User talk:Najzere

Achievement images
Can you re-categorize some of these images: Category:Achievements? -- Prod (Talk) 14:02, 16 October 2010 (CDT)
 * Okay, fixed. — najzere T 14:43, 16 October 2010 (CDT)

Image Categories
I see that every time i upload an image that someone has to fix the category. Now I've read the image upload page along with the image categorization page and i'm still doing it wrong could you point out my flaws so i can better understand it along with saving you guys some time. Please and Thank you. KimbleTHEcommie 22:42, 19 October 2010 (CDT)
 * I think you're just missing the guide-specific image category. The way I do it is copy/paste the name from the main guide page (e.g. God of War: Chains of Olympus), then put "images" after it, so it makes . The guide-specific image category always gets the guide's full name, so this way you know it will be correct. As far as I know you put the right image categories on, like  or , and you put the game name or some abbreviation of it in the image name, so I think you're all set. Good luck! —  najzere T 00:07, 20 October 2010 (CDT)
 * ZOMG thank you i thought i was going to start pissing people off again about my categorization, even though it's just a minor mishap i'll make sure to do my dardest to not mess not making any guaranties just trying to save all the sysops from minor adjustments. Thank you. I have a favor to ask how do you set up an edit count???? i'm stumbled o.0. Any help greatly appreciated. KimbleTHEcommie 00:25, 20 October 2010 (CDT)
 * No problem about the image categories. I edited your bluecloud.js with the edit counter code. Just go to your user page and if you don't see a link for "Edit counter" in the list on the right, press CtrlF5 to refresh. Hope that helps. :D — najzere T 00:30, 20 October 2010 (CDT)

Ok thank you for editing my bluecloud.js i see the link but theres no table is that suppose to be right? Google Chrome nothing happens at all, and Mozzila i just see the link is this right? KimbleTHEcommie 00:48, 20 October 2010 (CDT)
 * Yep, you've run it twice so far. If you want to display it on your user page, you can add somewhere and it will be transcluded. —  najzere T 00:52, 20 October 2010 (CDT)
 * Alright thank you for all of your help now one last thing (he hates me by now) where and how do you get the thank you boxes? so i can send you one ;)!KimbleTHEcommie 01:01, 20 October 2010 (CDT)
 * Information on thank yous and how to use them is on the thank you template page. Hope that helps. :D — najzere T 01:10, 20 October 2010 (CDT)

Like i said here you go: A little thank you… For For helping me out in so many ways you couldn't count on your hands and feet (All in one day). ., KimbleTHEcommie 01:15, 20 October 2010 (CDT) KimbleTHEcommie 01:15, 20 October 2010 (CDT)
 * Thanks bro! — najzere T 01:16, 20 October 2010 (CDT)

God of War History?
Ok i didn't know who to ask this but you since your one of the few who've played any part in the GoW series. Do you think its beneficial to add some Greek History to God of War: Chains of Olympus walkthrough or would it be a waste of time per-say? KimbleTHEcommie 02:01, 20 October 2010 (CDT)
 * That would be outside of our scope for a game guide. Best to leave Greek history and mythology to Wikipedia and just focus on how to beat the game here on StrategyWiki. :) — najzere T 02:05, 20 October 2010 (CDT)

Goldeneye 007
I've been waiting for that moment for a long time for the Wii. Well, like NBA Jam, I couldn't decide for that title as well. I like to start a new page, but I don't like to get into such confusion that I end up getting mixed up. I regret the last time with Marvel Ultimate Alliance and Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2.

On a side note, I do wonder if Goldeneye 007 might be a worthy collaberation. I'll just have to wait and see. Anyway, you're good with pages in article.

Thanks. Johnnyauau2000 23:43, 3 November 2010 (CDT)
 * I put the guide at GoldenEye 007 (2010), since it's for the DS too. If it turns out later that the DS version is different enough for its own guide, we can move the Wii guide to GoldenEye 007 (Wii). — najzere T 01:01, 4 November 2010 (CDT)


 * Sorry to bother but I'm not sure what I've down wrong. You should check recent changes and I find it hard to do pages. I thought I finish the page but from the front page title, it didn't happen. So if you can help straighten that area out so I won't have to do those things twice. You'll get what I mean. Johnnyauau2000 03:53, 22 November 2010 (CST)
 * I fixed some of the capitalization in some of the links and deleted the duplicates. -- Prod (Talk) 04:15, 22 November 2010 (CST)


 * Hello, you still there? I went through hell finishing Goldeneye 007 (2010). I don't know anyone else to turn to but I need someone to proof read all those pages I've done so far. I think my grammar can be questionable but because I don't have any screenshots, I have to improvise instead. Anyway, hopefully I'm not interrupting so take your time and have a good day. Johnnyauau2000 05:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Sengoku Rance
Greetings, I am the original person who did the "external linking" of Sengoku Rance articles here, back in 2007 before the External Links policy was in effect.

The original discussions relating to "offshoring" Sengoku Rance walkthroughs to the AliceSoftWiki can be found here: StrategyWiki_talk:Community_Portal/2007/February (that same archive has its own outdated discussion on external links).

From a practicality perspective, StrategyWiki now is a worse resource for the game Sengoku Rance, because previously it had at least the function of directing people to a place that has a comprehensive walkthrough. Now it has extremely sparse data on the game.

As the licenses are compatible between SW and AliceSoftWiki, I believe content on the AliceSoftWiki should have been copied here prior to the removal of the external links, in order to maintain StrategyWiki's usefulness with the game in question.

-Afker 19:38, 21 November 2010 (CST)
 * Feel free to copy whatever you like to StrategyWiki's guide if the license is compatible. Thanks for the update. — najzere T 20:54, 21 November 2010 (CST)
 * The license does require attribution when copying. I just re-looked at the external link policy, and right now I'm not sure how I would be able to properly attribute the original source. Would it make sense to expand the policy to handle the case of "copying content from other websites with compatible license"? -Afker 22:15, 21 November 2010 (CST)
 * Normally we put the attribution in the summary field when saving an edit to the page so it's preserved in the page's edit history. — najzere T 23:01, 21 November 2010 (CST)

Def Jam Fight for NY
Remember you did the page for Def Jam Vendetta, I wonder if you can also update Def Jam Fight for NY. It's not a pretty start and it will take me a while, not just the walkthrough but I haven't created the control page yet that show's what button to use for PS2, GC and Xbox. If you played this game (or not) it will be helpful for me. I'll confess that I'll only work on any game articles if there anything that inspires me to do so. Don't take it the wrong way but that's how I work now. Anyway, I hope you haven't given up on editing and I hope it's not too late to bring this article I'm working on up to speed. Thanks. Johnnyauau2000 09:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sly Cooper and the Thievius Raccoonus
Quite the nice guide you've got going there :). -- Prod (Talk) 03:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks bro. — najzere T 06:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Release dates
I've been looking at a lot of infoboxes recently, and was wondering, what's the point of including full release dates of the games? I'm thinking that having only the year of release might be easier, without reducing the usefulness of our info. The day of release isn't referenced, and is rarely verified, making us unusable from a reference perspective. There are also many easily accessible, superior references (like wikipedia). It doesn't provide any useful categorization information (two games released on the same day, but years apart, means nothing). It doesn't help players beat the game either. Finally, it would help shrink and consolidate some of the excessively long release date sections. What do you think (and anyone else who may see this edit)? -- Prod (Talk) 09:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me, although it's a slippery slope when you consider what does or doesn't add value with the criteria you've listed. The main page is basically a mirror of the most general parts of a Wikipedia article, which is nice because we can copy theirs with attribution, but it's not really meant to help anyone beat the game. It all depends on how in-depth you want to go. I can make an automated script to drop month and date from rd templates if you want. — najzere T 14:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea, most of the main intro paragraph is generally useless, and a restatement of the infobox in words. I'm sure it could be purged if we found something better to replace it with :).  And when i say, "doesn't help players beat the game", I mean that I've maybe looked at 2 past release dates unless I was setting up the infobox (ie. very few people have a reason to look at it).  I would want to keep the future release template as is though, because knowing when a game will come out is definitely useful!  I'll get some more feedback, and perhaps take it to a general site-wide discussion (huge change), and then we can figure out automation. -- Prod (Talk) 19:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It makes sense to me. I'll agree to having just the year for release dates. -- 20:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I kind of agree with each of you for different reasons. I agree with Naj that there's little reason to remove the dates, but I would agree that there's little reason to categorize the dates.  I was always more in favor of categorizing the year alone and year/month combo instead of a month/date combo.  I personally think the dates should be left in the infoboxes, it doesn't hurt to have them there but it could hurt to remove them.  But I would support taking out the automatic categorization of the date from the rd template.  I'm a big stickler for release dates, and I doubt I'm alone.  So I would say the infobox should contain the full release date, but we only categorize on the year.  As for the intro stuff, yeah, by in large, we copy from WP, but some users (including myself) differentiate a little and put interesting info in there.  It's largely meant as a trivia block (what is this game, why was it made, what effect did it have, what systems was it released for, etc.)  The only real shame in my mind is that we can't somehow use the full release date as a sort criteria on the system categories (e.g. if I wanted to see Category:NES sorted by release date.  The info is present, I just don't know how we could achieve that.)  Pro  cyon  20:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I only used date categories to find games that came out on my birthday. Anyway, it won't save any infobox room unless we get rid of separate dates for country. If a game was released in three countries in 2008, can we just have one line that says the year? Would we then need another infobox field to list the available countries? Does anyone use or care about country in our English wiki? — najzere T 15:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * One line per country wouldn't be too bad, and it would help shorten things like this. What we would need is a cleaner way of displaying which consoles it was released for when.  With this example, we'd need one line for jp in 2007 on 360/ps3, and then one line for jp on all other systems, and then three lines for 2008 in eu/aus/us.  I'm not sure if that's the best way, but we'll have to figure it out.  I also realized we may not be able to bot this since we would have to consolidate dates properly.  This would turn into a cleanup job over the next few months.
 * Procyon: What use are they if they aren't accurate? With the guides, if someone says "go left" and it's supposed to be "go right", every gamer following the guide will see the problem and has the chance to correct it (and hopefully one does).  With dates, the person who sets up the initial page sets it, and it's only ever re-checked if it's re-released.  It doesn't benefit from having lots of people checking it. We also don't require references, making it effectively impossible to verify. Wikipedia is generally a better source for these dates, and any corrections made here, are better off being made there.  -- Prod (Talk) 20:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)