StrategyWiki:Staff lounge

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Welcome to all users! This page is where you can ask StrategyWiki-related questions to the staff and senior community figures, and they will do their best to answer. If you want to raise a topic for discussion (rather than just ask about it), please use the community issues forum instead. New issues are entered here, with the most recent at the bottom of the page. If your question does not pertain to editing StrategyWiki (e.g. asking for hints or game-specific information), please ask on the guide's talk page or on the forums.

Please review the Table of Contents to see if your issue has already been raised; also check the archives (to the right) in case it was discussed some time ago.

To facilitate ease of browsing and replying, please:
 * 1) Place your question at the bottom of the list.
 * 2) Title the question (by placing the title between equals signs: ==Title==).
 * 3) Sign your name and date (by adding four tildes: ~ ).

Bug list
Feel free to add anything you spot to the list.


 * 1) Classes for tag need to be updated for the "small" functionality that used to have a mouseover box on the right in BlueCloud. This actually still works in Monobook. I don't know if we just want to get rid of this functionality all together, or make it work in all skins. (Dolphin, Vector, Monobook).
 * 2) *Here's a new tag template based on the look of Wikipedia's cleanup tags: User:Najzere/Tag. This goes away completely from the "hidden", expandable box that used to go off to the side. It's pretty simple, just puts a normal box at the top like stub does, or a smaller one for sections. Here are examples: test cases. Each header box template would set its own colors/icons or use a standard one and we could make a multiple issues style template to combine them. The header_box class could be updated with the new styles and developer_header_box could be removed completely. — Najzere  ·  Talk  16:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) * And here is the multiple issues template, also added to the test cases. — Najzere  ·  Talk  18:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) **I like this. Would the currently invisible templates (needinfobox, needcat, etc.) be merged into this? -- Garrett (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) ***I'd still like to bring back the "tagging" feature. They could probably be added something like a toolbox on the side.  Perhaps a "tagbox" or something. -- Prod (Talk) 04:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) ***Yes, it's set up to include needinfobox and needcat, but we don't need to include any that we want to be category-only, with no messaging. Also I left some out that I thought should always be their own separate banner, like delete and future. — Najzere  ·  Talk  17:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) subtoc doesn't seem to center when transcluded. See Super Mario 64/Walkthrough, expand TOC, see header "Super Mario 64 DS" aligned left, see Super Mario 64/Table of Contents where header is centered. -- 16:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) *They're both centered in my browser. — Najzere  ·  Talk  17:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) **Uncentered in the ToC in Google Chrome, Monobook. Uncentered in FireFox 13.0.1 in Dolphin. Hmmm... -- 18:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) ***Seems to be caused by the rule, which is part of MediaWiki:Common.css. Not sure what other effects removing/editing that rule will have however. -- 08:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) ****Should be fixed, please confirm. -- Prod (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Extension ConfirmEdit is giving trouble again.  The wikimedia update for 1.19 doesn't work with Asirra.  --76.10.168.59 03:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Done

 * 1) First off, if BlueCloud is completely killed, can everyone's preferences be updated to Dolphin automatically?
 * 2) * Done. -- Prod (Talk) 05:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) **Awesome thanks. — Najzere  ·  Talk  05:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) featured needs to use a class instead of inline styles to properly place the star in different skins. (Dolphin, Vector, Monobook).
 * 5) * Looks like the class was already ready, I just did some tweaking to the css rules. -- Prod (Talk) 19:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Restore functionality of sortable for custom skins.
 * 7) * If anyone is having problems with this, try disabling abxy scripts, which worked for me. Likewise a fix on the abxy side may be needed.
 * 8) ** Removed the abxy script includes, so it should be working now, with new arrows too! -- Prod (Talk) 06:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) We need a new graphic for the top left corner in Vector and Monobook. It's clickable to get to the main page, but shouldn't be empty.
 * 10) * Same old image, but at least it isn't blank. Not the highest priority to make a new image, but it'll get updated at the same time we update any other images. -- Prod (Talk) 06:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) The   class needs to be eliminated, and I think Prod has already started that by deprecating sidebartoc.
 * 12) * All uses have been removed and the template deleted. -- Garrett (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
They just released 1.19, and I'm going to be updating to that soon (next week if no new extensions break), so expect new bugs to crop up then. -- Prod (Talk) 05:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool. Have you seen the new diff engine they rolled out on Wikipedia as part of the 1.20wmf1 upgrade? Most people hate it, but I think it's pretty cool and would be perfect with a little palette enhancement. — Najzere  ·  Talk  05:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I still haven't accepted the fact that they managed to release 1.19 on time... -- Prod (Talk) 05:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Can we just use the Facebook logo for Monobook? -- 20:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's the right size, but it's also from the old logo, so an updated one would be good (to replace the FB one too). — Najzere  ·  Talk  00:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Spoiler image script
I'm proposing an addition to the site wide javascript for spoiler image functionality. It replaces images with a spoiler placeholder image and reveals the hidden image on mouseover. Usage would be something like  . To see it in action, add importScript('User:Najzere/spoilerimage.js'); to your common JS or skin-specific JS and visit my sandbox for an example. The example just swaps two images, but obviously the "top" image would be the spoiler placeholder. If javascript is disabled by the user, then the normal image would appear without the spoiler placeholder. — Najzere  ·  Talk  21:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do we support users without javascript enabled? I mean, who doesn't have js enabled while browsing? My real concern is with using mismatched file sizes. Can you script the spoiler image to resize according to the size of the image it is covering up? -- 22:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We support them in the sense that we try not to do things that will entirely fuck them if they don't have javascript enabled, but if you take something like spoiler for example, you can see that there is precedence for making content entirely inaccessible without js enabled. This particular script won't do that, you'll get the normal image if you don't have javascript on. But really in this day and age you would be hard-pressed to find any site that doesn't use some javascript, it's really not worth worrying about anymore.
 * The spoiler image will be sized to whatever the original is set at, or its natural size if nothing is set. Only the source of the image is changed. For the spoiler image, the easiest way from a coding perspective would probably be to just use a .png image with a single color that will look the same at any dimensions. The spoiler image template would add text somewhere (like above or below) with instructions to mouseover to reveal the image. There are other methods if you wanted the placeholder image itself to say "mouse over me", but there would always be either scaling issues, funky image size changing issues or unnecessary complexity. — Najzere  ·  Talk  00:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no way to pass the image size as a parameter of the script? Or, would it be possible to put an image on top of the spoiler image? Like, have a "SPOILER" text image centered on top of the, say, red spoiler block image that would scale? -- 16:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * SVGs seemed to scale all right as far as not getting pixelated at larger sizes, but you'll always have problems with odd stretching if you try to use one image considering you can have very wide and short dimensions or very tall and thin dimensions. I updated the script to use another method, which repeats a small background image and hides the original image. This works with any size or dimension after 50×12 (the size of the background image). You can see different image shapes at the example section. — Najzere  ·  Talk  17:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I updated the script to center "SPOILER" over the image cover and it reveals the image when you mouseover. — Najzere  ·  Talk  23:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It should also say "(mouse over)" so people know it's not just an image. -- 02:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is pretty sweet :). Though I'd prefer if we changed the colour and figured out a more descriptive caption.  Perhaps a default that can be changed through a parameter for really small images (is that possible)? -- Prod (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You can consider the stuff I used to be placeholders, I just wanted to demonstrate how it would work, not that we should use a hideous yellow background. For the "caption", yes we could switch out where it says "spoiler" for other stuff based on the template parameters. However, I think how it works is self-evident and everyone's first reaction to it would be to try and click it to see what it does. One change I was considering was to leave the image unhidden after mouseout, so you don't have to keep mousing over it if you want to see it again. That way it will be only be hidden every time you load the page before the first mouseover. — Najzere  ·  Talk  21:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I like that setting. We'll have to make the placeholder text clear. Black background with white text is better? Or making it fit better with Dolphin? -- 21:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

AoE2 walkthrough
Not sure if this is the way you want this done, but it looks like the best approach, after several minutes of browsing this site.

I have recently been working through the campaigns in AoE2, and creating walkthroughs as I did so. They are long, detailed, and imho, more accurate than anything else I have seen out there. I realize that this is an old game. Interested? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VictorInThePacific (talk • contribs).
 * Yes, of course, that would be wonderful. The guide here is already started and has many pages filled out. If what you have is completely absent from the guide, feel free to start new pages or add to existing ones, or you can integrate your stuff with the info we do currently have. Let us know if you need any help! Happy editing, — Najzere  ·  Talk  07:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcoming response.

Now I have some hard questions.

First of all, I have spent a lot of time with AoE, and I think that I am an expert on the game, at least in a theoretical sense. I cannot move my hands fast enough to stand up to a competent human opponent. Second, and related to the first point, I play the game at the slowest possible speed, while I think most players use the fastest possible speed. This has a huge effect on the complexity of tactics and operations that can be used. Third, I have developed a set of tactics and operational methods, and I have assigned certain names to them. Fourth, I use certain English conventions in my descriptions of the game. So far, none of this is problematic, but it all needs to be stated somewhere, and distinct from any walkthrough.

The hard questions follow, although I am sure you have already answered them all. I understand that any writings that are posted on this site are the property of the community, and I don't have a problem with that. But how do you determine whether a game description posted here is accurate or good? For example, as regards AoE2, I have seen some walkthroughs that are incorrect, some that are inaccurate or too brief to be useful, some that are questionable, and some where variations are possible. I propose to simply delete those in the first two categories, and to add the alternative to the fourth category, but I don't know how to deal with the third category. Then the question arises, once I have posted my analysis, which is accurate, how do we prevent it from being edited incorrectly, which I believe you might consider vandalism?

VitP
 * What you are talking about goes to the very heart of what being a wiki site is all about. These problems exist as much on Wikipedia as they do here.  The bottom line is inaccuracies will be added, and vandalism will occur.  What prevents these from happening is "you", and by "you" I mean the general SW community at large.  That's just the nature of the beast.  Our admins do an excellent job of removing blatant vandalism, so I'm not concerned about that.  As for edits that appear legitimate, it's impossible for the staff to verify every change in each guide for each game, so we rely on those users who consider themselves experts at a particular game to vet the changes.


 * It is fine if you wish to remove content that you are certain is incorrect. Try to be as respectful to the original content as you can, but feel free to drastically alter things as necessary.  Also be aware that, with a strategy game such as the one you are proposing to write about, your strategy will only be one of many strategies that people may wish to employ.  It's not like a walkthrough where there is pretty much only one path to completion.    Pro  cyon  13:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The speed issue is an interesting one and I personally think more people than you think play on the slow setting too. Insight on different tactics is always wonderful. RTS games generally have a whole lot of different approaches that are all legitimate in their own right so I do hope to get to see how you play it. One approach I like using if a game can have several approaches to an area or scenario is to use either/or statements. As long as what you add, take off, or change improves the guide in your opinion then give it a try. If an accident or misunderstanding is made worst case scenario is someone who thinks it was ok information will re-add it. For as nice as a lot of our guides are there will always be ineffective or outright bad advice hidden in places too. Thus if you see something bad or even rude don't hesitate to fix it. My only request is a section that is too short to be truly useful is still better than a completely empty one. Just blanking information without replacing it isn't helpful. Also please don't be afraid of making a bad edit or mistake. We all have made mistakes when starting out and are pretty understanding and love to help. This post of yours actually looks pretty responsible in my book and I'm happy to meet you. --Zaiqukaj (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Speed is all relative to APM in RTS games. Although you may have less time to think, memorizing the patterns/responses necessary to defeat your enemy at normal or fastest speeds is where the difficulty of an RTS really comes into play. I've known some of the best StarCraft/SCII players in the U.S. and watching them play is ridiculous. What is most interesting is playing an RTS on slowest speed in a multiplayer game, because those used to the fast speeds will usually lose against those who have better strategies.
 * Now, as far as multiple strategies are concerned, there are usually other ways of doing things, but there are also counters and such. The best thing to do is to be comprehensive and be critical of the content on the page, sometimes going so far as to adding a little bolded section such as " ;Criticism " right above the notes about why the strategy is poor. In many cases, strategies can be scrapped if there is compelling evidence against it. -- 15:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Added an entirely new walkthrough for Barbarossa campaign. Still need to put in tactics page. How do I add an entirely new page?


 * First, sign your posts on talk pages by ending your message with --~ ; that's how we get our signature to appear. Secondly, you can create a new page by going to it (changing the URL in your browser's address bar, or by creating a link or previewing a link on a page and then going to it), like so: Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings/New page. -- 15:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * VitP, you might want to read through Guide if you haven't already.--Pelago (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Added tactics section. Next up: Joan of Arc. I think I will just replace the existing one as well. Although it's better than what was there for Barbarossa, it's still too brief. --VictorInThePacific (talk) 06:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Make sure you don't just remove accurate information. Integration and clarifying things tends to be a better guide writing tactic. That isn't to say if its simple and of poor quality you can't just scrap it. -- 16:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Working on Joan of Arc campaign. Although the existing (short) walkthrough has some merit, there are a lot of incorrect statements, so I am just replacing the entire thing. I am listing some reasons in the "discussion" section. Perhaps someone who is actually invested in that game would care to have a look at that? --VictorInThePacific (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Probably not. That guide has been in shambles. Thanks for fixing it up. Suggestion: throw in an image once in a while, maybe of the map or something would be a simple one to add. -- 22:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC


 * Also, while your effort to account for all of the inaccuracies in the existing guide is appreciated, it's not necessary. If you're certain that what you're writing is more accurate, you don't have to justify it.  Most of what you wrote in the discussion pages will largely go unnoticed.  Talk pages within guides are typically used to point out, and/or discuss, some point that's unclear or ambiguous and the fix is not obvious.  Pro  cyon  00:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The most common use for the talk page of a subpage is for negotiating an edit conflict, where two or more parties are fighting over some part of the content. -- 03:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding new pages
How do I add a new page to an existing guide? I searched, but wasn't able to find anything. If there is something on this, please show me the way. --Pokelover11 (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * First, edit the guide's table of contents to add a link to the new page. The link will be red at first to indicate that the page isn't there yet. Then you just click that new link and it'll let you create the page. Wanderer (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Watch whole game guide
Hopefully this is an ok place for this kind of thing. From what I can gather, watching a page automatically watches the talk page as well, and watching a game's main page does not watch any of its sub-pages. Is there a way to watch every page within a game's guide without actually clicking watch on every page? (So in other words, this would be an option to say, if I watch Portal, watch all pages under that, like Portal/Getting_Started, and Portal/Chamber_19, etc.) If not, is that easily added to our available options? -- Ceegers (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Go to Special:WatchSubpages, enter the name of the guide you want to watch, tick the pages you want to watch, and click "Add pages". -- 21:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks! Then perhaps can that link be added to Guide/Basics and/or Special:Watchlist? Looks like I can edit the guide, so I'll go ahead and add it there if that's ok. -- Ceegers (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Does Special:WatchSubpages watch new subpages that are created in the guide later on, or just the subpages that exist at the time?--Pelago (talk) 08:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * At the time. When you run it, it will go through and poll for a list of all of the existing pages, and then list all of those subpages and enable you to select all or some of them (all is selected by default) by unchecking a box next to each. If you just click add, it will add all (or the ones you didn't already have) to your list. -- 15:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Series templates for 2 game series - yea or nay?
See this diff. -- 15:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My take on it is that series navs aren't necessary at all, but generally useful for our readers' navigation. The length of the series doesn't matter: our standard is to have preceded/followed by links in the infobox and a series nav at the bottom if possible. -- 15:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally I think it takes more than two games to make a series and the templates look silly with just two links in them. If there's actually a game series, there should be a link to its category page in the infobox. I think series nav templates really shine when there are a lot of entries but are otherwise mostly unnecessary. — Najzere  ·  Talk  15:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really think we need a series template until there are 3 titles minimum. Then the nav would be giving a link to the missing member somehow for the games not in the middle. Though I do like how much the series navs stand out without some added usefulness to a 2 game series it is repetitive. Links in the initial page description and infobox are enough. --Zaiqukaj (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Multiple Upload page minor issues
Useful page, and it does what it needs to. However, two points that seem odd. First, when you've uploaded files, the resulting page's second heading is "& lt;successfulupload& gt;", except without the spaces (I can't figure out how to even get this text to display what the heading is displaying without the spaces...).

Second, it gives upload warnings if you left any spots blank. It seems if you are not able to choose the number of files, it at least shouldn't complain when you're not filling every spot :P -- Ceegers (talk) 02:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Ceegers. Believe me, we're aware of the issues with that page.  It was written by someone for Wikipedia, and considering how old it is, and how many revisions of MediaWiki have passed since it was created, we're lucky that it even still works at all.  While I'd like to see those issues fixed, the danger of breaking it entirely outweighs the benefit we'd see from fixing the minor hiccups.  There was a time when we lost it, and I didn't think we'd ever get it back.  After a period like that, you shrug at the minor cosmetic issues because you're so grateful that it just works.   Pro  cyon  03:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a weird page. I've never used it (I always make/upload images while write guides one image at a time) since it only works well for images that can have the same description (e.g. monster images, icons, artwork, etc.). -- 18:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems MultiUpload version 2.1 was released a week or so ago which purportedly fixes some issues with version 1.19 of MediaWiki, currently working with Prod on getting that update on beta and tested/pushed to live if it works properly. -- 19:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)