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. If your question does not pertain to editing StrategyWiki (i.e. 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 two hyphens and four tildes: --~ )

MultipleUpload
The author has fixed the file overwriting bug in his extension, so are we ready to use this again? — najzere T 15:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Subtoc Content Headers
Mock version of my idea in the works on my sandbox.
 * What I would like to do
 * 1) Choose an arbitrary number (i.e. four rows of content) to establish the point at which guide ToC's should require modular summarization (this applies to large guides like MMORPGs).
 * 2) Create a standard set of templates and a usage policy for using and implementing modular, summarized sections of ToCs.
 * 3) Implement this on MapleStory/Table of Contents.


 * A summary of related thoughts
 * 1) Many individual MapleStory pages are exceeding the "warning" limit; in some cases by 3x or more (over 100KB).
 * 2) The MapleStory guide is our primary traffic generator for the website, so it should be used to set the precedent.
 * 3) The MapleStory Table of Contents has the capacity to be expanded more efficiently to better organize topics.
 * 4) Recent edits made by suggest that we should break down certain page headers into more accessible, expanded topics (he focused on Party Quests).
 * 5) I want to use Subtoc-like templates to minimize the default ToC size, and allow us to expand topics without worrying about spacing issues.
 * 6) We have never used Subtoc for a topic (i.e. for a column header); only expansions that act like H1 headers.


 * Why I posted it here
 * 1) Our community meetings are where we get things done, and that is a rare event that I have trouble attending.
 * 2) We used to decide things on the Community Portal talk page, but no longer use that page.
 * 3) Our forums are rarely patrolled or concluded upon because they are separate from the wiki, and I know all of the admins have this on their watch page.
 * 4) We can use this space to better organize our thoughts using templates if need be.

-- 06:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've always thought we could improve our organization a lot by including some helpful JavaScript, but the problem has always been that not everyone has it turned on. Recently I've been trying to find some figures on how many people really surf with JS turned off, but apparently it's not the most reliable thing to track. Most numbers I've seen haven't been any higher than 5%, which seems pretty small to me. Although I wouldn't want to make anything inaccessible to non-JS users, I don't want 95% of viewers to suffer for them either.


 * The workaround on other wikis is to switch display of collapsible elements to none with JS so that it will just be fully expanded for non-JS viewers. This wasn't necessary in the Header Nav so far, because there was a link to the ToC if someone couldn't get at it with JS. However, by putting hidden content in the ToC itself, even a link isn't going to be helpful. Someone with JS off will have to edit the page to get at a guidepage link, or use the PrefixIndex. The problem with collapsing the elements on page load, is that with slower browsers you're still going to see that huge list at the beginning and you'll have to wait for it to "shrink back up". It's just kind of ugly watching pages adjust themselves while you wait.


 * Personally, I'm in favor of using more JavaScript, since I feel like most people use it and if they don't, they can always turn it on for our site. If it doesn't interfere too much with certain bots and RSS (if we even have one), would it be too annoying for something server-side to send viewers to a splash page letting them know we use JS elements and how to turn it on in the major browsers? That would help people that have turned it off in the past on someone's advice, but don't know how to turn it back on. On the other hand, would it be too difficult to maintain and load a separate non-JS table of contents for those people? Lastly, if collapsible/expandable elements do get used in the ToC, I suggest we modify the look a bit to differentiate between actual subtocs and normal content expansions. — najzere T 15:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm all for supporting this. I'm not sure of the best possible implementation, but almost anything could be helpful.-- 20:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We have been stymied by visual limitations every time we begin to add "too much" content. I disagree with Najzere in that I don't believe JS is an issue for readers. Those who disable JS know how to enable it, and will be aware of how websites look. We wouldn't be the first website to have content that requires JS interpretation. I used to disable JS so I wouldn't have to see advertisements - when you do this, it changes all websites significantly. -- 00:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I used Heroes of Might and Magic V as a testing ground for collapsible elements. I used collapsible tables to solve some of the awkward whitespace issues we were having with subtoc templates in side-by-side columns. Used with the tables is the toctable template, which adds the "collapsible" class and collapses the tables if they're not on the main page or the Table of Contents page. As you can see on the main game page, the Table of Contents is fully expanded, as is the case with the Table of Contents page. If you look on the one guide page, you can see the tables are collapsed in the Header and Footer navs.

Obviously there are some style issues, like changing the colors and making the top header row different from the specific section header row beneath. Also, the tables aren't collapsing on the expansion pack pages for some reason. Although this wasn't my intention, I'm undecided on whether that's a good thing or not. Anyway, let's discuss it, and if we can work out functionality issues, maybe we can come up with a CSS class to tie in the look. — najzere T 17:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I think we only need one page to be fully expanded for non-JavaScript users, so I modified the toctable template to only expand tables on the Table of Contents page. Now the main pages aren't so long. — najzere T 18:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So far I like what I see. Unfortunately I don't have much to add to the discussion, keeping it collapsed on the main page definitely seems to help, and serves the purpose of the elements as I originally understood it. Colors are always a tough decision, but once we have some CSS in place individuals can override them. -- 20:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it's all controlled with CSS so that's not a problem. We just need to tweak it to fit in with the look of current ToCs for BlueCloud. -- 20:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Made an update to use the toc-table class and simplified the toctable usage: {| Now it's more like how prettytable is used. The look is less table-like now, so unless everyone decides they like all the lines and boxes like a table, it would be easier to use the existing NavFrame classes with content lists split up by col templates like the rest of the ToC. Still need input on colors and style if anyone else has some ideas. — najzere T 23:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've set the width to maximize itself to whatever it is placed into (like divs). This will also center the header for the table. I briefly experimented with aligning the content of the cells to the top, but have had to manually place that in the tables. I also upgraded the size of the headings to match a normal ToC heading (H2). -- 00:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The table width and vertical alignment are set in the toc-table class, so it won't be necessary to add those if we end up using the table. Also in the class, the size of headings is set at 1.2em (the equivalent of h3), so it can be adjusted there as well. If you like the plain look for the contents and a simple heading bar, the NavFrame would probably be easier, and the show/hide tag would float right instead of pushing the heading over. If you want to add the CSS to your personal style sheets you can see how it looks. — najzere T 00:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So, as far as I understand the "toc-table" class hasn't been defined yet (I can't find it in any of the CSS sheets, and it isn't loaded when I view a page using toctable). If I'm wrong can you point me to the page? I've added a toctable example to my sandbox for comparisons. -- 01:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Here you go. — najzere T 04:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah that's no fun. You should have just hardcoded it into the template. I had no idea you were holding out on us. -- 07:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The template only styles the table, so to get to header and normal cell styles, you'd have to turn the whole table into a template or put individual styles directly into the table like you did with the Might and Magic V ToC. Working with the NavFrame class on your Sandbox page, I ran into some difficulties: you can't use h2 or h3 in the header, since they are divs of their own which push the show/hide toggle down off the header bar, and also the show/hide toggle itself is sized relatively (as "smaller"), which is why they're so large in the Sandbox. Lastly, I think the collapsible elements are too big at H2 level, since they're about as big as the subtocs, which separate a whole different game. — najzere T 15:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Help with Bloody Roar 3
I've been trying to find out information for it, but I'm not sure which is correct. Wikipedia shows it's for 3 consoles, but Gamefaqs lists it only for a console and arcade. Which is right? The article on here has just a copy and paste from Wikipedia right now. RobJ1981 05:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The answer lies in the article itself: Its successor, Bloody Roar: Primal Fury was created for the Nintendo GameCube and was later ported to the Xbox as Bloody Roar Extreme. Wikipedia is treating these as the same game, whereas here we list fighting game remixes separately. GarrettTalk 07:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have recently been comparing Bloody Roar 3 to Bloody Roar: Primal Fury for the GC. The graphics and game modes are completely different. The only thing they share is move lists I think. They should probably all exist separately.--Zaiqukaj 18:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)