed editors, then the page changes to CC. Of course Public Domain editors would be included on that too. -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 00:51, 25 June 2006 (PDT)


 * Are you planning to move them all across? --DrBob (Talk) 03:25, 25 June 2006 (PDT)

Sigh
Read your blog and got dragged here (I have better things to do!) if only to comment on the license. Howdy (congrats) - Estel 04:33, 29 June 2006 (PDT)
 * That really makes me feel wanted. :-P Welcome. :-) --DrBob (Talk) 08:44, 29 June 2006 (PDT)

Donkey Kong box art problem
Hi DrBob. I noticed you put back the NES Box art for Donkey Kong. The problem is, the entry is no longer NES specific, and is actually far more dedicated to the arcade version. Therefore, I'm not sure if using the NES boxart makes sense. If anything, perhaps a picture of the arcade cabinet might be more appropriate. What do you think?Procyon 10:01, 12 July 2006 (CDT)


 * That section is for box artwork, and as such I think the NES artwork is better there. An arcade cabinet would look a bit out-of-place, imho. If you want to upload such a picture (remembering to categorise it under Photos), feel free. What I've done with other similar guides (i.e. ones which have multiple versions of the box art) is to put the main piece of box art in the infobox, and the others in a tag below, with captions saying what version they're for. That's where I'd put the arcade cabinet photo. :-) --DrBob (Talk) 10:32, 12 July 2006 (CDT)

Image Names
Do you know any easy ways to change the name of an image? I plan to go through and rename images with the game acronyms in it, but I'd hate to have to download each image and then reupload and categorize it again.-- Duke Ruckley  11:27, 12 July 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm afraid I don't. However, I'd hold off if I were you (unless you're really eager), as I'm in the process of writing a bot framework. It can already move articles from one category to another, and should be able to move articles from one page to another (including all the sub-pages, although this hasn't been tested yet). Functionality to rename images would be useful, and I'll code it next. If you want to help, could you write a plain-text list of all the images you want to rename, and their new names please, with one on each line? (e.g. "Image:badname.png -> Image:prefix_goodname.png".) :-) --DrBob (Talk) 12:52, 12 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Sure thing, I'll get on that when I can.-- Duke Ruckley  13:24, 12 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Is this what you want?

01_-_Starman_Junior.gif -> Image:EB_Starman_Junior.gif Image:04_-_Captain_Strong.gif -> Image:EB_Captain_Strong.gif Image:05_-_Everdred.gif -> Image:EB_Everdred.gif Image:06_-_Carpainter.gif -> Image:EB_Carpainter.gif Image:07_-_Boogey_Tent.gif -> Image:EB_Boogey_Tent.gif Image:08_-_Minibarf.gif -> Image:EB_Minibarf.gif Image:09_-_Master_Belch.gif -> Image:EB_Master_Belch.gif Image:1_-_Titanic_Ant.gif -> Image:EB_Titanic_Ant.gif Image:10_-_Guardian_Digger.gif -> Image:EB_Guardian_Digger.gif Image:2_-_Mondo_Mole.gif -> Image:EB_Mondo_Mole.gif Image:3_-_Trillionage_Sprout.gif -> Image:EB_Trillionage_Sprout.gif Image:Attack_Slug.gif -> Image:EB_Attack_Slug.gif Image:Black_Antoid.gif -> Image:EB_Black_Antoid.gif Image:Bubble_Monkey_-_Bubble2.gif -> Image:EB_Bubble_Monkey.gif Image:Cave_Boy.gif -> Image:EB_Cave_Boy.gif Image:Coil_Snake.gif -> Image:EB_Coil_Snake.gif Image:Container-Present.gif -> Image:EB_Present.gif Image:Container-Trash_Can.gif -> Image:EB_Trash_Can.gif Image:Frank.gif -> Image:EB_Frank.gif Image:Frankystein_Mark_II.gif -> Image:EB_Frankystein_Mark_II.gif Image:Gruff_Goat.gif -> Image:EB_Gruff_Goat.gif Image:Jeff_(Front).gif -> Image:EB_Jeff_(Front).gif Image:Mighty_Bear.gif -> Image:EB_Mighty_Bear.gif Image:Mr._Saturn_(Front).gif -> Image:EB_Mr._Saturn_(Front).gif Image:Paula_(Front).gif -> Image:EB_Paula_(Front).gif Image:Photographer_(Front).gif -> Image:EB_Photographer_(Front).gif Image:Pogo_Punk.gif -> Image:EB_Pogo_Punk.gif Image:Poo_(Front).gif -> Image:EB_Poo_(Front).gif Image:Ramblin'_Evil_Mushroom.gif -> Image:EB_Ramblin'_Evil_Mushroom.gif Image:Rowdy_Mouse.gif -> Image:EB_Rowdy_Mouse.gif Image:Runaway_Dog.gif -> Image:EB_Runaway_Dog.gif Image:Skate_Punk.gif -> Image:EB_Skate_Punk.gif Image:Spiteful_Crow.gif -> Image:EB_Spiteful_Crow.gif Image:Teddy_Bear_(Front).gif -> Image:EB_Teddy_Bear.gif Image:Yes_Man_Junior.gif -> Image:EB_Yes_Man_Junior.gif Image:Knight_(F)_-_Status.GIF -> Image:FFT_Knight_(F)_-_Status.gif Image:Knight_(F).gif -> Image:FFT_Knight_(F).gif Image:Knight_(M)_-_Status.GIF -> Image:FFT_Knight_(M)_-_Status.gif Image:Knight_(M).gif -> Image:FFT_Knight_(M).gif Image:Squire_(F)_-_Status.gif -> Image:FFT_Squire_(F)_-_Status.gif Image:Squire_(F).gif -> Image:FFT_Squire_(F).gif Image:Squire_(M)_-_Status.gif -> Image:FFT_Squire_(M)_-_Status.gif Image:Squire_(M).gif -> Image:FFT_Squire_(M).gif

-- Duke Ruckley  14:00, 12 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Yeah, that's great. :-) Just keep them saved in a file somewhere, or perhaps paste it into a sub-page of your user page until I've got the functionality coded in the bot. --DrBob (Talk)


 * I'll put it in the subpage User:Dukeruckley/Image Fix.-- Duke Ruckley  14:45, 12 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Looks like some of the images were lost, but it's easy enough to just upload them again. I'll get on that either Sunday or Monday.  Thanks!-- Duke  Ruckley  20:24, 14 July 2006 (CDT)

Categorisation
DrBob, thanks for the tips. I didn't know about the All Game Nav. It's much better, I'll start to use it. I see you categorized the images I uploaded. Thank you! I always forget to do this. As I'm new here I'll probably make much more mistakes, so every time I do something wrong you can object on my talk page, hehe. Thanks again!

TT1 Yeah? 12:45, 16 July 2006 (CDT)


 * No problem. Please keep replies to talk threads in the original talk page (i.e. yours) in future, though. :-P --DrBob (Talk) 12:47, 16 July 2006 (CDT)

Table layouts for the TOC
You've indicated that you do not prefer table layout for the TOC. May I ask why not? I get using headers instead of tags (and I'll fix those soon), but what's wrong with putting it in a table with headers? It's better than a toc that takes up multiple screens. Koweja 22:53, 18 July 2006 (CDT)


 * I am a web developer by trade, so I know the rules and regulations coverning markup usage. HTML tables are designed solely for the purpose of displaying tabulated data (e.g. numbers in a table), and most definitely not laying pages out. Their use for laying pages out is a recent perversion of the rules, and doesn't help. It puts the markup in the wrong order (e.g. while some of the ToC entries would be displayed before others, their markup might actually come first), which doesn't help screen readers and other accessibility aids. There are many other reasons why it's bad for accessibility. Additionally, tables take up a lot more room markup-wise than CSS-positioned divs. --DrBob (Talk) 00:57, 19 July 2006 (CDT)


 * More on this - you've got an anti-table note on the Shenmue TOC (that guide is mostly my work). I've got no idea how to reorganize that page with divs over tables, despite trying (my CSS skills are far from 1337); I can't get the three sections to display side-by-side rather than just one after another top-bottom. Can you help? Sorry for asking - I know you're busy with other stuff. Nevemind - got it sorted now. That'll teach me to read examples before begging for help. I'll leave it to you to delete your note about wikification, just in case it doesn't meet StrategyWiki standards. --aniki21 08:46, 22 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Sorry for not responding sooner, but I was on holiday. I just took a look, and you did a good job, although the surrounding 100%-wide div wasn't necessary. I've removed that, and the wikification notice. :-) --DrBob (Talk) 08:56, 25 August 2006 (CDT)

DK revisions
Hi DrBob. Just wanted to collaborate with you on DK so that we don't end up stepping on each others toes. As you can see, I took your suggestion about the box art and set up the gallery for it. I really like the way it came out. (I'd like to try and find the remaining Atarisoft box art scans and complete it.) I realize that we are both trying to fine tune the page to where we both feel that it's complete. I understand all of your changes with one exception. Why do you prefer not to have the "Introduction" header? I put it back the second time because my wife felt it "complemented the layout" Also, it's on the other pages that I started. I'd like to help create a consistant standard for those pages, so whatever changes occur on DK should probably occur on the others. Please let me know your thoughts, either here or on my talk. Thanks! Procyon 10:31, 24 July 2006 (CDT)


 * I've never actually played Donkey Kong (so shoot me :-P ), and I'm just doing my general wiki housekeeping tasks, so I'm not likely to make many more edits, as I'd consider the front page of that guide to be just about perfect. :-) With reference to the introduction header, I feel (it's not actually a policy, but I'm a bit like Judge Dredd here in that what I say generally becomes policy :-D ) that it's a bit obvious that the text below it is an introduction. With the header in, the line breaks the flow of the page, and the heading itself doesn't actually help people's understanding of the structure of the guide. Then again, that's just my opinion, and if you feel strongly that there should be an introduction header, feel free to take it to community issues for discussion. :-) --DrBob (Talk) 16:28, 24 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Nope, that's cool, I can live without it, your explination makes sense. I will basically use Donkey Kong as the template to go by, with respect to the other pages that I'm working on, so I wanted to get the layout (not the content) as close to "final" as possible.  I've already started adding a box art gallery to Pac-Man, and should have Ms. Pac-Man done tonight.  Thanks for your response!  Procyon 16:38, 24 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Glad to help. :-) One minor thing is that I would discourage the use of more banner images such as the one at the top of Donkey Kong. As with the introduction header, the break the page up a bit, and aren't particularly useful, although they do add a splash of colour. ;-) Perhaps they could be placed further down, and centred? --DrBob (Talk) 16:41, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

Template Tables
Is this what you wanted for the template, in terms of wikification/dropping the table layout? I haven't had much experience writing with that syntax so if you see any problems, please feel free to fix them and I'll learn from it.-- Duke Ruckley  12:06, 24 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Yeah, you'd got it mostly right. :-) Do you do much web development? Anyway, generally things should be floated "left" instead of "right" (it's the accepted method for making rows of things, because then they don't get out of order); the "border: 0px" wasn't needed at all, because by default divs have no border (and even if they did, it would be "border: none" ;-) ); and I thought you probably wanted a "margin: 2px" instead of a "padding: 2px" (margins are outside the border and paddings are inside). For breaking the two rows apart, a is much better than any linebreaks, because it accounts for the height of the images, whereas the linebreaks will only extend the space between the two rows by 2em (two lines of text); if you had a really tall image as number 2, for example, and you were using linebreaks to separate the lines, that image would (should :-P ) overlap with the one below. --DrBob (Talk) 16:35, 24 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I don't do any web development at all, honestly. Everything I know comes from looking at examples.  In the case of floating things to the right, I was thinking that it would keep the images on the right of the page, but I see what it really does now.  I didn't know what  did, honestly, but now I do :).  Thanks for explaining it to me.  I have a better grasp of it now, in case I decide to make another table.-- Duke  Ruckley  16:41, 24 July 2006 (CDT)


 * The template (take a look at its source) basically creates an invisible line at the bottom of the lowest floated thing above it in the markup. All content after it in the markup has to be below this line. (This is quite simplified, but I hope you get the gist. :-) ) --DrBob (Talk) 16:48, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

Image categorisation
Hi DrBob, I got your notice on my talk. I've been trying to make sure I use the correct image categories. I noticed I screwed up with the marquee, I apologize for that. Aside from that one, did I make any other mistakes? I have been identifying the box scans as Category:Box artwork, which seem appropriate to me. I also uploaded new images for exsisting ones, but I did not think that I needed to categorize them a second time, is that correct? Please let me know on my Talk if I have made any other specific mistakes, as I would like to prevent myself from doing so again in the future, thanks! Procyon 09:02, 25 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Mostly, you're getting things right, and that's good, but there was a load of Donkey Kong Jr. images you uploaded (for example DKJR_SparkRed.png) where you didn't add any categories at all, which I thought rather odd, because you usually get such things right. :-P --DrBob (Talk) 10:07, 25 July 2006 (CDT)


 * OK, that's good to know. Those were images that I updated, and I didn't think that I needed to recatagorize them, but now I know that I do.  Thanks for alerting me to this. Procyon 10:59, 25 July 2006 (CDT)

StrategyWiki Cleanup Project
Hey I'd be glad to join the cleanup project (I've already learn the Wiki can get pretty messy :)). In my spare time between the Biohazard guide I'll try to clean up as much as I can. --Antaios 23:54, 25 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Great! To sign up, just add your name to the current members list and start work on one of the tasks listed on the page (probably one of the periodic tasks. :-) --DrBob (Talk) 03:29, 26 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Awesome. Sorry for the late response, I'll put my name on the list right away. --Antaios 16:37, 6 August 2006 (CDT)

Re: Colons
Hey Garrett, why do you think the controls are better without colons (Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas/Basics/Controls)? To me, a colon denotes a relationship between the two operands even if one of them is an image (or something else). --DrBob (Talk) 03:32, 26 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Well, I did change my mind after that edit. :) You're right that it's a relationship, and yet it seems a little silly to have hanging pixels. I might experiment with tables instead later or something. GarrettTalk 04:40, 26 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I would say tables are actually worse than lists without colons. It adds a huge amount of wikimarkup with no real benefit, as there're only two variables in the relationship, which can easily (and pleasantly) be expressed using lists (and colons! :-P ). --DrBob (Talk) 05:03, 26 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I was trying to eliminate the bullets (since the buttons pretty much serve the same purpose), but that can probably be managed with breaks... I must be tired. :( GarrettTalk 05:06, 26 July 2006 (CDT)

Legend of Zelda Glitch page
Hi DrBob. I had intentionally orphaned the Glitch page because what little content was there was already contained in the Cheats page, and I hadn't even edited those at all. I figured someone would come along and delete the Glitch page. Would it be possible to do that? Thanks. Procyon 10:23, 9 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Done. :-) In the future, you could add the delete template to the page, and remove all links to it. That way, when I'm going through the orphan list, I can just delete it. --DrBob (Talk) 10:43, 9 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Awesome, thank you very much and good to know. Will do.  Procyon 14:19, 9 August 2006 (CDT)

Hello again. I figured I'd contact you to ask if you could delete the first revision of LOZ_Zelda.png, as I made a mistake and uploaded the original source file with all of my sprites as opposed to just the individual copy of Zelda. It's just 2K, but I figure every little bit counts. Thanks very much. Procyon 16:39, 9 August 2006 (CDT)


 * It's not possible to delete revisions of things. It's fine as it is. ;-) --DrBob (Talk) 16:55, 9 August 2006 (CDT)

Macca screenshot
Just wondering why you've added that strange screenshot to the frontpage of GTA:SA; Macca. Craziness? Jackhynes 09:30, 12 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I was going through the list of unused files, and it was there. Since I know absolutely nothing about GTA: SA, I just added it to the front page. Feel free to move it to a more appropriate place, or tag it with . --DrBob (Talk) 09:50, 12 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Haha, I thought it were strange because he plays a very minor role in the game. I'll move the image. Jackhynes 09:57, 12 August 2006 (CDT)

Thanks & Odyssey2 category?
Hi again. Thanks for setting up the Gottlieb category. Unfortunately, Gottlieb wasn't in business for very long, and they certainly didn't have many hits, so Q*Bert may be a loner in there for a long time. However, Q*Bert is the second Odyssey2 game that I submitted, the first being Popeye (and a third could possibly be the mention of K.C. Munchkin on the Pac-Man home variants page...) so would you please create a category for that system? I don't know if I'll get around to doing many other Odyssey2 games, but who knows. And I need a 1979 category for the Galaxian entry that I just started ^_^ Thanks! Procyon 20:17, 17 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Sorting them out now. :-) --DrBob (Talk) 04:05, 18 August 2006 (CDT)

Miner 2049er and the Atari 2600
Hi DrBob. I wanted to bring this issue up but it did not seem big enough to merrit an entry in Community Issues, so maybe we could set a standard here on your talk page. The issue with Miner2049er and the Atari 2600 was that rather than releasing the entire game on one cartridge, which would have been too big for the Atari 2600 to handle, they released the game as two seperate volumes. If you look on the Atari 2600 page, I listed both of those volumes and each link merely contains a redirect to the Miner 2049er page, as well as the proper categorization. Therefore, I did not want to put the Atari 2600 category on the Miner 2049er page since, technically, no game called "Miner 2049er" was released for the system. Rather, the two different volumes were released instead. However, in the infobox, I thought perhaps that it was appropriate to list the Atari 2600 among the systems that the game was released on, primarily because I did not plan on creating a proper page (and therefore a proper infobox) for each of the two volumes that were released for the Atari 2600. Perhaps that is the appropriate action to take (just as I did with Donkey Kong Classics for the NES) but in the absense of an official entry for the two 2600 volumes, would you agree or disagree that even though the main page is not categorized as an Atari 2600 game, Atari 2600 should be included in the infobox? (In essense, can a game have a system listed in the infobox, and at the same time not be categorized for that system?)


 * That sounds good. Make sure you mention in the text on the Miner 2049er page that for the Atari 2600 the game was split. :-) --DrBob (Talk) 09:57, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

"Vandalism"
I noticed your message on PRIME HUNTER's talk page about vandalism of one of the MPH pages. Although it could be called vandalism by some, I don't believe that starting a page with the word "hi" in it is vandalism, as it's not damage to existing property. I suppose it would be making a nuisance of oneself, but I don't believe that this is of any level of severity to warrant a warning. Regardless, in future, could you report vandalism (and related stuff) to a SysOp or bureaucrat such as myself or echelon on our talk pages, and we'll deal with it; it's much cleaner that way. Thanks. :-) --DrBob (Talk) 12:18, 3 September 2006 (CDT)

Thank you for notifying me. I just believe that starting a page with hi is vandalism. You cannot really start a walkthrough page with the word hi. Thats just what I believe, but if you believe differently, i'm fine with that. Once again, thank you for notifying me so I won't make the same mistake again in the future. 0-172 17:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The Atari 65XE/130XE Category: what for?
Hi DrBob. I noticed the 65/130 category, and as big of an Atari fan as I am, I had to ask myself: what's the point of this category? It really seems to serve as a place holder for a wikipedia style history entry. Since we have the Atari 800 category, it serves as an umbrella category to (99% of) everything that could possibly be catagorized under the 65/130 category. If Pauljs75 REALLY wanted to make the category stand out, he could have dedicated the category instead to the Atari XE Game System (or XEGS,) but even if he had done so, the same rule about the Atari 800 category would still apply. I'm not proposing that we eliminate it entirely, but it might be a good idea to subcategorize it under Atari 800, and not expect much else to be done with it as a category unto itself. Just my $0.02. Thanks ^_^ Procyon 10:07, 5 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I don't know jack about Atari systems (they came before me): I just edited it to clean it up, as I do with most pages. If you think the category isn't warranted, merge whatever you can of its contents with the appropriate other category (in this case, I presume the Atari 800), and then mark it for deletion, and I'll delete it later. :-) --DrBob (Talk) 10:29, 5 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm just trying to figure out what the precedent is here. To give you an analogy, the Atari 65/130XE is to the Atari 800, as the Game Boy Pocket is to the Game Boy.  So the question is, is a right to create a seperate catgeory for the Game Boy Pocket?  If it is, than the 65/130 category should stay. If it is not, than the 65/130 category would need to be removed.  Hypothetically, if you created a Game Boy Pocket category, would you then be required to additionally categorize anything under the Game Boy category as Game Boy Pocket as well?  That would create a tremendous amount of redundancy.  Right now, I'm thinking the appropriate thing to do was along the lines of what you did (creating a page and redirecting to category,) but to go one step further and literally remove the category, leaving only the page.  Procyon 12:21, 5 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I think I've determined the distinction. If a system requires a different game format (such as the fact that the Nintendo DS requires different cartridges to the Game Boy), then they should have separate categories. I presume this isn't the case here, so move all of the information on the 65/130 to the 800 category, and then redirect it to the 800 (as well as its non-category page). I think things already link to the 65/130 category, so that's why the redirect is needed. --DrBob (Talk) 12:32, 5 September 2006 (CDT)

No new Atari categories please: I saw that you created a category for Atari 1200XL, but this is not necessary. lol, I hit save to make sure you saw this before I typed my explination to spare you any more trouble. If you look at the Atari 800 Category, it explains the relationship between it, and all of the other system pages that I created, as a solution to the Atari 65XE/130XE problem. To put it another way, we're not going to create seperate categories for 386, 486, and pentium class games (although I suppose we could...) since they are all categorized as PC games. In all honesty, if the 65XE/130XE Category had never been created, I would not have bothered to do what I did, but since the problem arose, I figured it needed a better solution. Procyon 14:10, 5 September 2006 (CDT)


 * This is my lack of knowledge showing through, so mistakes on both parts. Since we're primarly about games, we have system information in categories, so I was moving all those wonderful pages you created to categories. Sorry about this; what to do? --DrBob (Talk) 14:07, 5 September 2006 (CDT)


 * What I suggest we do, actually, is to move all the writing to headings in the Atari 800 category, and have all the other categories as redirects. Additionally, I noticed that you were using a backward-slash in some of the page names. Please use a forward-slash instead for standardisation. --DrBob (Talk) 14:10, 5 September 2006 (CDT)


 * OK, no problem. My only concern with that was giving the appearance of creating a subdirectory structure that was unintended.  (e.g. Atari 400\800 might imply that 800 was a subdirectory of Atari 400 when it is instead intended to be a joint classification.) Procyon 14:13, 5 September 2006 (CDT)

Proposal: OK, this whole unfortunate incident occurred because of unfortunate history. The root of the problem really is singling out one system as a representative of an entire class of computer. So the biggest problem is that Atari 800 is synonymous with many other systems (and though illogical, that particular system is choosen with good reason, it was the most popular one out of the whole family.) It seems that the correct way to fix all of the mess that I created would be as follows: Procyon 14:26, 5 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Rename the Atari 800 category to something more generic, such as: Atari 8-bit Computer (all of which were essentially compatible) to differentiate it from the Atari ST line of computers which were 16-bit.
 * As you suggest, create individual categories for all of the members of this family and simply redirect them to the parent category (the newly proposed Atari 8-bit Computer category).
 * Optionally, use the pages that I created to mirror, but not redirect to, the individual categories that are redirected to the parent category. However, this idea is again optional since if people are really curious about the history of the system, they can read wikipedia, since any system description on strategywiki should be breif, if at all.


 * I'm very sorry for blabbing away on your talk page man, I would not be the least insulted if you decided to just delete all of this when the matter was settled. I just wanted to point out a very similar, albeit substantially smaller, problem with the Commodore 64/128 system.  I just fixed a couple of games that were Categorized as C64 games, even though the C64/128 category existed.  As far as I know, the C128 is backwardly compatible with the C64, and it was far less popular and therefore does not merit it's own category, and is properly (for the purposes of this site) lumped in with the C64.  So I did what I thought was appropriate in this case and redirected any game that pointed to the C64-only category, to the C64/128 category instead, thereby negating the need for a seperate C64 category (although I have a hunch that the mistake will occur again in the future since many C64 fans weren't even aware of the C128's existance, and won't think to correct the categorization.) Procyon 14:39, 5 September 2006 (CDT)


 * This is no problem. ;-) Good work, thanks for the help, and I think the whole matter is now closed, unless there are any broken/double redirects, which I will fix shortly. :-) --DrBob (Talk) 14:56, 5 September 2006 (CDT)

Thanks for the help
Hey just wanted to drop a thank you note for helping me out with Empires. It needed some work, so thanks. Also, the reason it's a stub is probably because I transwikied it from wikipedia. I did this because the Gameplay section was getting too long on the Empires article. On wikipedia, it is currently up for GA, so I didn't move the whole thing, yet. After the article is passed or failed, I may add some more from the gameplay article on wikipedia over to here.--Clyde Miller 17:02, 5 September 2006 (CDT)

P.S. I didn't know there were sysops and bcrats here.


 * It's no problem; I always find that guides turn out better if small layout issues are fixed quickly. :-)
 * There are sysops and bureaucrats on every wiki, otherwise they wouldn't be able to run. ;-) Ours are listed here. --DrBob (Talk) 01:01, 6 September 2006 (CDT)


 * If I ever want to be one in the distant future, is it the same requirements as regular wiki (about 3 months and 2000 edits?) --Clyde Miller 16:46, 7 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I don't think we've got such a policy "set in stone", as it were. I because a bureaucrat because of the enormous amount of tidying I do, and sysop powers help with that. I think that's one of the main reasons for becoming a sysop, because if you're just contributing text, there's no real need for you to be one (who needs to revert and delete when you're writing?). Additionally, if you're a sysop, you're going to have to know the policies inside-out, but I'm sure that's no big deal for you. :-) Let's see how it goes. --DrBob (Talk) 01:01, 8 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm not going to become a sysop any time soon, mostly because I just haven't been doing this long enough long. I've only been at Wikipedia since March (and only seriously since June) and only been here since August. I don't think it's time yet. --Clyde Miller 15:28, 8 September 2006 (CDT)


 * P.S. Is there a place where people are voted on like at a Noticeboard or something? --Clyde Miller 15:32, 8 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Not at the moment, no, since the community is small enough that we know each possible candidate, and can just appoint people as and when we feel it is appropriate. ;-) --DrBob (Talk) 16:26, 8 September 2006 (CDT)

cool. I may be here a little bit more considering that one of the articles I wrote on wiki was redirected. Maybe I'll meet some people. By the way, thanks for the help with the new stuff. --Clyde Miller 13:03, 9 September 2006 (CDT)


 * P.S. how did you get userboxes on your page? --Clyde Miller 13:07, 9 September 2006 (CDT)


 * :-) --DrBob (Talk) 14:07, 9 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Thanks. Now I just need something to write in it. --Clyde Miller 09:34, 10 September 2006 (CDT)