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)
 * I reckon that may be the point. It would stop people from aimless chitchat on the editing talk pages, and it is easier to maintain as a forum than as a bunch of editing talk pages - if a user creates spam on an editing talk page, you can remove it but the fact that it is freely editable stops it from being effective in discouraging people not to do that.  With a forum, you can at least delete posts and lock discussions.  I have a notion that it would also help create a better strategies for certain games, for example with a DS wifi game that hasn't had its online maps mapped out, two editors could switch friend codes and not only fight each other but also map the level out.  Sure, a lot of idle chatter will occur, but it's a good diversion from editing (or to let off steam when you're not in a neutral POV mood).

Of course, forums like this will need moderators and suchlike to keep the discussion civil, but I reckon it could work.--Froglet 18:47, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

I am vehemently against using MW talk pages as a forum. User talk pages are fine as discussion between people, but they are terrible for general discussion. All content on strategywiki right now is GFDL. Forums typically say ownership of a comment belongs to the writer. I'm not too sure how compatible they are, so I would suggest keeping them separate. Also, forums tend to be POV, and we're trying to keep SW NPOV. ABXY does have most of the stuff needed already (moderators, some users, etc.) but they've been having some problems. What would be cool is if we could add something to the agn like http://abxy.org/forum.php?name=gamename or something similar, and have it link to the relevant forums. Admins on ABXY could add forums for games as they are created (after some basic verification). -- Prod (Talk) 23:41, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

I actually think it's kind of funny that people are suggesting a forum be added StrategyWiki when ness just killed ABXY for the second time - claiming it's hogging all the server resources. It's a shame too, ABXY could have easily been used as a forum outlet for SW users. But instead of helping to fix the problem, he just took the site down. Those who want a forum here, I wouldn't hold your breath... apparently ness doesn't like them. Katana 08:54, 8 May 2007 (CDT)
 * ABXY has been bringing down the whole server. It tends to do it every few days, which is why he took it out. The code needs to be fixed, which is most likely up to echelon (Note the message that tends to come up: too many connections to localhost).  As SW is the one getting most of the traffic, ABXY is sacrificed for the greater good :P. -- Prod (Talk) 23:48, 8 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I love Froglet's idea! Being able to meet up with people somewhere more appropriate than a talk page and trades FC's and map out levels. Brilliant! It indeed would be a good diversion from editing, an area where you can just sit back and relax (Not that I'm not relaxing when I contribute, contributing here is one of my top ways of relaxation, aside from playing the 'ol DS). Lunar Knight (Talk to me + Contribs) 19:37, 8 May 2007 (CDT)
 * This could be put on trial, using a forum tool such as invisionfree.com, with a few discrete links to it on the site, with a few consoles, gabber and games/series on it just to see how regulars would react, whether it would attract more people in and suchlike. However, there is the query if there are people willing and able to administrate and moderate such a venture (I would be more than willing to assist in such aspects).--Froglet 08:35, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

Check out inside.wikia.com's forum. It's phpbb but is linked to the MediaWiki user accounts. PM buttons point to Talk: pages and everything! I don't know if the extension is available, but this is probably the best implementation since existing accounts would still work there. GarrettTalk 16:43, 12 May 2007 (CDT)


 * Check these out before implementing though--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 16:58, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
 * That page is regarding bugs with MediaWiki 1.10a (which isn't a stable build; Wikia, like Wikipedia, tries to follow the builds fairly closely). The Forum: namespace isn't for discussing the phpbb extension but is part of an earlier, unrelated forum extension. GarrettTalk 19:56, 12 May 2007 (CDT)

Forum implementation vote
Indicate whether you are for the new style of forums (like at the Inside Wikia, for the old style of forums (like at Wikia), against the implementation of forums on StrategyWiki, or undecided/neutral (and possibly a reason why). source code for new forums can be downloaded at http://www.phpbb.com/downloads/


 * For new-. I think the new forums are a great idea, and it would help build StrategyWiki's community. --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 22:14, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
 * For new. It combines a great forum system with our existing user accounts and markup language. GarrettTalk 22:18, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
 * For new. But the forum misses some basic markup,,   on the pages, the transclusion of the AGN messes it up, on Pokémon G/S/C it looks ok in the TOC but on any other page, the links are broken.Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 12:30, 8 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 page has
 * 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
 * RTS & TBS guides have unit / race listings
 * RTS & TBS guides have technology listings

Here's a more complete basic list taken from Guide/Organization Adventure RPG Racing Fighting
 * Characters
 * Commands
 * Game Overview
 * FAQs
 * Walkthrough
 * Items
 * Secrets
 * Characters
 * FAQs
 * Walkthrough
 * Sidequests
 * Enemies
 * Items
 * Weapons
 * Armor
 * Spells
 * Controls
 * Cars
 * Tracks
 * Cups
 * Controls
 * Moves
 * Tactics
 * Tips and Tricks

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)
 * "All guide pages use proper english spelling AND grammer". Did anyone else get the irony in this sentence? :-P  I try my best to make 'full' pages when I start a new game page (boxart, release dates, systems, etc), and for some of the linkies on the ToC blued out, even if it's just an 'outline' of spells and characters, just that it's a mammothian task to undertake on your own and you need more than a bit of drive to complete the really tedious stuff (for example, the Loot list in Final Fantasy XII, which is so boring I don't think I can finish the list without losing every shred of sanity I possess).  We do what we can, but we need more people to get everything done - a problem shared is a problem halved some say, and this is particularly true here.  It's a hell of a lot easier to complete, say, spell lists when you're only doing the MP cost and prices when somebody else is putting down where you can find the spell, etc.--Froglet 03:47, 7 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Heh that's why guides need to be spell checked :) I do understand what your saying about item lists and such though (I'm going to have that facing me at some point with the NWN guide). I'm thinking that what we'll have to do is weight each element of any given guide and place the most weight on the walkthrough.  My thinking is while we should delineate between a fully completed guide and a guide with a full walkthrough but not much else, we still need to let people know that those walkthroughs are complete.  For example lets take FFXII,  the most important thing a reader will ask himself is: "Will it take me from start to finish of the game?"
 * Now lets look at how this question will be answered depending on the state of the guide. If all the spell lists, item lists, armor lists, weapon lists and character lists but nothing else is completed, then the guide will essentially be 50% complete but the answer to this question will be no. Now lets say that the full walkthrough is complete but nothing else is, the guide is still essentially 50% complete but now the answer is yes.  Thus while both guides might be 50% complete one is infinitely more valuable to the reader.
 * What we need to do then is come up with a way to quantify which guides can say yes to that all important question and then list that number on the main page and proudly proclaim it right alongside the number of guides that not only say yes to that question but are fully complete. Those are the two most important numbers that every person who visits the site wants and deserves to see! --Argash 04:27, 7 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Well if it's like that then can't we have a completion level on the walkthrough link?Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 05:02, 7 May 2007 (CDT)

FF7 footer thoughts
Currently the pages inside the FF7 guide use Final Fantasy VII/Walkthrough Navigation instead of Footer Nav do we want to leave this as is or update it to the proper footer template? --Argash 01:20, 7 May 2007 (CDT)


 * Things like this are kind of cool. One thing I like about GameFAQs that I'd like to see on StrategyWiki as it continues to expand is per-guide originality and flair. Ocarina of Time has it with the Gold Skulltula sidequest bars (though the blue on green link problem needs a fix..) The great thing is that so long as our conventions are mostly consistent between each guide, I think it's great for certain guides to exhibit a uniqueness about themselves that speak for the game (and the people that play them). That said, nothing should ever be too inconsistent. Finally, on the issue of FFV itself, I am not sure if it is completely clear as to how it is to be used. Are those chapters within the game itself? (If so, that may work just fine.)  ech elon  00:01, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

Not-Exactly Game Guides
Is it against policy to add information about software for games systems that aren't exactly for games? I'm not talking about things like Windows Vista, but I've lately been thinking about creating a page for the Nintendo DS Opera Browser, for clumsy people like me who lose the instruction manual and forget how to change the settings. So far I haven't lost the instruction manual, but I was wondering what the policy was on such things (after a mate of mine yes, lost the instruction manual and had to go to great lengths to figure out how to change the settings on her Nintendo DS). My reasoning that it should be here is that it's a piece of DS software, you could potentially use it to play games on, there are instructions that can be complicated in using it, and we also put in 'Controls' sections to game guides, so this could just be a sort of extended controls section or something like that. I was wondering what everybody else thought.--Froglet 07:50, 7 May 2007 (CDT)


 * Well we've got a guide to MAME (An emulator) so I guess mosgt guides are all right as long as we don't get really silly and do a guide to Ubuntu on a PS3 or anything like that.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 08:01, 7 May 2007 (CDT)
 * So long as you don't plagerize go ahead. I've created the NHN/Hangame registration guide to help Hangame.co.jp players who don't speak Japanese.  --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 16:57, 7 May 2007 (CDT)

Image troubles
I've imported Image:Broom icon.svg and Image:Broom icon.png from wiki commons. The SVG shows up but doesn't have any transparency. The PNG version doesn't show up at all. Can someone tell me what I'm doing wrong? --Argash 22:55, 9 May 2007 (CDT)
 * It's not you. The image server was not responding to requests at the moment.  Dan should be resetting it as I type this, and the problem should be solved momentarily.  Procyon (Talk) 23:16, 9 May 2007 (CDT)

Image Troubles on Google
Why aren't any of our images showing up on google, we have around 3 and 2 are from strategywiki.net, see here--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 14:56, 11 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I don't see any from strategywiki.net... --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 13:22, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I found them about a week ago, now they're gone, I forgot to post (I also did that with the Math Tag :P). Also look at the America's army pic's URL, it's actually from Americasarmy.com and it's linkd to by URL, see here on our site so we don't have one image now, it's a bit bad really.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 15:17, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Note that this is only in google, see here and here just note that some of these are from .net--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 15:19, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Maybe it has something to do with metatags/file names? The one interesting thing I found from looking into this is this little article on Ech...  --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 15:45, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I haate that wiki article. :P  ech elon  23:55, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

Does anyone else think the new front page stats are too complex?
Anyone?--Dan 22:31, 14 May 2007 (CDT)


 * Only if you don't understand "encompassing." --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 22:40, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I don't think the number of pages stat has as much relevance for us, the other two are noteworthy. -- Prod (Talk) 22:43, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm torn between removing the numarticles statistic and keeping it. On the one hand, it looks like each guide may only have 6 pages if you do the math. On the other hand, without it it looks like we could be a wiki consisting of nothing more than incomplete 1-page guides (which we are most definitely not!)  ech elon  23:34, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I think we should delete it for now really, this statistic will probably push newcomers away and we don't want that. We do have quite a few good quality 1-page guides though.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 23:44, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
 * How about some nicely rounded numbers? (Floor rounding using modulus so we don't report more than we have.) Rounded numbers have a tendency to look more aesthetic (certainly less distracting) and can be read smoothly. Take a look now and see what you think.  ech elon  23:52, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Seems good apart from we still have 1000 6-page guides and special:statistics doesn't show 6000 anywhere.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 00:00, 15 May 2007 (CDT)
 * That number comes from a  count of Category:Sub-pages. It's a truer count than Special:Statistics' modest estimate. GarrettTalk 01:31, 15 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Well, shouldn't we link there then.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 01:50, 15 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I would say not. That category's sole purpose is to make Special:Uncategorizedpages usable, and won't be as understandable to a visitor in the same way as a category of individual game entries. I think there's a MediaWiki: page controlling the text on Special:Statistics so it should be possible to append those counts there. I'll look into that. GarrettTalk 02:39, 15 May 2007 (CDT)
 * It's here, it's there with text in even though it's red. I don't want to edit in case I mess it up.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 10:17, 15 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Ah, thanks. The page didn't exist, but MediaWiki automatically pastes in the default text for whatever MediaWiki: page you start editing. I've replaced the pages count with the number of guides (derived from Category:Games) as well as the total number of pages (derived from Category:Games and Category:Sub-pages). See what you think. GarrettTalk 16:16, 17 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm not really in favor of the new stats since they don't change as much as the original stats do, and if they don't change often, there's really no point in putting them on the front page.--Dan 19:11, 17 May 2007 (CDT)
 * It is useful to see about how much of everything we have, but I think we should floor off the count at the tens place instead of the hundreds. Also, I really think that we need to somehow incorporate a link to Special:Statistics somewhere in it, as it was removed when we removed the "legitimate" pages count. --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 19:57, 17 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Even if we were to do that, our new stats wouldn't be as /effective/ as the old ones. Page counts have been used across almost every wiki you can find to give the user an idea of how big a wiki is. Sure, it could mean nothing if all of the pages in the page count were useless stubs, but at least it tells the user that the wiki is active and a lot of work went in to it up to this point. Does anyone have a problem with me bringing back the page count?--Dan 14:02, 19 May 2007 (CDT)

Wikipedia Article
When are we actually going to put this on Wikipedia? We've had it sitting there for ages and I think it would be a good idea to put it on now, it will get us a bit more popularity and will give the site a boost, does anyone have any objections?--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 15:40, 17 May 2007 (CDT)
 * If you think the page meets the criteria outlined in WP:WEB, I'd say go ahead. If not, it is likely to get deleted again (as that was the reason for the first deletion--see here). --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 16:34, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

Continue Nav Placement and Compilation Completion Status
Ok, so does the Continue Nav go below the game information and above the story section? Or below the story section? Whatever the policy, it should be noted in the template docs.

Compilations, such as Sega Games Can Vol. 1 shouldn't be noted as completed, since the games they contain aren't completed. Until then, they should be at completion stage 1 because the guides pertaining to that game (the compilation) aren't complete. Think of it in literal terms; you have a book containing various works, however no real content exists beyond the forward, cover and publishing information... Isn't very accurate is it? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 02:41, 18 May 2007 (CDT)


 * I disagree about the compilation status. Each guide's completion stage should reflect that guide and only that guide, regardless of any content that it may be conditional upon.  It indicates that while the guides that the compilation points to may not be complete, there is little-to-nothing needed to add to the compilation's explanation and is complete unto itself.  By enforcing a rule that a compilation's page is only as complete as the guides it points to, you create a situation where a compilation may be created or edited prior to the guides that it points to being completed.  Then the guides are completed, but who is responsible for updating the status of the compilation page?  It's not a fair policy, nor is it a reliable one.  The point of a compilation page is to discuss what games a compilation contains, as well as any additional features or game play not found in the original titles, not to reflect the completion of the guides that it points to. Procyon (Talk) 09:12, 18 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I agree with what Procyon says, mainly for the logistical problems (updating the number once the sub guides are finished). As for the continue navs, my view is that they should go high enough that they show up on the first screen when the page is loaded, but as low as possible.  The closest location to this is right after the introduction, but usually before the story. -- Prod (Talk) 09:16, 18 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I have adopted the Continue Nav policy that Prod explain above in all of my guides. The only problem that I have with it now, is that when I get to the bottom of the first page, I have to scroll back up for either the TOC or the CN.  There's nothing at the bottom of the main page that allows me to move on to another page, especially since we don't put Footer Navs on front pages.  I know that ordinarily, front pages aren't supposed to be that long to begin with, but it's a minor pet peeve that I have.

Broken Image (Literally)
Here is the image, I think it happened because it had a bad name but how doI rename it if I can't select it? P.S the image is Image:Windwaker-link.gif TLOZ- the Wind Waker--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 13:35, 18 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I'll take care of it. -- Prod (Talk) 13:39, 18 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Thanks P.S The link is still there and works (Or doesn't as the case may be).--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 14:37, 18 May 2007 (CDT)

Search Engine Rankings
I wonder who's ranked #10 on Yahoo! for strategy guides... Oh wait. We are. We're 24 on Google from a sad 36 one week ago. We're moving up quickly now that we gained some momentum. You guys are doing a great job. I don't think we'd be anywhere close to that if it weren't for the constant added efforts of you guys spreading the word. Now let's get to #1! --ConfusedSoul 01:22, 19 May 2007 (CDT)

N64 Controller Buttons
I think these could be easily done by someone willing; just get the gamecube buttons, recolour them, perhap's get the wii's Z button and recolour it, and also recolouring the Wii's C button and plonking generic arrows onto the end would be easily done and effective. --Muzer 03:08, 19 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I'll give it a go, got any good pics of a N64 though, they'll help a lot.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 02:37, 19 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I can tell you the official button colours if that's what you mean. If not, I'm sure they'll be plenty on google images. I do have an N64 but my photography is crap and I don't know where the camera or card reader is :p


 * OK, here goes:
 * The C buttons are yellow and circular, about 1cm in diameter (that's from one side of the circle to the other, intersecting the centre) [[Image:N64-button-C.png]]
 * The B button is green and circular, and about 1.5cm in diameter[[Image:N64-Button-B.png]]
 * The A button is blue and the same size and shape as B [[Image:N64-Button-A.png]]
 * The start button is red and circular, and about 1.25cm in diameter[[Image:N64-start.png]]
 * The analogue stick is light grey and 1.5cm in diameter
 * The D-PAD is dark grey and 1cm from the tip of 1 point to the centre. The points of the cross are also 0.5cm wide
 * The L and R triggers are also dark grey, the same colour as the D-Pad, and have the bottom side straight, the top side sloping downwards to the left with L and right with R. They are 3.75cm long, and the thin side of them (the left side for L, the right side for R) is 0.75cm wide, and the thich side (the right side for L, the left side for R) is 1.5cm wide.
 * The Z trigger is also the same dark grey and is rectangualar in the "portrait" position (ie height=longest dimension). It is 2cm high and 1cm wide.


 * There, I hope that's not too much info. --Muzer 03:08, 19 May 2007 (CDT)


 * Thanks, I'll add them here as I do them--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 03:59, 19 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Actually, now I'll put them here--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 14:22, 19 May 2007 (CDT)

Requests for Checkuser
Is there a way that we can do a checkuser on a few users: I think that this vandalism has gone on for a bit too long now, I'd suggest banning the IP with account creation for 2 months because we've had too many attacks on the MapleStory Pages.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 03:02, 19 May 2007 (CDT)
 * User:Cedricong
 * User:Cedricong2
 * User:Cedric
 * User:Cedricong99 (Had contribs but I deleted them)
 * User:Cedricong900
 * User:Bbddtt
 * and User:MsmsmsMs
 * CheckUser caused some issues with editing that I never quite figured out. I'll give it another go tonight, but don't get your hopes up.  ech elon  17:45, 20 May 2007 (CDT)
 * If there's been persistent vandalism from this IP address, just ban it permanently. People like that never change. (And no, I'm not back; just popping in for an hour. :- --DrBob (Talk) 11:03, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * The thing is that I can't find out what the IP address is to block it, it only says #126 and #119 in the ip block list and blocking the IP only lasts for 1 day.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 11:10, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Strategy guide on Wikibooks
See main page. It uses colon convention (so it's harder to find all the pieces), but it looks fairly comprehensive and might be a nica addition.

BTW, I can't seem to recieve my password, but this is SB_Johnny from Wikibooks. SB Johnny again 05:23, 19 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Does anyone have any problems with me importing it here?--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 06:07, 19 May 2007 (CDT)

I'll try to do this one (later today or tomorrow). Looks like it might be a bit messy due to the Wikibooks:Civ:The Basics being a common page for "many" guides. I think the whole Wikibooks:Category:Civ might be good for deletion, but I haven't really gone through the pages, so can't say for sure. -- Prod (Talk) 17:29, 19 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I'll most of it then.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 01:07, 20 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I'll take care of it. I'm a big fan of the game and the pages need a fair bit of rework to merge in nicely.  I'm doing the whole Civ series at the same time, since the basics page for one needs to be "shared" between the games. -- Prod (Talk) 11:04, 20 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Okay sure, it was being a bit of a pain. Thanks. --Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 12:57, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

Pokemon strategy guide
I wanted to note that it seems odd that Pokemon Ruby and some other Pokemon games have ridiculously long guides, some games (such as Pokemon XD: Gale of Darkness) have absolutely nothing on them. I think it would be helpful to many Pokemon gamers if something like that was created due to the large amount of Pokemon fans. Sincerely,Myth 18:55, 19 May 2007 (CDT)
 * A lot of the Pokémon guides that have a lot of content were (or are) collaborations of the month/promising guides of the month or are being frequently added to by active contributors. If you want to work on a different guide that doesn't have that much content in it, just jump in and start editing (actually, look over the other pages first to see how the guide is styled before you start editing). You don't need anyone's permission to work on any guide whatsoever, so if you feel you can improve something, do it, be bold! If you would like to draw more attention to it, put it up for nomination at Collaboration of the Month. --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 19:23, 19 May 2007 (CDT)

Unfortunately, we are relatively short staffed. All we can do is contribute to the guides which interest us, and hope someone adds information to the guides we need. The only other suggestion I can make is to add your request to the Requested guides (we need a better link to that somewhere....). Can't promise it'll be done, but it may get more visibility. -- Prod (Talk) 20:58, 19 May 2007 (CDT)
 * "Unfortunately, we are relatively short staffed" - *Nominates for biggest understatement of the decade.* ;-) At the moment, mate, it seems that there's nobody who is interested to write the guide for it.  I would offer my services as a guide writer to help you out, just that I don't own the game (although I did have intentions of getting it, it's no longer being sold at the shops), and I also have a few loose ends (ie, finishing the FFXII walkthrough) to tie up.  Try GameFAQs - whilst we are often in hot water with them after some twit decides to plaguirise copyrighted works and tack 'em up here from there, they do have quality stuff.  And, once you've finished the game and have beaten the baddies, how about write the guide for us so nobody else has to go and find a Gale of Darkness page that has no walkthrough?  Good luck either way!--Froglet 09:47, 20 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Also, if you can find a walkthrough in GameFAQ's that says in its legal section "I give permission for anybody to do whatever they want with this FAQ" or something similar, consider that your permission to put it up here (as it IS legal and NOT plagiarism then). Another thing you can do is contact the people that wrote the FAQ via e-mail explaining that you wish to use their FAQ (be specific on which one) on StrategyWiki (with a link to the site or at least the URL), saying that the FAQ would more than likely be modified to fit our style of formatting and that StrategyWiki is licensed under the GFDL 1.2 (with a link to the license or at least a URL). I've done that a few times before, and that is actually how I got the enemy list section in The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (see this to see what I exactly wrote). --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 10:01, 20 May 2007 (CDT)

Covering unplayable games?
A few days ago I came across Neverwinter Nights (AOL). This relates to a game that's no longer playable in any form (even via emulation). Now, my question is, should we have general information about games that are no longer playable for the sake of completeness, or exclude them because our stated purpose of supplying strategies can't extend to these games? GarrettTalk 05:59, 20 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Normally I'd say keep them, they may be useful someday but that page isn't a guide at all, there's no strategy guide to it, it's just been taken from wikipedia, so that should be deleted.Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 07:23, 20 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Yeah, the "guide" doesn't even give a strategy to playing it, and if it did, nobody would look at it (as it can't be played). The article was imported from Wikipedia based off its history, but it does not meet our quality standards for a guide's front page nor our guide standards period. Based off of those two reasons, I say that it should be deleted. --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 09:13, 20 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Well, that one should be deleted but I think, that say the guide is over a certain length and/or completion level then it should stay. Probably 10 good content pages at the very least and definitely kept if it's got decent images.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 09:22, 20 May 2007 (CDT)

At the bottom of the page, it says there are remakes of the game that are playable (haven't tested). Just because we can't put up strategies for a game, doesn't mean it shouldn't be here. If the guide comes down to just saying the game isn't playable, that should be fine. The fact that it was imported from wikipedia means that someone looked at it ;). Just because the page isn't at proper standards, means it needs cleanup, not deletion.  No offense Rocky, but we should almost never delete guides, irrespective of size. Finally, this page does need cleanup, to keep only the important game related info (and getting rid of all the useless wikilinks and stuff like that). -- Prod (Talk) 11:09, 20 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I've had a brief look at the remakes; one uses the new NWN's engine and the other follows the original's look and feel but adds a lot of new content--I don't think either could really be thought of as the same game. If we're going to keep things like this we need an "unplayable" template, possibly with a picture of a joystick with an X over it or something. GarrettTalk 16:34, 20 May 2007 (CDT)
 * How about [[Image:Unplayable icon.png|27px|This Game is Unplayable]]? (Image scaled down to better fit inline). --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 19:23, 20 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Yeah, that's a possibility. While looking on Commons for a suitable controller image to put a cross over I found this: [[Image:Unplayable icon.png|27px]]. What I like about this one is that far less of the underlying image is obscured making it more obvious what the thing underneath is. Also to consider is that gamepads are now far more common than joysticks, so it may be more immediately recognisable as a game controller. GarrettTalk 20:03, 20 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I like yours better, it looks much nicer. --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 20:04, 20 May 2007 (CDT)

I've created Template:Unplayable. The wording and icon placement definitely aren't perfect, so feel free to mess with it. GarrettTalk 20:14, 20 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Do we really need to blatantly say "we don't have content"? I would think that a note in the intro paragraph should be enough to tell the person that it can't be played any more.  Maybe even a tag on the side.  But I think a banner at the top is a bit excessive (maybe bottom?). -- Prod (Talk) 20:25, 20 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I agree it's obnoxious (I based it on copyvio for convenience). It might look OK at about the size of sect-stub (although still with some sort of border). The reason why I feel it should be relatively noticeable is because it helps explain why such a short page can be classed as stage 4 (assuming we treat such pages as complete) without covering controls/items/etc. It's very unusual for a game to be unplayable even via emulation, and a template conveys the idea a lot quicker than whole paragraphs about the game being taken offline. Alternately, we could relegate a smaller version of this to the top of ==Gameplay== or whatever section, although that goes against the current tradition of putting such templates only at the top or on the side. GarrettTalk 20:51, 20 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I've made it far smaller now. This version is still a bit awkward, but better than the screaming banner it was before. GarrettTalk 21:05, 20 May 2007 (CDT)
 * So wait, if a game has another version playable, we don't say anything? Gunster: Rain of Bullets was canceled but the Japanese version still exists.  So...  I understand this discussion to just be about games that are no longer available, but what about these little nuances?  --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 21:42, 20 May 2007 (CDT)
 * It depends on whether that other version is essentially the same game, or is different enough to be considered a separate game. If it's the same that version would be the one being covered, whereas if it's different it would be covered separately with the unplayable version being marked with this template. We cover Pokemon games in pairs, for instance, because the differences between them are so minor that they are treated as a single title. GarrettTalk 23:54, 20 May 2007 (CDT)

Spectrobes/Items
Can someone please fix "other items" in the Spectrobes/items section? I could not get the prettytable to work. Sincerely, Myth 18:11, 21 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Taken care of. Procyon (Talk) 21:54, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

Infobox
Is it just me or is there a problem with the infobox, it can't take two ratings by the same company (e.g here) the ESRB template had to be used twice for some reason, is there a way to fix this?--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 01:38, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Probably not. ESRB and the like rely on #switch: for their functionality, so doing this would require adding every conceivable combination and still doesn't permit specification of which version each rating applies to. If there is a solution it's probably too complicated for the comparatively few circumstances requiring dual ratings. GarrettTalk 04:41, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Couldn't we just add like etc. for each one and place the comment after the normally displayed text (like next to "(Teen)")??? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 22:15, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I really don't see the use in modifying the template for only a few special cases. The template works fine as-is (even with the special cases, they just need a bit of thought to do it), so it really doesn't need to change. The only potential use of using comments is to explain why it got that rating (which can be found on the game box's back usually), but then it would probably only be or  (parameters have to be one "word") . --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 10:12, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Front page placement of Continue Nav and TOC revisited.
This is a continuation of the discussion started earlier (this discussion if it has not yet been archived) that prompted me to reformat all of the front pages of the guides that I worked on. The general out come of that discussion was:
 * 1) Prod's assertion that the Continue Nav should be placed in such a way that it is immediately visible on the front page of any guide.  Therefore, the most logical place for the nav would be immediately after the guide's introduction.
 * 2) Dan's assertion that the best way to alert readers (especially new visitors) to the fact that a guide is composed of multiple page, and is not limited to the front page, is to highlight the existence of the Table of Contents, which I did by moving it immediately below the Continue Nav in every guide that I altered.

Now, it is apparent that there are some problems with these choices.
 * NMH (which I am now permanently adopting as Notmyhandle's handle ^_^ ) feels that the TOC should be placed beneath a guide's story, which he bases (I believe) on the aesthetics. I am inclined to agree with this, but for a different reason: It seems awkward, even redundant, to have the TOC directly beneath the Continue Nav.  It's like saying, "Continue to A or B.  Also, there's page A and page B (and maybe some other pages)," and that doesn't make much logical sense.
 * I know that in general, we wish to keep front pages small (and I tend to be a big offender of that practice, I can't help myself >_< ), it concerns me that if a reader scrolls down to the bottom of the front page, such that the Continue Nav and the TOC has scrolled off screen, the reader has no choice to scroll back up to find a link because front pages do not use Footer Navs.
 * There's a general, less pivotal, issue regarding choosing header levels for their proper hierarchy, or their aesthetic look (sometimes H3 looks better than H2 even though something should technically be an H2.)

For the reasons stated above, I feel that links should be made available in two places: Immediately after the Introduction, and at the very bottom of the front page. Now, this can take the form of Continue_Nav beneath the intro, and move all of the TOCs to the bottom (they are in the AGN anyway), or it can be the other way around, which contradicts Prod's concern. But I will go one step further and claim that Continue Navs may not be the best solution afterall and that a modified Footer Nav, a special front page Footer Nav, might be the best possible solution as it would standardize the placement of continuing links. I propose that it might look something like this:   [Go to top] Super Mario Bros. How to play → Walkthrough → Table of Contents What do you all think? Procyon (Talk) 13:59, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Seems good but just to note, in point 3, is there a way to modify the software or add a template for a 2.5 heading (2 on TOC but has a line like a 3). If we can get someting like tha working then it'll help.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 14:02, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
 * First, the continue nav acts as a short jump into the guides. If people know how to play, but not sure where to start, they click walkthrough.  Secondly, the ToC is there so that new people who don't realize that the AGN and Footer nav's have drop down views will see the ToC.  A footer nav for the front pages seem fine to me; but this stil doesn't solve the universal order of sections that we really need for standardization/cleanup procedures.


 * Rocky: The Wikimarkup is simply using the  tags, and then formatting them to display the bar/edit button. So, unless we shift all the numbers up, there's no way we can do this (there are only like 6 different header values available.  (Correct me if I'm wrong.)


 * For the standardized layout I propose this order (codewise/visually): AGN, Infobox, Game Info, Continue Nav, Story, ToC, Miscellaneous Info, References, External Links, Footer Nav, Cats. Additionally, non-sub sections must all be H2's.  --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 15:03, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
 * But if a link to the Walkthrough is already contained in the front page TOC, how is that link less useful than the same link in the Continue Nav? Just to place my vote for the layout, I propose: AGN, Infobox, Introduction, TOC, Story, Misc. Info, References, External Links, Continue Nav and/or the above Footer Nav, Cats. I know it won't ultimately end up that way, but this would be my personal ideal.  I'd be satisfied with anything as long as it's agreed upon. Procyon (Talk) 15:10, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm under the opinion that the story should have a basic outline without spoilers, and have a separate story page (maybe with some spoilers in a bottom-ish section, but not on top). Plus, the continue nav should definitely be above the ToC, as it is more likely to get noticed that "hey, those are real links instead of pretty blue text" instead of the ToC (which seemed to be a problem with a few visitors to this site >.< ). There should not be anything under the ToC, though, and if there is, there should be a footer nav leading to the same links as the continue nav. In regards to the headings, there are a few ways to get around it. You can enclose the ToC in a div like so:  to take the tiered numbers off the ToC, or you could restrict to what heading sizes appear on the ToC with   (which would restrict the ToC to only displaying lv2 headings, -3 does lv2 and lv3, and so on). Currently, I haven't put in the CSS that accomplishes this, but if there is consensus, I'll do it. --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 15:31, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Ryan, that is how the story sections are currently laid out as. The front page stories are ambiguous introductions so they shouldn't take up much room.  So far we have a unanimous decision on the layout besides the ToC location.  Ryan: Nothing under the TOC?  Do you want the References/External Links sections to be above it as well?  Actually, now that I think about it the ToC does make a good bottom area; although I would still put Ref/Ext sections below that.  But Misc. Info seems to go better above it, since people will read the stuff or skip down and then find links to other pages.  --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 16:55, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
 * The reason that Dan suggested the TOC be placed higher up was so that people who are new to the site would easily comprehend that guides are composed of multiple pages. If we stuff the TOC on the bottom, it might be easily missed.  That's kind of why I was arguing for TOC up top, and Continue Nav or front page Footer Nav on the bottom.  Think about it: If the TOC comes after the introduction, and people want to jump right away to their favorite page (which might not even be on the Continue Nav), the TOC is right there for them to click on.  On the other hand, someone who bothers to read all the way down to the bottom of a front page is more likely to be follow through the guide sequentially, at which point it makes more sense for the Continue Nav to be placed at the bottom where the user can be lead to the next section of interest.  That's what I don't understand about the current suggestion.  I think people want the Continue Nav under the intro instead of the TOC because it "looks cooler," even though the TOC is more functional.  Likewise, something is needed at the bottom of the front page.  If the Footer Nav points readers to the next sequential page for a regular guide page, why shouldn't there be something similar to serve the same function on the front page?  Doesn't that make sense?  Procyon (Talk) 17:11, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

(Undoing indentation, wow this is long) Looking at your arguments, I'll have to agree with NMH and Proc about the placement of the ToC. However, having the continue nav at the bottom of the page looks really bad white-space wise (maybe an optional param to style it like a footer nav instead?). From how I see it, though, there are a few decently feasible options (other info is actual information, references, external links, and the like):
 * Option 1
 * AGN
 * Infobox/Intro
 * Story
 * Continue Nav
 * Table of Contents
 * Other Info
 * Option 2
 * AGN
 * Infobox/Intro
 * Continue Nav
 * Story
 * Other Info
 * Table of Contents
 * Option 3
 * AGN
 * Infobox/Intro
 * Story
 * Table of Contents
 * Other Info
 * Continue Nav (Footer Nav styled)
 * Option 4
 * AGN
 * Infobox/Intro
 * Table of Contents
 * Story
 * Other Info
 * Continue Nav (Footer Nav styled)
 * Option 5
 * AGN
 * Infobox/Intro
 * Story
 * Table of Contents
 * Other Info
 * Continue Nav (Normally styled)
 * Option 6
 * AGN
 * Infobox/Intro
 * Table of Contents
 * Story
 * Other Info
 * Continue Nav (Normally styled)


 * Option 7
 * Tags
 * AGN
 * Infobox/Intro
 * Story
 * Continue Nav
 * Table of Contents
 * Other Info
 * Footer Nav (no backpage)
 * Categories
 * Option 8
 * Tags
 * AGN
 * Infobox/Intro
 * Continue Nav
 * Story
 * Table of Contents
 * Other Info
 * Footer Nav (no backpage)
 * Categories
 * Option 9
 * Tags
 * AGN
 * Infobox/Intro
 * Continue Nav
 * Table of Contents
 * Story
 * Other Info
 * Footer Nav (no backpage)
 * Categories

Also, I've put in the class data for nonumtoc and toclimit (as well as topicon, see it in action here). Those were only a few of the possible options, so which one do you think would work the best? --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 17:48, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I am strongly for having the continue nav right near the top, before the ToC for sure, but before or after the Story doesn't matter to me. I'm supportive of the modified Footer Nav, depending on whether or not we have the ToC at the bottom.  References and External links should go below the ToC since they aren't really "content".  I'm supporting option 7/8/9 (though I think I might not like 9 :/) >_>. -- Prod (Talk) 18:13, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
 * lol, I thought you would hate option 7. Naturally, my vote is for 4, but I could live with 8, which isn't far from how many of my guides are now.  Realize, of course, not all games (like racing and sports games) have a story.  So...  If at least Ryan and NMH vote, we could narrow down the options a little.  Prod, simply out of curiosity, what are you arguments for having the Continue Nav instead of the TOC up at the top?  What are you arguments against using the TOC instead of the CN?  Thanks!  Procyon (Talk) 18:22, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
 * One major reason is simplicity (where to go next), but also because there tends to be a lot of white space beside the really long infoboxes, and it helps to fill that in (if we could get it to centre properly...). The ToC is also already right at the top (AGN) so it is "technically" already accessible (yea...that's a stretch :P). -- Prod (Talk) 18:45, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
 * My only counter-argument to yours is that in a multiple page guide, one author has to make the choice of which links to use in the Continue Nav. Naturally, we tend to choose the most obvious choices (How to play and Walkthrough for example) and I think that's sufficient 90% of the time.  However, if this is not where the reader wants to go, s/he has to find the TOC (which I agree is easy enough to find, especially if you are familiar with the site) and choose a link that s/he prefers.  This may be a bold assertion on my part, but I think it's the reader who navigates all the way down to the bottom of a front page that will want his/her hand held a little bit more.  I admit that I'm hypothesizing and splitting hairs here.  Ultimately, I'm happy to go along with the consensus (once we reach one.) Procyon (Talk) 19:10, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
 * One solution would be to put a "jump to Table of Contents" link at the bottom of the Continue Nav (still within the box) that would take the reader to the ToC at the bottom of the page. This is a simple fix, and it means we can continue leaving the ToC to last. GarrettTalk 02:32, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

I'm fine with the ToC being as high as it can be without causing visual problems. Which means it should be limited to just below the Infobox. Additionally, I choose layout 8, that's always been how I make pages, except we'd add the footer nav thing. I'm wondering how it looks with the cats there... Maybe footer nav below cats? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 02:06, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Oh crap I don't know why I hadn't brought this up earlier. We should just make the ToC as high as possible, (like I just said) but then make the page ToC mandatory to show the other sections.  That way we have both guide navigation and page navigation easily accessible to nublets.  I'm a genius aren't I?  But yeah, Proc you need to remember to make all your really long guides have the ToC.  Once this is all settled, I'll help relieve you of the monotony =) --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 02:09, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Er... the page ToC doesn't necessarily solve the problem. I explained this to Dan last night.  Say you have two different users.  One user has visited a guide many times and knows what information he's looking for.  Another user has never visited that same guide before.  The user who's been there before is not going to peruse the whole page, and if the link that he wants isn't in the continue nav, he will either a) have to click [show] on the AGN to see the TOC, or scroll to the bottom (or maybe hit Page Down a couple of times).  The user who's never seen this guide before is more likely to explore the whole page, all the way down to the bottom.  Once this user reaches the bottom, he will probably not know where to go next, which is why I propose we put the CN or an altered FN at the bottom of the front page.  That's my logic.  But I understand Prod's points as well. Procyon (Talk) 09:00, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Votes
Ok, so let's try and get rid of some of the excess options. Vote for which one you think is the best (or more than one), and which ones you think are completely bad (ie. redundant, never going to happen, etc).
 * I'm Against 3->6, cause I think the Continue Nav should go above the Toc. I'm For 7->9, and 1/2 seem to be covered within those as well. -- Prod (Talk) 09:39, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm Against {1, 3, 5, 7} since I think that we all agree that the Story should not immediate follow the Intro. I honestly think you can remove them.  I'm For 4 or 6 for all of the reasons that I stated.  I can live with {2, 8, 9}.
 * I'm For 8 mainly because I think it is entirely pointless to even HAVE a continue nav if it is located immediately above or below the ToC. However, instead of a footer nav with no backpage, it would be better to have the footer-nav styled continue nav, as the footer nav just includes the game name if no backpage is specified, and the modified continue nav still has the words Continue To: but just inline with everything else (see sandbox). --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 15:16, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * For 8. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 02:06, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

It looks like 8 has it. It was one of Prod's fors, I was OK with it, and Ryan and NMH chose it. So unless anyone else strongly objects to 8 (and has a good reason to back that objection up) we may have our standard. Procyon (Talk) 10:00, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm fine with 8 but I'm a bit worried about putting things under the TOC for big guides, something like Pokémon Ruby/Sapphire or silver/Gold/Crystal, I think that a footer would be a bit of a waste because IMO people wouldn't really scroll to the bottom--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 10:20, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

ToC link in Continue Nav
Suggested by Garrett just above, adding a Jump to ToC local link to the Continue Nav. Yes or no?
 * Support - Assuming we can get the link to be fairly non-intrusive to the rest of the content, this would be very helpful. -- Prod (Talk) 09:35, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Support - This would be useful for navigation, and no objections come to mind.  ech elon  09:38, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Support - I'm thinking the best spot would be a link under where the customs would go, separated by a horizontal rule. As for the Footer Nav-styled one, we could just make a show/hide ToC just like the normal footer nav. --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 15:09, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Support - I don't see why not, but then again, I'm also in support of completely redesigning the Continue Nav since I don't think it serves its function as well as it could.
 * Can you elaborate on what you think needs to be changed? -- Prod (Talk) 10:04, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Specifically, it was what I was talking about earlier. What if the link that I want to go to isn't in the CN?  Which is why we started discussing if the TOC should be linked to the CN in the first place.  This conversation is what's known as an overweight balancing act.  If a problem has too much weight on one side and not enough on the other, people tend to gravitate to the solution where you add more weight to the other side to balance the problem out (which usually makes things more complex), instead of removing the original weight and redesigning the solution (which usually makes things more simple).  If you're going to go through the trouble of linking the TOC from the CN, why not just replace the CN with the TOC to begin with, and go with the Footer Nav that I proposed above.  I just want to make it clear that I'm not adamant about any of this, nor do I wish to force my views about this on to anyone.  I hope that I'm not giving anyone the impression that I'm pounding my fist on the table as I write this.  I'm just using this opportunity to give my honest opinion about the problem.  I will truly be happy with whatever the consensus is. ^_^ Procyon (Talk) 10:51, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * The problem is, some games have fairly formidable ToCs (e.g. this or even this). While the latter could be compacted using divs the vast scope of the game means it's going to take up most or all of the average screen resolution no matter what. When presented with a ToC this large many people might not go below it to the story and whatever other sections got shoved down there. Additionally, many guides don't have a long enough intro to extend beyond the infobox, meaning the ToC has to either float messily around it or else be forced below it with -, which results in a big gap of whitespace. And not every game has a deep enough story or enough gameplay tips to split these lower sections onto separate pages. For games with as few pages as Pac-Man I can see it being higher up, but for the more complex ones it might just be in the way there. GarrettTalk 17:08, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Ironically, Prod and I were discussing that very same thing today, and we started to wonder if it might not be a bad idea to have two different rules for small TOCs and large TOCs. Might be worth looking into.  For the record I considered having TOCs with 1 or 2 columns remain high, and TOCs with 3 or 4 columns put lower down.  Just thought it was interesting that we all had a similar thought.  Procyon (Talk) 17:25, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Rename All Game Nav
What does All Game Nav mean? It's somewhat minor, and a change can be handled with a simple redirect (and a bot to slowly change the links). Perhaps something like Header Nav (match with Footer Nav) or Top Nav (I like this one, nice and short). -- Prod (Talk) 09:48, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I like Header Nav personally. If we have Footer Nav, the top should be Header Nav.  I hate the fact that we use nextpage and backpage.  It should have been nextpage and prevpage.  But it's probably too late to change that now unless we sic a bot on the problem.  As a programmer, using different antonyms is confusing to me.  Words come in pairs, {Header-Footer}, {previous-next}, {forward-back}, and we break those pairs sometimes. Procyon (Talk) 10:01, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Getting a bot to do this would be relatively easy... getting people to change what they're used to may be a bit harder :P. -- Prod (Talk) 10:15, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Actually, we don't really need a bot, but it would help, we could move the AGN then have a bot do what links here to another place and add prevpage as well as having backpage to the footer but when backpage is used, add the page into a category. Just my ideas.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 10:18, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * *Scratches head...* I'm thoroughly confused by your response Rocky o_O; Procyon (Talk) 10:55, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * It's actually what I was suggesting as well....just that Rocky wants to change all the backpage to prevpage manually :P. If it gets to this, I'll have one of my bots take care of it, so don't worry too much (might have to leave it running overnight or something...) -- Prod (Talk) 11:01, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm all for the rename. I like Header Nav and prevpage as the name/link. Unfortunately, this will more than likely confuse active contributors that don't look at this page. New contributors should be fine, as should we (since we're voting on this, after all). That's just what I think. --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 15:06, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Actually, I was suggesting that we keep backpage and customback until a bot can change them then have those (customback and backpage) present a warning to change to prevpage and customprev. This will give old contributors (and the ones that haven't seen this) to change.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 16:30, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Originally we had guide-specific navs in the form Game Name Nav. All Game Nav, therefore, was to replace these with a unified system. Yeah, renaming it and backpage sounds sensible. A legacy cat would be a good interim fix until we have a bot that can do it. GarrettTalk 15:53, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * That explains a few things ^_^. To be clear, this covers two changes:

Lets say we leave this discussion up for few days (until May 29th) and if we don't have any objections we can perform the changes. -- Prod (Talk) 16:22, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * 1) Move All Game Nav to Header Nav (matches with Footer Nav, still open for alternate suggestions)
 * 2) Change usage in Footer Nav from backpage/backname/customback to prevpage/prevname/customprev
 * I agree with the proposed rename. All Game Nav was a very confusing name to implement, and it certainly looks out of place now that we have formalized standards. A bot should do this.  ech elon  00:40, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Definitely rename it... It'll take some time to adjust from saying AGN to HN though!-- Duke  Ruckley  08:35, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Well, the AGN has been moved to HN, prevpage/prevname/customprev has been incorporated, it's just a matter of sending my bot to clean up the old stuff (already prepared to go...I think :P). If there are no complaints, I'll start on Monday night (around 7 or 8 I hope...). -- Prod (Talk) 18:21, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
 * One final change I though of, customprev -> prevcustom (to match with prevpage and prevname). -- Prod (Talk) 10:51, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Not too sure about that one. customprev is much easier to say than prevcustom, and you'll have to change customnext to nextcustom as well (which, again, is not very easy to say). Plus, at least for me, prevcustom and nextcustom make me think that there is a custom parameter in there somewhere. --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 11:14, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Well, as there doesn't seem to be any problems, I'm gonna start on changing the AGN's and backpage/backname. The custom ones are used so rarely they can be done later without causing too many edits. And Ryan, I don't have a voice recognition for me wiki edits :-P. -- Prod (Talk) 15:04, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
 * 318 down, 7150 to go. I've been doing a basic spell check and a few cleanup things as I've been going, which has made it a manual process. This is probably going to take a few days to make sure I don't overload the server (and while I'm awake).  As the new stuff is already in place, everyone should just start using the new things immediately as I work through the backlog. -- Prod (Talk) 17:36, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Other aspects of games
I've started wondering while working on the StarCraft guide... Are we a strictly walkthrough-type site? Could we be including things like plots and characters of games, or are those out of our focus and should be left to other wikis and sites? Baejung92 17:30, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * The short answer to your question is, please feel free to include plots and characters. The longer answer is: any information that you might find in an instruction manual, or could be considered useful to a player may be included.  Basically, anything that you might just as easily find in a printed strategy guide at a book store.  That includes story lines, characters, item/enemy/level descriptions, and of course the walkthrough.  Things that should be left out of guides are more supplemental information such as public response to a game, professional reviews, cultural references, that sort of thing.  Procyon (Talk) 17:35, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Promising Guide
We kinda need a few more candidates for this, we've got a few days to go and there's only 2 candidates.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 10:25, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Some questions
Why exactly is there no March 2006 section under the Community Issues archives? and I am stumped as to the point of the depreciated templates category, and why they are on most of the pages I have viewed. Lunar Knight (Talk to me + Contribs) 11:18, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
 * The Deprecated templates thing is due to this, AGN and backpage/backname are now deprecated. -- Prod (Talk) 11:22, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Incorrect Pokemon Type
It says here that Bulbasaur is Grass/Poison. This is incorrect. Only Ivysaur and Venasaur are. Bulbasaur is Grass only. I'll change it if no one else does. Sincerely, Myth 18:41, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Be bold! I'll go ahead and do it for you if you haven't. ;)  ech elon  00:19, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Please discuss it on the talk page before doing anything because in Ruby it's definitely grass/Poison.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 01:53, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Whoops! Shows you what I know.  ech elon  18:22, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Anyone also interested in adding Tekken 3 and Tekken 5 movelists?
If you are interested in assisting with the addition of Tekken 3 and Tekken 5 move lists you're help will be extremely appreciated as StrategyWiki needs it and I have limited access to a computer with internet as I don't own one yet. As of now, I am beginning with the character "King" as I am most familiar with him. Please, if you do help, I will humbly ask if you can leave King's moves for me to deal with due to my reasons above.

"Getting started" vs. "How to play"
I've initiated an effort to standardize the guides that I started with some non-SW-conventional page names to bring them more in line with SW's standards. In summary, I'm changing every page that was once called "Elements" to "How to play", and any page that was once called "Strategy" (which was redirected from "Walkthrough") to "Walkthrough." I felt that these changes would help bring more consistency with the rest of the site to the guides that I started. As a result of my changes, I have been making every Continue Nav point to "How to play" and "Walkthrough" and I began to think that just as "Walkthrough" is a default parameter for nextpage2, I thought "How to play" should be the default parameter for nextpage. That is, until I examined the template and realized that there already was a default parameter for nextpage, and it was "Getting started."

I began to think about the term "Getting started" and it always felt to me like the very first part of a Walkthrough, which is where I thought the "Walkthrough" link of the CN should be pointing to anyway. So I looked at all of the pages that we have that are labeled "Getting started" and there are 45 of them (compared to the thousands of guides that we have, so it's obviously not in frequent use) and many of them serve different purposes from one another. Many are, as I expected, the beginnings of walkthroughs (go here, buy this, talk to that guy, start your adventure) while others are used in much the same fashion that I use "How to play" (controls, items, other game elements).

Therefore, I would like to propose that we officially adopt "How to play" over "Getting started" and simply tidy up the 45 guides that use "Getting started" (i.e. either leave it as "Getting started" if it's the beginning of a Walkthrough or change it to "How to play" if it discusses controls and rules), and set the default parameter of the Continue Nav nextpage to "How to play." How does everyone feel about this? Procyon (Talk) 09:38, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm a bit worried really, we will have a lot of pages using it because it's in the preload template New_toc_preload. P.S I keep getting database errors when I search for getting started and press any of the next page buttons (next page and all the numbers), does anyone else have this problem?--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 09:43, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Sorry, I misread the entire thing, I barely ever use the getting started and how to play would be much better.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 09:56, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
 * The thing is, "Getting Started" is a section header in the Table of Contents that contains all of the controls and general information. "How to Play" is really a broad term that spans all of the pages under that section. I think for smaller guides, "How to Play" would be perfectly fine. However, most of the new games are larger and deserve the separate sections under "Getting Started" (which is now a linked header in the toc preload instead of just a plain header). Another thing is, the default for nextpage in the continue nav is already pretty complicated. Pretty much, it links to Getting Started if Getting Started exists. If it does not, it goes to Controls if that exists. If neither Getting Started nor Controls exists, then it goes to Getting Started. I'll try to work on getting How to Play in there (simply because most if not all of the retro games will probably have that as opposed to a Getting Started section), but I don't know if I can nest another parser in there. --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 10:01, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
 * My point is that "Getting Started" probably shouldn't be a section heading in the TOC. If it's used in different ways by different authors, then its intentions are either unclear, or unintuitive.  "How to play" to me means how exactly you control and interact with the various elements of the game, and has nothing to do with how to win, which is what the Walkthrough is for.  Personally, they are distinct concepts in my mind.  Whereas "Getting Started" to me really feels like a guide that goes at the very beginning of a Walkthrough.  As in, "these are the things that happen right at the very beginning of a new game."  Controls and such, theoretically, should be discussed and understood before you even begin, sort of like a "Before you get started," which sounds lame and is why I suggest "How to play" instead.  Anyway, if anyone agrees with me, let me know, and if not, no big deal.  I'll just continue link "How to play" manually in the Continue Navs that I write. Procyon (Talk) 13:23, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I see what you mean, and it makes sense. "Getting Started" IS a bit broad. At the beginning, it was meant to prepare you for playing the game if you have not yet done so by introducing you to the controls and major characters and such (hence, it got you to a basis where you could start the game itself). I do agree maybe "Getting Started" is not the best name for that, and it should be relatively easy to get a bot to change all instances of "Getting Started" in ToC's to "How to Play" (or some other heading). Of course, we'll have to manually move all of the 45 actual pages into the correct ones and change the Footer Navs, but a bot should be able to take care of most of it. However, while I am in support of renaming "Getting Started" to something else, "How to Play" isn't it. For me, "How to Play" tells of the game interface (controls) and possibly some basic info/strategies that could be used throughout the game. A list of characters or other story elements, therefore, does not really fit under this, but is still worth mentioning before the walkthrough itself. --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 15:08, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
 * For the guide I'm working on, "How to play" or even "Instructions" would be better, since that section will only have information about controls, gameplay, menus, and so on, without anything about story or characters (since there really isn't any in the game). Perhaps something similar to "Preamble" or "Prelude"? --Deasean 15:48, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Yes, but this is the discussion to change the entirety of StrategyWiki, not just one guide. If you feel that something other than "Getting Started" fits your guide, use it, be bold! "Instructions" probably wouldn't work that well, as we're just presenting the info, not teaching it to them. "Preamble" sounds too formal, and then we'd have to make "Walkthrough" into "Body" or something (well, not really, but it emphasizes the point). Finally, "Prelude" is more of what happened before the game, not really how to play it. --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 16:01, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
 * That's so funny because Prod was trying to come up with one word equivalent for "How to play" or "Getting started" and "Instructions" fits that perfectly. Personally, I always equated "Getting started" with "Prelude" as Ryan described it above.  Personally, I still prefer "How to play" over "Instructions" but only because "Instructions" feels kind of dry.  For the purpose however, I prefer "Instructions" over "Getting Started".  Procyon (Talk) 16:10, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
 * How about "Introduction"? I know it really don't describe it all that well, but it is a bit more interesting (and wiki-like) than "Instructions" (plus it fits with "Appendices"). --SkizzerzTalk - Contribs 16:28, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Argh, I'm gonna sound like such a jerk, but exactly when did "Appendices" begin? Who's using Appendices?  And using the term "Introduction" sort of conflicts with the usage of the front page.  Introductions usually don't go in to a lot of detail, which is what you would expect to find in Instructions/Getting Started/How to play.  How did this get so complicated?  Procyon (Talk) 16:48, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
 * No idea when it began. It is used as a header in a lot of games, especially in the Grand Theft Auto series (where there are even pages sub-paged under it). As for "Introduction," it was kinda a bad idea, but I was wracking my mind for some one-worders and that is the first one I came up with. I guess "How to Play" is fine, but I prefer the P in Play capital rather than lowercase. I believe this got complicated the moment you've started the section on it here ;) --SkizzerzTalk - Contribs 16:57, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I don't know where the use of Appendices began, but I saw it once and started using it all the time, it makes sense for "miscellaneous information" stuff. I say How to Play should override Getting Started, it makes more sense as to what's in it and it also helps define the ToC section heading.  Instructions is, well, bland.  --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 18:04, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

You know...where did this Walkthrough term come from? :P. For some minor history, Getting Started came into widespread usage with the Continue Nav, Appendices came into widespread usage when added to the ToC preload. As Procyon stated above, I'd prefer a 1 word replacement if we change it. Some suggestions: Introduction, Basics, Preface, Background (and many of their synonyms). -- Prod (Talk) 21:20, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Basics is the best choice because... It states that there is more than just mere instructions. This allows us to put sections like character information under it while still being able to contain instructions.  You see, instructions = instructions, background/preface = background/preface, but basics = instructions/background/preface.  --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 22:26, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Here's a list of what I think of (connotations) when I see these names:
 * Getting Started: I think of everything from menus to controls to battle mechanics to background story.  This is not the best choice if we want something concise.
 * How to Play: Pretty much the same as "getting started", except without the background story.  Its okay, except I would prefer a single word over three.
 * Instructions: Sounds to me like a page for just controls.
 * Introduction: A page for just background story or perhaps a "how to use this guide" page.
 * Basics: Very basic information.  This would be basic controls, basic fighting, etc.  Nothing "advanced."
 * Background: Only for story.
 * Preface/Preamble: Both of these make me think of the first chapter in a book.  These should be left for pages in the actual walkthrough.

I think what we need to figure out is what exactly this link is going to be for. Is it supposed to be the booklet for the game, essentially? If so, there is typically a lot involved in that and it should be a link to the "Introduction" for that booklet (I don't particularly like that name for it because it can be confusing). Is it supposed to be specifically for controls (then we can name it controls)? I like the name "Basics" but what exactly does that mean?

If we are going to standardize something, we need to be very specific about it.-- Duke Ruckley  12:58, 30 May 2007 (CDT)


 * Dukeruckley's comments helped to solidify the problem with this conversation for me. I think that we may be trying too hard to apply one standard to a variety of guide styles.  I'm going to desribe four guide types that I have come across here on this site:


 * 1) The "Tip sheet."  Examples include Combat, Rally-X, Binary Land.  One page guides for games that are very simple, and don't necessarily contain a back-story.  Roughly everything that can be said about the game can be contained in about two pages of text and so doesn't need to be split up.
 * 2) The "Game Manual."  Examples include Defender, Karateka, Street Fighter II.  Games that are not so complicated that they require an intricate Walkthrough (or where no walkthrough is possible), but still have a level of depth that requires three or four pages to adequately describe all of the features of the game.  (The majority of the guides that I have written are like this.)
 * 3) The "Tip Book."  Examples include Super Mario Bros., The Legend of Zelda, M.U.L.E..  Games where the walkthroughs are easy enough to figure out (or are fairly linear) but are worth spelling out so that subtle details and hidden items can be pointed out for those who don't know where to look, or want to become expert players.  These guides will require between 5 and 15 pages.
 * 4) The "Strategy Guide."  Examples include The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Pokémon Red and Blue, World of Warcraft.  Games that are so expansive that the walkthrough needs to be broken up in several parts.  Candidates for these guides are fairly obvious, expansive RPGs, Strategy games, MMOs, etc.  These guides easily need over 15 pages.


 * Sometimes an author knows in advance which type of guide he intends to write, and sometimes it starts out one way, and evolves into another (hopefully they never devolve.) The fact is, the same standards can't always be applied across every style of guide.  City Connection will never require a stage by stage walkthrough since the stages are identical in every way except for the layout of the platforms.  Final Fantasy XI can never be described in one page, it's impossible.  So ultimately, we can try to establish standards for these four different types of guides, or sort of trust each other enough to know what's best for the guides that we write.  What do you all think of this?  Procyon (Talk) 14:10, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Procyon brings up a good point. I think instead of having one single standard, we should have standards for the different types of guides. Here are a few of my suggestions:
 * {| class="wikitable"

!Type of Guide!!Heading
 * Tip Sheet||None (Subdivide into different H2's as needed)
 * Game Manual||How to Play
 * Tip Book||How to Play
 * Strategy Guide||Getting Started
 * }
 * I felt that the "Strategy Guide" class deserves the "Getting Started" simply because it is probably the only type where mentioning story and more intricate points before the walkthrough starts would be beneficial. Of course, these are only suggestions and guidelines, what they are actually called should be up to personal discretion (within reason). Of course, this would probably require a bit more than a simple preload to implement, like a js wizard describing the four types w/ radio buttons whenever the "new toc" is clicked. Unfortunately, I suck at javascript... --SkizzerzTalk - Contribs 15:25, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I don't think that's a good idea at all. The getting started section is already stardardized to contain information pertaining to starting the game.  I.e., we talk about what various modes are available off the bat, what things mean (statistics, titles, sub classes, etc.) and various things that aren't really important to anyone who already knows how to play.  It's like a game manual in that it contains the little tidbits you might miss elsewhere, but aren't part of anything definitive like "controls."
 * Strategy Guide||Getting Started
 * }
 * I felt that the "Strategy Guide" class deserves the "Getting Started" simply because it is probably the only type where mentioning story and more intricate points before the walkthrough starts would be beneficial. Of course, these are only suggestions and guidelines, what they are actually called should be up to personal discretion (within reason). Of course, this would probably require a bit more than a simple preload to implement, like a js wizard describing the four types w/ radio buttons whenever the "new toc" is clicked. Unfortunately, I suck at javascript... --SkizzerzTalk - Contribs 15:25, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I don't think that's a good idea at all. The getting started section is already stardardized to contain information pertaining to starting the game.  I.e., we talk about what various modes are available off the bat, what things mean (statistics, titles, sub classes, etc.) and various things that aren't really important to anyone who already knows how to play.  It's like a game manual in that it contains the little tidbits you might miss elsewhere, but aren't part of anything definitive like "controls."


 * So what I'm saying is that we shouldn't split the standardization of the Getting Started section based on how complex a game is; it still contains what it contains, and they should all be named the same for ease of use. If we break them up, then we're also going to have to require guides/sub pages to have "type" labels clearly visible.  It's like, as programmers say, keep it simple stupid!  Do we really need to break things up?  I think all we need is to define what we want in each section, and then name them accordingly.


 * We want a walkthrough, we want basics of a game, and we want a place for miscellaneus information. Walkthrough makes sense.  Appendices is my choice for misc info, and Basics, Starting, or Beginning is my choice for the basics.  --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 18:36, 30 May 2007 (CDT)