StrategyWiki talk:Community Portal

This page is for discussion of general community issues; if you just want to ask a question to more experienced users of the site, please use the staff lounge. To start a new thread [ click here]. Resolved threads are gradually archived; see the archives box to the right.

A new skin is under development. If you have any suggestions, please add them to the list

Site Problems
I'm having problems with the site, half the images aren't showing even thought they're there and it's changing skins to a very very basic one, does any1 know how to fix this.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 01:57, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * about 52/200 images are showing in categories
 * There's a problem with the media server which holds all the images and themes. It'll be fixed. --DrBob (Talk) 04:29, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm not exactly sure what was the cause of the issue, but whatever it was, it's now fixed.--Dan 08:11, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Was thttpd down? I wonder if there's a way to check whether or not it is actively running so that if it ever crashes we can restart it. I do know for a fact that when the server restarts thttpd fails to restart. :(  ech elon  23:20, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Well I think it's down again now but it's not as bad as before.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 02:14, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I just restarted thttpd. I don't know what the issue is. :( I'm thinking of making a PHP script (for Sysops) that allows people without server access to run the startup command using php's exec or something similar. (I wonder if that would work? I'll look into it when I wake up tomorrow.)  ech  elon  02:31, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Well it's gone again, (I thought it was just my PC 'till I looked at images).Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 16:09, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

Undo Revision
When you press the undo link when looking between diffs the summary is wrong, it says (Undo revision 128080 by Special:Contributions/Rocky (User talk:Rocky)) whereas it should say (Undo revision 128080 by Rocky (talk)), can sum1 change this please.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 03:55, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
 * done. -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 07:26, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Great, thanks!
 * Sorry, is there a way to stop it saying that I haven't provided a summary even though the text is in the box.Thanks.Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 15:53, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Thats a check box in your settings. Its there for people like me who are anal about always filling out the summary field.  --Argash 17:52, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
 * That's actually the problem, I've got the box checked but when I use the undo feature, it puts a lot of text in the box but a message appears saying that I haven't provided a summary, try it out here, feel free to save.Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 00:44, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
 * It worked for me just now. Are you using MonoBook instead of Blue Cloud? Sounds like a JS error or something. GarrettTalk 00:55, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
 * It's probably IE6 then (sigh). It still happens for me, just a question though, do you have prompt me when not entering an edit summary ticked in preferences?Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 01:08, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
 * No I don't, but the Blue Cloud-specific JS equivalent kicks in anyway. You could always try adding an arbitrary character (a space, even) to see if that is enough to satisfy the check. GarrettTalk 03:24, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Actually, the js is enabled in MonoBook as well, and it requires at least five characters for the summary to be "valid" (no idea why its messing up with undo revision though, as it has an auto summary) --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 08:06, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Actually the limit is only in FF, I only realised when I tried editing in FF, that's why I use "more" in my to do, there's no warning or anything, also my summary now doesn't give a warning.Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 10:20, 30 April 2007 (CDT)

Determining Completion Level
Just out of curiosity how is a guides completion level determined? Is it just each editors best guess? Or is there a formal process? --Argash 23:36, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Right now its just editor best guess. We have very generalized levels at the moment; but its based on the walkthrough part of the article.  Refer to Category:Guides by completion stage for more information.  Later on, when the community gets much larger I assume we will start having a review process/committee groups start going through and actually assesing them.  But for now its pretty simple, i.e. nothing, something, more than just a little, almost done, done.  --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 23:42, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I would have to agree. Right now we're not large enough to require the kind of bureaucracy that would mandate a committee or voting on completion level. For now, if there's a dispute the best way to settle it is to use the talk page or community portal. If you ever feel something doesn't match its completion level, just edit it. Be bold!  ech elon  15:18, 25 April 2007 (CDT)

Mobile Phone games/genre
When working on ActRaiser I noticed that Wikipedia has the game listed under Mobile Phones as a platform, since Square Enix made a version of the game in 2003 for such a platform (according to Wikipedia). How do we accurately note this information? Should a general Mobile Phone genre be created? I don't have a cell phone, but what sort of software is involved? Does it make a difference? Do the cell phones themselves, the model or brand for instance, change anything besides availability of the games and software (engine)? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 20:40, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Category:Mobile. -- Prod (Talk) 20:41, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Mmk. Ambiguity for the win.  What should it be categorized under the game platform though?  Mobile Phone or just Mobile?  --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 22:04, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
 * The problem with the genre is that the game will probably be very different so we would need a disambig page for the game and that would be annoying with games that are already done or half done.Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 00:57, 27 April 2007 (CDT)
 * It's pretty much gaurenteed to be different, although since 2003 I assume much has developed in the way of cellphones. ActRaiser was a game that got reduced to a three level platformer.  --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 01:34, 27 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Actually for something like this we could probably do ActRaiser (disambiguation) and link to it at the top of the main ActRaiser page. I say that since the SNES version is WAY more common and what people would most likely be looking for.  Thats how disambig typically works on WP anyway and I don't see any reason why we shouldn't copy their policy on this.  --Argash 08:54, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

Interesting recent feedback
Hello everyone. I have recently been polling a lot of the retrogaming community about the layout and formats of our guides (specifically, but not exclusively, the ones that I have been focusing on), and I've received some interesting feedback that was not along the lines of what I expected. The predominant concern that I've heard is the lack of awareness of the existence of information beyond the front page of a game. Despite the fact that we include a Table of Contents link in the AGN, and despite the fact that we typically include a TOC somewhere on the front page, not everyone realized that these were actual functioning and complete links. And these are not unintelligent people by any means. One person commented that the The Legend of Zelda/Walkthrough, whose current content I am primarily responsible for, was very sparse. When I asked him what he thought of the content that the page links to (e.g. Underworld Level 3, Overworld Section 5, etc.), he did not realize that the blue words were hyperlinked. Again, these aren't dumb people, and I think they are primarily mislead by the preconceptions they have about FAQs and Walkthroughs in general, where everything of interest appears on one page. Our multi-page approach is even a departure from most Wikipedia articles.

By no means would I ever suggest that we revert to an archaic single-page format. However, I am beginning to reconsider how important it is to stress the existence of information beyond what can be found on the page they are currently looking at. For this reason, I am strongly considering moving the TOC's that I have listed on each of the main pages for the guides that I have created above the introduction! And not simply move it, but expand upon it so that it's clear what information can be found. For example (I'm using Pac-Man here): ...and so on. I'm not sure if this is overkill or not. I would prefer to leave the TOCs where they are, but perhaps that may lead to continued confusion over this issue. We know that the format we're using is good. I just wonder how effectively we are communicating this. How does everyone else feel? Thanks. Procyon (Talk) 13:00, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Controls & Characters: Descriptions of the game's controls as well as every player and enemy found in the game.
 * Gameplay tips: Learn the various features of the game, and survival techniques.
 * Home version comparisons: Find pictures and descriptions of every home conversion of this game made, as well as comparisons of their differences.
 * Looks great, we'll have to redesign it for bigger guides but it looks OK. IMO I think that we should make the TOC link stand out a bit more, on my first visit to the Chips Challenge page, the AGN was really confusing, It took me a few more visits to work out about the show button.Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 13:30, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I think this makes things just look really messy, and totally detracts from our vision of being organized. The newer game ToCs (as seen in OoT) have done a great job in attracting people to view other areas of the guide, mainly because they are near the top of the page and receive lots of screen space. Not in an entirely critical sense, your proposed format isn't clean as the descriptions, since each description are clumped next to each respective link and makes it stand out no more than any other paragraph. If our goal for the ToCs is to make them newbie-friendly and accessible, we should work with a system that already exists and works well, that ToC system being the one employed in the OoT guide. Immediately, anyone can recognize that it is the one stop place to navigate around the guide as it resembles a Table of Contents in a regular book, and anyone who has ever been through school or have seen a book to the least will be familar with this system, and thus know how to use it. The pros of this system go on and on and on, but I'd rather stop here and let you figure the rest out to your heart's content.--Dan 21:49, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I for one really dislike having descriptors next to ToC links; its messy, unnecessary unless you're brand new to the site and don't understand what "introduction" or "getting started" or "controls" or "characters" means. When someone goes to a page, the top should have a small note in italics if there is any confusion about another page that contains related but separate information; i.e. character bios versus move lists.  Luckily we often make the information duplicated so that both pages contain the same thing.  Reiteration is quite powerful, but unnecessary if excessive.  --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 22:11, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Dan, I completely agree with you about LOZ:OOT (although I personally hate how much white space exists between the intro and the TOC. We should get at least one image in there to fill the space.)  But that format only works well for guides that require such a large TOC, like OOT, or Pokemon, etc.  It's much more difficult to generate that many pages for older games, and at the same time, we want to avoid throwing all of the content on one page.  The result is the 4~6 or so page template that I've been following.  I'm just not certain how to highlight the TOC more than it is (in both navs and in the center of the page.)  Maybe it really is just a matter of experience.  Maybe there is a "learning curve" to using StrategyWiki, and some casual users may not catch on unless they visit frequently enough.  I don't think that's an adequate conclusion to the matter, but I don't have any other ideas. Procyon (Talk) 22:46, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm blank on ideas as well, but I do know for one thing that if we don't call something a Table of Contents and instead call it "In depth", you won't find many people using that as a ToC. It has to be made so that if we wish to introduce the idea that there are more pages beyond the first, we have to have a uniform way to do that (aside from the AGN), and calling every bunch of links a ToC will help. Of course, small game ToCs might not have to be in the exact same layout as can be found in the OoT guide, but things surely become easier for the newcomer.--Dan 08:33, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

I just had an idea for newcomers and non-registered users: we could put a notice below the nav bar on the left that says some basic stuff like "Blue links lead to other pages and red links are currently empty." It might help... And by newcomers I mean like display the message for the first ten days after registration. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 18:18, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

I haven't read all the comments, but we have the Continue Nav's usually after intro sections (or should be adding those, link in the bar just below the edit box). Perhaps we should also clarify the One game, one guide slogan. -- Prod (Talk) 19:03, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
 * You know, when you're right, you're right. Prod and Dan have both provided me with rather constructive criticism, and although it will take some time to apply these to all of my guides, I will change "in depth" to "Table of Contents", and make sure all Introductions are followed by a Continue Nav. I am also contemplating moving things like the box art galleries to the home version comparison pages if a guide contains one.  I'll work on Pac-Man first and get your thoughts when I'm complete.  Procyon (Talk) 19:36, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

Reformat test
OK, I redid the Pac-Man front page in an attempt to incorporate the ideas presented here. I moved the box art gallery to each appropriate section of the home version comparisons. Not sure if switching between a left and right picture for 1-2 images, and a gallery for 3+ images was a great idea. Anyway, please take a look at the main page and the home versions page, and share your thoughts. Thanks guys! Procyon (Talk) 22:25, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I think it looks great. Additionally, your thoughts would come in handy for the StrategyWiki:Guide and applicable policies.  --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 22:54, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

Reformatting complete
Wow, that was draining. I've touched up every one of the guides that I started. I still don't feel like it's perfect, but I may never feel that way, and it will have to do for now. On the plus side, the fact that there are more pages to each guide should be very readily apparent. On the minus side, I worry that anything below the TOC will be ignored; it seems silly to me that the Continue Nav and the TOC are right next to each other; and if a reader scrolls all the way down to the bottom (not that there's much down there anymore), the reader has to scroll back up to get to the TOC or the Continue Nav. I would consider moving the Continue Nav to the bottom and treat it like a Footer Nav, but I don't wanna edit all of those pages again. At least, not for a while. :P Procyon (Talk) 21:01, 5 May 2007 (CDT)

Collaboration of the Month URGENT
It's the end of the month, and there's no Collab assigned! See main page A.S.A.P! --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 01:11, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Heh heh heh, I'd been wondering about that... Get to it guys, gals, etc, put votes in if you haven't already, sort this out Quick!! :-P --Froglet 04:08, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
 * We still need a promising guide of the month. Vote, people!--Dan 08:27, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Currently, Pokémon Gold, Silver and Crystal is in the lead with 2 for votes and 0 oppose votes! I'd say this candidate would win unless some new votes are added (and/or new candidates)! --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 16:28, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I opposed G/S/C, but I want to be clear about why I did. At some point I intend to reformat G/S/C to the format that R/B/Y uses, and the less stuff that's already there, the easier it is to do.  I know it's not for me to say, "no, you can't do that," and I'm not trying to say that.  I'm only asking to be given an opportunity to get through R/B/Y and then I can start G/S/C in earnest.  Read my comments on the collab page for more.  Procyon (Talk) 16:47, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

Math Tag, doesn't work?
I tried using the math tag and it failed: $$This = Fail$$

Is something wrong? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 17:06, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
 * It might be disabled... If that's the case, it should really be removed from the toolbar. --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 18:10, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Math? Who needs math on a site like this? :P--Dan 19:39, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
 * That requires TeX. I also doubt that we need it. :P  ech elon  01:06, 5 May 2007 (CDT)

Completely redone the CI archives
I've completely redone the archives for this page to hopefully make it easier to find stuff. Previously it was in something that vaguely resembled chronological order with a lot of stuff in completely random order. I've now organized everything by the date of the first SIGNED post in a topic. Please remember that the existing archives are still wildly out of order with in each month because thats how they come out of the old archives and I didn't feel the need for perfection. Going forward it should take care of itself though. --Argash 05:26, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
 * So are we archiving threads by last post or by creation date?--Dan 08:21, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
 * The best practice is by creation date or the date of the first signed post. On WP the standard practice is to archive a discussion when it appears to be finished (a few days with no new posts).  Then after that discussion is archived if you want to revive it you start up a new topic on the main page referencing the archive.  This helps to keep only the most relevant discussions up front and free of dead discussions. --Argash 16:03, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

Need help with Template:Talkarchive
I might have been too clever in the way that I set up the new archives. If you look at the link generated by Template:Talkarchive on StrategyWiki talk:Community Portal/2007/March the link to the main discussion page points to StrategyWiki talk:Community Portal/2007 instead of StrategyWiki talk:Community Portal. Anyone have any ideas how to fix that?--Argash 01:50, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Well, Until we find out, I've redirected it to here.Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 00:54, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Hah such an easy solution that i couldn't even think of it! good job sir! --Argash 01:50, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Thanks but we really need a fix for this so we don't have to deal with the the 2008 bug :P. I'll look at the template tonight or tomorrow.Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 10:19, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I asked at wikipedia and the only suggestion was to put a  on a subpage of each page that you want to archive ans subst: it to the page but that would mean doing it for every page, I've got an idea with the parser functions but for now, just redirect them.Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 13:35, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I'll take a look later today, see if anything can be worked out. -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 19:09, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I don't understand why you don't just hardcode StrategyWiki talk:Community Portal in instead of that basepage crap. lol --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 20:05, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Ohhhhh is the template used for ALL archive pages? ahaha I thought this was specific to just the comm portal talk.  Anyways, why not just add a parameter for the page?   ...? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 20:10, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
 * doesn't work as it has to be an external link (like http://strategywiki.org/wiki/StrategyWiki_talk:Community_Portal ). Anyway, I've modified the template a bit so all you have to do is and it links to the community portal talk page. (It uses #ifeq so it HAS to be exactly CP, it IS case-sensitive) --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 20:41, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Works for me thanks for the fix Argash 21:38, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I asked at wikipedia and they've come up with a different solution for this, it will work for every page so I'm testing it out here and here. When it's done I'll copy and paste it. BTW Is it OK to stop at 2 subpages (e.g a/b/c) or should I do 3 (e.g a/b/c/d), i'll set this up so you put "|2" for 2 and "|3" for 3 on the template.Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 13:20, 5 May 2007 (CDT)

I'm headed to Florida for a week
Just so you guys know. I'll be using some of my time down there for guide writing. No internet though. If you need anything, let me know now. Otherwise, talk to Dan or DrBob about any server problems/issues you have in my absence. See you guys when I get back! Also, I'm out of college for a few weeks until summer semester (which will be a light load). Cheers!  ech elon  00:21, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Have fun man. Thanks for everything.  What guides?  --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 01:23, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
 * The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask is first on my list. I may finish taking screenshots for Ocarina of Time as well so that every page has them.  ech elon  11:02, 4 May 2007 (CDT)

StrategyWiki Forum
I know a few of you have asked for a forum in the past--the key reason being that a forum has been seen as the missing link between our community and GameFAQs. While a forum for editorial discussion purposes would be completely redundant, perhaps a community forum integrated with the StrategyWiki accounts would help spur new editors to become more involved and have fun in the process. What do you guys think? This could be a really good idea or a really bad idea. (I won't be able to answer/provide feedback until I get back from Florida, but it's a good topic to get you guys started on debating now.)  ech elon  01:11, 5 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I was hoping that ABXY would fill this need. A forum would be great, but getting editorials/news/reviews would be even better. But yea, a forum would be excellent! -- Prod (Talk) 01:16, 5 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Well, once the abxy user sign up issue is resolved (if it isn't already) you could create a handful of StrategyWiki-specific forums and link to them from here. If they get a good deal of traffic you could then focus on integrating the skin and hosting it at forums.strategywiki.org and all that. I can certainly see the advantages of a forum--while I like how MediaWiki talk pages allow for nested comments, quotes and the like can do this job fairly well too. I'll post more thoughts about this later. GarrettTalk 01:33, 5 May 2007 (CDT)
 * This sounds like a good idea, although the random chit-chat forums (believe me, even if you intend for all talk to be something SW-related, 'How was your day?' threads and suchlike will soon spring up) would soon be the most active (I'm a moderator on a forum, so I know) and there would be some who seem to do more on the forums than they do editing. Still, it would be a good idea, it makes sure that others who seem to be the only ones out there editing (some days it does seem like that :-P) know that they're not alone!--Froglet 03:33, 5 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Well every page has it's own talk page maybe we should make that more obvious rather than going the forum route? --Argash 12:40, 5 May 2007 (CDT)
 * If this is the case then it will be easy to impliment, just a note on the top of the main game page and we can do this by modidifying the infobox templateRocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 13:11, 5 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I always thought that the Discussion pages were for editing talk. I thought that the idea of a forum would be more like it is on GFAQs - for debate on all the stuff you probably shouldn't debate and gossip about on the Discussion pages (eg, the non-neutral POV stuff that usually gets removed from the page - 'most useless character', 'why does this guy do this at the end of the game?' and so on).  Of course, I may have interpreted this wrong.--Froglet 06:49, 6 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I agree, maybe we could link it to GameName/Forum which would be the forum still using the infobox idea. But at the moment, we only have talk pages across the entire site for articles, we have  articles at the moment and it's not like those missing talk pages will be used because most guides are done by 1 or 2 authors and user talk communication is the best way when that happens. So I'm not sure.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 07:49, 6 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I don't think that would work very well either. I think it'd be better to go along a model similar to that of the Nintendo of Europe's forum base - there's system boards, etc, but the main boards would be the General board(s), the popular game/series boards (Pokemon and Legend of Zelda spring to mind), and of course the random babble boards (these are by far the most active, I've noted).--Froglet 08:45, 6 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I favor the idea of a forum, but what exactly would be discussed there? As stated above, wouldn't topics irrelevant to Strategy Wiki eventually spring up? Lunar Knight (Talk to me + Contribs) 12:52, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

Mediawiki Bug
Take a look and scroll down here, MS rambot.png's file is broken because it's a gif and it was uploaded as a .png, is there any way to fix this apart from renaming the file because it will probably happen again.Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 06:27, 6 May 2007 (CDT)
 * The only way to correct that sort of error to me, is to just delete the image and re-upload it with the correct extension. If there is another way of correcting this, please correct me if I am wrong. Lunar Knight (Talk to me + Contribs) 12:55, 6 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Yeah, I'd just like to know if any1 knows a better solution instead of renaming them because it will probably happen again, Keep it for an example for now and when this gets archived I'll rename it.Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 13:21, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

StrategyWiki:Layout
I'm thinking that we should get rid of this policy (and the sub-paging policy) and instead have Guide/Organization as the new policy, as it is more up-to-date and accessible (linked to indirectly from nearly every user's talk page). Let me know what you think (the policies are at Layout and Sub-paging). --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 11:46, 6 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I don't think we should exactly get rid of the Layout policy. Maybe we could merge it with the Organization policy? Lunar Knight (Talk to me + Contribs) 12:58, 6 May 2007 (CDT)
 * The organization page is (a) not yet a policy and (b) pretty much an updated version of what is covered in layout. If you really want to keep layout, it will have to be updated (for example, we don't subpage the walkthrough pages under /Walkthrough/, just under the game's name). --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 13:08, 6 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Although we don't Ryan, that information isn't noted on the Organization policy (I skimmed it, no header examples were used so I assume headers aren't on there). Merge!  --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 15:38, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

Time to work on guide completion?
I did a manual count of guides by completion stage the other day and this is what I found:

I'm thinking it might be time to start going through the guides and verifying and updating the completion levels to move those numbers to the right as much as possible. I know that the active user base is still quite small but IMHO this is important as the number of completed guides will directly impact the sites usability and thus traffic will increase and the user base will increase.

Now I want to say I DO NOT think we need to start a formalized committee to start reviewing the guides. However I do think that the time has come to start codifying exactly what each level means so that guide developers can start updating their guides. Obviously every guide is different but we need to start laying out what items most guides should have, for example:


 * Generic requirements
 * Main guide page has the TOC
 * Main guide page has an infobox
 * Main guide page is properly categorized
 * Main guide page has a concise introduction paragraph
 * Main guide pages have
 * All guide pages have
 * All guide pages have
 * All guide pages use proper english spelling AND grammer
 * Walk through is clearly outlined from beginning to end of game
 * Genre specific
 * RPG guides have item listings
 * RPG guides have spell listings
 * RPG guides have race/class/character descriptions (in game stat form)
 * FPS guides have weapon descriptions and strategies.
 * Fighting games have full move lists
 * Platform games item lists

This list is by no means complete and definitely should be worked on it's meant only to provide a springboard. Once this is done guide developers can create a list (which could be on the guides talk page) of what all their guide should have versus whats already done and determine with a much greater level of accuracy how complete their guide is. Additionally this will ensure that when the time comes to form a review committee they will already have a base to start from.

--Argash 15:28, 6 May 2007 (CDT)


 * I approve. Additionally all main pages must have Template:Continue Nav.  --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 15:41, 6 May 2007 (CDT)