StrategyWiki:Staff lounge/2007/November

Steel Gunner and Steel Gunner 2
Even though I have only started guides for these games today, I have been experiencing serious problems with them in MAME - I cannot get the crosshairs to move at all! Can somebody please tell me how I can? The crosshairs on the other lightgun games I have, such as Golly! Ghost! and Gun Bullet work fine, but the ones on both Steel Gunner games just stay in the centre of the screen. I will be most grateful to whoever tells me how I can get them to move, and if he ever needs help on a guide for a game by Namco, I'd be more than happy to give it to him. --Namcorules 10:31, 6 November 2007 (CST)
 * You need to calibrate the light gun (the more accurately you calibrate it the better the emulated light gun will respond). You don't need to bother configuring the second player's light gun unless you are actually going to be using it. After the initial calibration MAME will remember the setting. GarrettTalk 15:47, 6 November 2007 (CST)

guide neutrality
I was working on de-driveling some guides and some confusion on neutrality came up. Do things like "this aspect of the game is fun" and "this spell has a cool/stupid animation" belong in the guides? I can understand keeping it if it's an actual description but seeing vague short quips like this seem more like opinions that reflect a specific author than facts or descriptions. --Zaiqukaj 05:32, 11 November 2007 (CST)
 * Yeah, they're counted as drivel and should be removed as much as possible. Keep up the good work! :-D --DrBob (talk) 06:29, 11 November 2007 (CST)
 * Yeah, definately remove that drivel-ish stuff, but IMO guides really shouldn't be entirely neutral. In order to keep the reader engaged and playing the game, they should be exciting and have flair that makes them want more, instead of some boring encyclopedic article that bores you to tears. Of course, in that regard, the un-neutrality of the guide should be promoting the game, not demoting it ;) -- 20:18, 11 November 2007 (CST)

Mega Man/Megaman Name error
Hello Staff,

In trying to create a new page for the megaman series games, i misspelt the title of my page as 'Megaman Battle Network' instead of 'Mega Man Battle Network'. Considering that i cant change the name of the title, is it possible that one of you could do it for me? thanks in advance.Halosonic 15:23, 11 November 2007 (CST)
 * Done. You might want to consider using the "Main game page" pre-load template in future when creating new guides. --DrBob (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2007 (CST)

Question on templates
Hello Staff, i was wondering if it were possible for average users to create templates, or can this only occur for admins? thanks in Advance. Halosonic 17:54, 12 November 2007 (CST)
 * Yes, anyone can create a template. Just create a page in the Template namespace (aka create a page starting with Template:, no spaces between the colon and template name). Then, just call it elsewhere with -- 18:35, 12 November 2007 (CST)
 * I presume you plan to make a template for use in one guide; if so, please make sure to put it in the Category:Guide-specific templates category, and make sure that its title includes the initials of the game. --DrBob (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2007 (CST)
 * Ryan has been covering this topic 1 on 1, if anyone else is interested please check out both his and Halosonic's talk pages. -- 01:54, 13 November 2007 (CST)

Let the completed guides rise again!!!
Pop open the champagne bottles folks, we finally did it. All of the guide completion categories that were added to redirect pages have finally been removed. We are finally above 250 complete guides for the first time in a long time. Let's celebrate ^_^ Procyon (Talk) 19:48, 15 November 2007 (CST)
 * YAY ^_^ -- 21:05, 15 November 2007 (CST)
 * Wooooooooooooot Baejung92 23:03, 15 November 2007 (CST)
 * /train now we just need to get more! -- 01:15, 16 November 2007 (CST)

Lets aim for 300 completed by end of 2008, men! Halosonic 18:22, 21 November 2007 (CST)

Posting guides onto gamefaqs
(After the speed issues are sorted.) In order to try and promote this site, has anyone considered the idea of producing plain text versions of some of the guides here and posting them onto gamefaqs? The guide could have some blurb at the top explaining and linking to strategywiki. You never know - some people might see the guides there, want to improve them or want to read more, and so come to this site. There could be an official strategywiki username on gamefaqs to do the posting, so that they all come under the same 'author'. Pelago 17:01, 20 November 2007 (CST)


 * Absolutely not. The idea is to attract readers away from GF, not give them another good reason to go there.  Besides, a guide on SW is alive and constantly updated.  I know I wouldn't want to be responsible for merging and submitting updates to GF, and I can't imagine anyone would want to be either.  There are far better avenues of promotion than GF, we simply need man power and dedicated time to achieve them.
 * I also disagree, although I do have a good name there (hint: It's my MapleStory IGN) in case we do figure out a good method of getting them to come here. -- 17:20, 20 November 2007 (CST)


 * But since our stuff is GFDL, can't someone else make a compilation and then throw contributor names on it and be good to go? -- 03:55, 21 November 2007 (CST)
 * Yes they could. But would doing so actually attract new editors? If we put the best of our stuff on GameFAQs that might well help them more than us as that's yet another game people can find help on there instead of elsewhere. GarrettTalk 04:15, 21 November 2007 (CST)
 * The problem with the user "StrategyWiki" and using our content is that GameFAQs editors/admin or whatever may be inclined to deny us acceptance based on oversaturation of guides already existing on the site as well as being a potential "advertisement" - however it's completely legitimate so if they were to do that it would be BS. -- 16:54, 21 November 2007 (CST)
 * It might help us get recognition due to the high level of traffic they get. However, it might be fun to just send them a guide purely to enjoy the ethical/business dilemma they will be put in :D.  However, we'd have to have a guide with good content, that they don't have much for, that can survive without images, which isn't exactly easy for us. -- Prod (Talk) 17:17, 21 November 2007 (CST)
 * I think I have a plan: how about writing up just a bare-ish guide (aka not in-depth) of a game that we have at cs4 and that gamefaqs doesn't have much on. Then, we mention in the top and bottom that the full version is here at strategywiki. Also, as I've said earlier, I have a perfect account name there for this ;) -- 18:16, 21 November 2007 (CST)
 * Gentlemen, while I certainly won't (or can't) stop any of you from pursuing this, I see absolutely no value in any of this. For one thing, as I mentioned above, the concept behind SW is that every guide is "alive" and theoretically under constant revision.  We also represent the death of plain text.  I don't understand how you intend to advertise both of these features by contributing a static text-only file to our perceived competition.  In order for it to be worthwhile, it would need to become one of their most sought-after FAQs, and I don't think the average FAQ reader even gives the preamble or posttext very much consideration at all.  As I said above, there are many better forms of promotion, and the plan here is like Burger King giving McDonalds a burger to try and sell in Burger King wrapping.  The wrapping ends up in the trash.  Procyon (Talk) 19:28, 21 November 2007 (CST)
 * +1 --DrBob (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2007 (CST)
 * This is absolutely the worst idea. Many have said it before: we are trying to bring people away from GameFaqs. The way I see it, you can't promote the San Francisco Chronicle in the New York Times--it isn't going to work. Nothing will change. I'd rather we got our own search ranking higher than we helped GameFaqs. -- towers  http://media.strategywiki.org/images/a/a8/Towers_trex.gif 22:05, 21 November 2007 (CST)

Staff lounge and Community issues
Is there a good distinction between this page and StrategyWiki talk:Community Portal? In other words, why are there two pages? Should they be merged into one? Pelago 17:06, 20 November 2007 (CST)


 * Community Issues are open forums for people to post ideas about how guides should be arranged, or how certain developments on the site take place. Staff lounge serves two general purposes; first as a central location for new users to ask experienced users for technical help with guide development, and second as a place for the staff to communicate with one another about trivial issues that don't need to be brought up in CI.  Procyon (Talk) 17:16, 20 November 2007 (CST)

StrategyGenre
While viewing Advance Wars 2: Black Hole Rising, I saw that the infobox says the genre is Strategy (turn-based). I then realized that there is a Category:Strategy and also Category:Turn-based strategy. What is the distinction? Maybe we can get rid of the strategy category, and just be left with Category:RTS and Category:Turn-based strategy. New User 18:42, 21 November 2007 (CST)
 * The Strategy category has games like Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney, which, to my knowledge, has nothing to do with either real-time or turn-based strategy, along with actual RTSes like Rise of Nations. So I'm guessing this is probably a category for games under the very general definition of "strategy". Also, overcategorization maybe? Baejung92 21:39, 21 November 2007 (CST)
 * Let's break it down then. We all know what RTS is (StarCraft, etc.) and what TBS is (board game like action, Risk anyone?), but for general "strategy games" we need to reclassify.  Pheonix Wright, what sort of game is that?  Puzzle (Mystery/Deduction?)?  -- 22:55, 21 November 2007 (CST)
 * Phoenix Wright is an adventure game. -- Prod (Talk) 22:59, 21 November 2007 (CST)
 * I have never played, nor seen, Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney, but from a gameplay description I just read it sounds like an Adventure game. I looked over the games in the Strategy category, and the games in the Turn-based strategy category, and some of these games I am familiar with.  Games like the Civilization series (here listed under Turn-based strategy) I have always called strategy games.  Games like Final Fantasy Tactics and Disgaea: Hour of Darkness, I have often heard referred to as tactics games, or turn-based tactics, or tactics RPG or something similar.  I have also heard them called strategy games, or turn-based strategy games.  As Notmyhandle says, I don't think there is any problem defining RTS.  My proposal is that all strategy games that are not RTS (and that are therefore turn-based), including the tactics RPG type, should be placed into the Category:Turn-based strategy. New User 23:10, 21 November 2007 (CST)


 * Why not separate them completely? Check out Tactical role-playing game, Turn-based tactics, and Real-time tactics. -- 23:54, 21 November 2007 (CST)

A friend of mine has Phoenix Wright, and from what I've seen it definitely doesn't belong in any type of strategy categories. Also, what Notmyhandle suggested above sounds good to me. Although tactical RPGs are turn-based, it's not the same kind of strategy as RTS or TBS to start with. Baejung92 13:35, 22 November 2007 (CST)
 * It seems to me that adding three more categories (or two if we get rid of Category:Strategy) would just make things more complicated, but I don't have very much experience with wiki editing. After looking at the wikipedia articles referenced by Notmyhandle, I see that some wikipedia editor(s) categorized Tactical role-playing game as a subgenre of turn-based tactics.  Also, even though I see a slight difference from RTS and the real-time tactics genre described on wikipedia (I have never played any of the example games), the only difference appears to be that the real-time tactics genre doesn't include resource collection.  That is such a small difference that I would still consider those to be RTS games, but since I haven't played any I guess I can't justly make an opinion there.  So, as long as I am not the only one that thinks to current strategy categories aren't the most efficient way to arrange things, how about we get rid of the Category:Strategy, and be left with Category:RTS, Category:Turn-based strategy (for games like the Civilization series and Master of Orion), and then form Category:Turn-based tactics (for games like Final Fantasy Tactics and Disgaea: Hour of Darkness), and we can form Category:Real-time tactics if necessary for games like Midieval: Total War. This will should make a total of four categories, where there now exists three. New User 13:52, 23 November 2007 (CST)
 * It's hard to say, as different people use different genre names for various games. I would say that the most specific applicable category should be used, and that there should be a category for Tactical/Strategy RPGs (afaik most people that prescribe genres for RPGs call them SRPGs). Further division could be made on turn-based vs. real time, but really there are only a small number of real-time SRPGs to date (Heroes of Mana and Final Fantasy XII: Revenant Wings are the only ones that come to mind right now). Much like any other time genres are used to categorize something, we can fall into the trap of having one sub-genre after another, and may end up finding it simpler just to have broad genres and possibly use multiple genres for games that borrow heavily from more than one (actually most of the SRPGs I have quickly checked do this using Category:Strategy, Category:RPG). It may also be useful to have a hierarchy (if possible), so that Category:RTS shows up under Category:Strategy. -Vizeroth 17:49, 28 January 2008 (CST)


 * Yeah we don't use encompassing, single genres (like Action Platform Strategy Tactical Turn-based RPG, or something xD), but rather the elements of the game (Category:Strategy, and Category:RPG are listed for Final Fantasy Tactics, however Turn-based and Tactics should as well). -- 23:32, 28 January 2008 (CST)
 * Actually, since the cats don't exist, this is more a site-wide policy issue, which needs to be discussed more. -- 23:47, 28 January 2008 (CST)

position on talk page archiving
Just wondering what the accepted length to archive at is for personal talk pages. Clearly I am nowhere near that, but I'm curious. -- towers  http://media.strategywiki.org/images/a/a8/Towers_trex.gif 03:02, 27 November 2007 (CST)
 * It's by user discretion, once you feel your page is annoyingly long, then archive it if you want. See User talk:DrBob for an annoyingly long talk page.  I usually archive if the topics have also been dead for a long time and no longer need to be present.  -- 04:56, 27 November 2007 (CST)
 * Thanks for reminding me; talk page archived. --DrBob (talk) 11:13, 27 November 2007 (CST)
 * Cool, thanks. That's sort of what I thought. -- towers  http://media.strategywiki.org/images/a/a8/Towers_trex.gif 12:50, 27 November 2007 (CST)