StrategyWiki:Staff lounge

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Welcome to all users! This page is where people 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 community issues instead. New issues are entered here, with the most recent at the bottom of the page. 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 two hyphens and four tildes: --~ )

For regular members only: Wikipedia article draft
Hi everyone. Echelon asked me to help write a draft of an article that would be contributed to Wikipedia about StrategyWiki. Aside from the history (how the site began, which I'm not especially knowledgeable about), I have drafted two of the sections, the Mission and the Milestones. I think what I've done is very rough and in need of much improvement, but it should serve as a good foundation. It would mean a lot to this site if all of the regulars took a stab at molding and shaping it until we have an article worthy of depositing on Wikipedia. Have a go at it here: Wikipedia_Article. Thank you! Procyon 21:57, 2 February 2007 (CST)
 * The problem is notability. Unless outside sources have noted StrategyWiki, well then it is not supposed to exist on Wikipedia. --Notmyhandle 01:32, 3 February 2007 (CST)
 * It needs to be notable so that it can be verifiable. I wouldn't bother putting an article about this site on there unless it has at least three outside sources (not here, or blogs, but gaming sites might due).  Or perhaps one major news story (like a cnn/nbc kind of thing).  As far as I know we've gotten some attention for challenging gamefaqs, but that isn't notability in itself. -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 08:29, 3 February 2007 (CST)
 * What do you guys think of these sources? I am hesitant to say that they alone are enough, but I do think that they would serve well in our defense should our notability be challenged. If we need more sources, perhaps we can simply look into help--I know of a reporter at Wired, for instance.  ech elon  23:57, 3 February 2007 (CST)
 * I believe the key here is to get increasingly notable press for our project. I would like to start seeing GameFAQs regulars switching over to StrategyWiki; a Wikipedia article would only serve as an additional claim to our relevance, and though such would not be the ultimate measure of our project's worth I do believe it can and will serve as a talking point in converting GameFAQs contributors into StrategyWiki contributors. It is ultimately these people of whom we must garner the respect and support of. Random articles and Diggs may help us get more traffic, but they alone will not likely net us the hardcore contributors.  ech elon  00:07, 4 February 2007 (CST)
 * Maybe it's time we got slashdotted. Oh, and a better server while we're at it. GarrettTalk 01:34, 4 February 2007 (CST)


 * I think the Kotaku, MIT Convergence Culture Consortium, Joystiq, and perhaps lifehacker are all good don't bother with digg or delicious obviously.  It'll be a tough call to be sure on notability.  The only thing that could cause us problems is if we don't directly follow policy.  We can't attempt to game the system and using sockpuppets will sadly put our site in a more negative light.  I think we should start the article and use those three (perhaps four) articles as sources.  Ensure that all the information is sourced and meaningful to people outside of just this small group here.  -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 18:45, 4 February 2007 (CST)
 * I doubt the article will have much length, but why not give it a try. Even if it gets deleted eventually we can bring it back. --Notmyhandle 20:18, 4 February 2007 (CST)
 * Just to note, we do get classed in the top 100k websites according to Alexa, though thats only on Sundays... it'll take a little while before our 3 month avg is above 100k. -- Prod (Talk) 22:34, 4 February 2007 (CST)


 * I added our site to the list of sites using MediaWiki, which could count as a reliable source (sort of) because all links on that page are checked for the fact that they A:exist and B:do use MediaWiki. --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 20:41, 7 February 2007 (CST)

qif, switch, parser functions, and meta
First of all, I noticed that qif is protected, but switch is not. I wonder if that's intentional or an oversight, since they are both "control" templates.

I'm also wondering whether the possibility of installing ParserFunctions has be examined and rejected, or if it has not been considered before. I believe it's supposed to be better (for the server) compared to implementing controls via hacking the template system.

Finally, can interwiki links be implemented for meta? I was gonna link to meta's article on ParserFunctions first, then when previewing discovered that didn't work, and had to change the interlink to wikipedia instead... (too lazy to copy the entire path for meta). Or if it's already in, can someone tell me the syntax for it? (I tried both m: and meta:, neither worked). -Afker 01:55, 26 February 2007 (CST)
 * Link These would be quite useful. -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 09:12, 26 February 2007 (CST)


 * And did you mean wikimedia or mediawiki? I assume the first, but both might be useful, I suggest wm and mw respectively if this is done. -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 09:14, 26 February 2007 (CST)
 * I say we stick to what wikipedia does. -- Prod (Talk) 10:03, 26 February 2007 (CST)
 * works (that's what Meta used to be called). Not sure about MediaWiki.org. GarrettTalk 13:05, 26 February 2007 (CST)


 * Do you guys still want the parser functions installed? We're upgraded to MW 1.9--doesn't it support some kind of internal parsing?  ech elon  23:21, 28 February 2007 (CST)
 * I'm not familar with the new features in 1.9, but Wikipedia is on 1.10 alpha and still has parser function installed. So I would conjecture that 1.9's new features still doesn't cover the features provided by parser functions. -Afker 00:27, 1 March 2007 (CST)

Request to change wikia interwiki url
Currently, interwiki links of the form  $1  gets parsed as  http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Index.php/$1 . I would like to request it being changed to  http://www.wikia.com/wiki/$1  so that it will work with wikia's own redirect feature. Thank you. -Afker 04:01, 26 February 2007 (CST)

Buttons Over Edit Window
I've found that the buttons above the edit box are wierd when the edit is previewed here, I'm not sure if it's something that I've done or the upgrade to 1.9, can someone please help--Rocky   ( Talk Contributions ) 13:40, 26 February 2007 (CST)
 * Note: by "weird", it is meant that they're floating at the bottom of the rightmost TOC list. --DrBob (Talk) 13:51, 26 February 2007 (CST)


 * Oops, my bad, it's probably 1.9 because it wasn't like that before but I'd like to know why--Rocky
 * I've noticed this too. A clear break (-) at the very end will fix it at least for editing, but I don't know what effect that will have on other pages. GarrettTalk 15:21, 26 February 2007 (CST)
 * Yes. http://strategywiki.org/w/skins/BlueCloud/index.css needs to have "#toolbar { clear: both; }" added to it. --DrBob (Talk) 11:08, 28 February 2007 (CST)
 * Just for the record, our live index.css file is actually located at http://66.225.234.224/w/skins/BlueCloud/index.css since it's a static file and thttpd handles static files much better than Apache can. The other copy on strategywiki.org is just a dead CSS file.--Dan 08:02, 2 March 2007 (CST)
 * Initially after the upgrade we were using the non-thttpd copy by mistake. We'll switch to thttpd now for all skin files and uploads. I would like to see it have an alternate URL such as 'media.strategywiki.org', though since it'd be much more professional.  ech elon  09:28, 2 March 2007 (CST)

Policy Question
Is it against policy/rules to post a link on your userpage to something beneficial to you; i.e. a game like outwars, or your own personal website? --Notmyhandle 19:53, 1 March 2007 (CST)
 * If we're following wikipedia policy, as long as you don't break any laws, do whatever you want in your userspace. -- Prod (Talk) 19:56, 1 March 2007 (CST)
 * Yeah, I've been encouraging Snesmaster not to advertise his websites everywhere but his userpage, where I told him that was encouraged. So have at it.  Procyon 20:24, 1 March 2007 (CST)

Boxart Question
I was wondering, what is the general concensus on boxart images here? I've seen some of the boxart, such as that for Final Fantasy XII, and the image... looks a little weird (which I commented on the pages talk page), and at some point or other I'm going to upload a better image for it, but what about PAL covers? Do you include those too, as there is a large portion of PAL gamers and games out here, and some of the PAL covers are more aesthetically pleasing than some of the NTSC or Japanese covers. It's a minor point, but I've discovered from my time at Wikipedia that edit wars have started over less :-P


 * See Hyper Street Fighter II and Namco Museum Battle Collection for examples on how to handle that. Procyon 08:09, 2 March 2007 (CST)


 * I have FFXII that I lent to soemone, I may be able to get a better shot of it when I get it back, although I'd like to see the PAL art. -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 09:41, 2 March 2007 (CST)


 * Why not have animated .GIF files for the boxart that rotate through the different versions? I agree that (in the case of Final Fantasy games especially) alternative PAL artwork often looks much better.LeftHandedGuitarist 12:38, 2 March 2007 (CST)


 * Absolutely not. Animated GIFs should be used sparingly, and only for sprites, or complicated maneuvers that aren't easily explained.  Any of the box arts can be featured as the "primary" art in the infobox.  The remaining images should be included in a gallery on the front page.  Procyon 13:37, 2 March 2007 (CST)


 * I agree with Procyon. Animated GIFs are just a bit over the top for something that mundane.  A gallery is a little more clean and presentable.-- Duke  Ruckley  15:04, 2 March 2007 (CST)