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.

Image upload warning
I'm going through categorising all the images, and it's a pain. I have a horrible feeling that people are going to continue to upload uncategorised images, so why not put some Javascript on the image upload form which checks for a category link, and pops up a message box chiding the user if the output of  is true. --DrBob (Talk) 06:43, 2 July 2006 (PDT)
 * I suggest looking into the uncategorized images page sporewiki has set up and have that installed. But if this code gets put it, If you could explain how it's done, then that'd be appreciated echelon, thanks :). -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 16:42, 2 July 2006 (PDT)
 * I think we should do both. :-P The message on form submission to stop more uncategorised images being uploaded, and the uncategorised images page to help deal with the ones which have already been uploaded. Looks quite simple to install the uncategorised images page, and thanks must go to MediaWiki (and SporeWiki) for it. :-D --DrBob (Talk) 23:00, 2 July 2006 (PDT)

Display bug with IE
I've been noticing this and felt I should bring it up. It seems the All game Nav template is causing it too. Anyway, if you look at a page in IE that has that template, it seems it is too wide and it causes the text under it to be sort of "cut off" by the table. Any text following the headers (the 2 equal signs on either side) is okay. I'm surprised this hasn't been addressed. --Sivak 14:18, 25 July 2006 (CDT)


 * "Cut off" by which table? I've just looked at Counter-Strike: Source in IE7 beta 2 and the All Game Nav is too wide, but I'm getting no other problems with it. Could you perhaps link to a screenshot (or upload one as long as you promise to have it deleted afterwards :-P )? --DrBob (Talk) 14:29, 25 July 2006 (CDT)


 * I checked using IE6 on the EarthBound main page and I think he's talking about this: click here to see image-- Duke  Ruckley  14:54, 25 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Yeah, same here as dukeruckley. It seems the left edge of the main content has negative padding or something. But, it only happens on pages that have the All Game Nav on them, as far as I checked. I looked at an ealier revision of EarthBound without the All Game Nav, and it looked fine.--blendmaster 22:09, 25 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Ah. Are you sure this only happens on pages using All Game Nav? I'll look into it later, but it's probably a symptom of one of IE's box model problems. :-( --DrBob (Talk) 15:01, 25 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Why can't everyone just get Firefox? :p --Antaios 14:59, 25 July 2006 (CDT)


 * If only. However, we do have to support everyone. :-( --DrBob (Talk) 15:01, 25 July 2006 (CDT)


 * I put a screenshot of my own. It seems maybe the images on the left which make up the menu are overlapping somehow.  Check the area I put a red box over.  It gets "uncut" after a short way down.  click here to see image  --Sivak 09:42, 27 July 2006 (CDT)


 * I think you're probably right. I checked the same pages uses Monobook and there is no problem there, so it might be the skin itself.-- Duke  Ruckley  09:46, 27 July 2006 (CDT)
 * That's partly it (the top is a JPEG while the rest is a GIF) but that still doesn't explain IE drawing it too far to the left. GarrettTalk 22:52, 27 July 2006 (CDT)

New Pokedex or Partnership?
Hello everyone. I happened to notice some edits that 0-172 was making when it occurred to me that StrategyWiki does not have it's own Pokedex. And it certainly seems that among the many things StrategyWiki should have, a Pokedex should be one of them. However, it didn't take very long until I discovered Bulbapedia and I thought, how awesome is this? So I was curious what many of you felt about approaching them and seeing if we could form some sort of partnership between them and us. Essentially, they could provide all of our visitors with (well presented) Pokedex information instead of forcing us to reinvent the wheel and write something that's been written a million times before, and we could provide their visitors with the actual walkthroughs to Pokemon games. Is this something that we need? No, but I think it would be a great way to form a mutually beneficial partnership with another Wiki site (not that we need that either, I just think it would be neat to cross polinate some of the talent that we have.) OK, I'm getting off my soap box. What do you think? Procyon 20:37, 28 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Nice find :) It would be cool to have them link to SW (we always need more quality contributors ;-) ) We could link to them on all the pokemon guides (if they're that good, we should do that anywayz).  However, how would they link back to us?  I checked out the website, and I'm having a bit of trouble finding where to go. -- Prod 21:09, 28 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Hm. They already have Pokedex entries (e.g. Poliwrath), so I'm not sure they'd need or want an external Pokedex. Also they use the evil BY-NC-SA rather than the GFDL. Hm. Copying the old Wikibook Pokedex here is certainly an idea, although linking to them or Serebii is probably just as good. The MAME guide worked out pretty well so I don't really have a problem with this either way. GarrettTalk 21:40, 28 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I thought perhaps the way that it could work, is that whenever we mention a Pokemon, we externally link to them, like so:
 * "Walk out of Pallet Town until you reach the grass. If you walk around there, you will find a Rattata or a Pidgey."
 * and so on. They appear to have stubs for each of the games like Pokemon Red and Blue so perhaps we could twist their arm to point to us instead. Procyon 22:16, 28 September 2006 (CDT)


 * It's in PD at wikiknowledge so we can easily copy it here. -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 23:49, 28 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Yes, but like so many things on that site, it's ugly and presented with little care. Personally speaking, I'd rather link to a site like Bulbapedia where you know they care about the content they have, and they will keep it updated with new information since they're passionate about it.  Plus there's the possibility of attracting new talent to our site.  Procyon 08:02, 29 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Procyon makes a good point. While we could certainly have our own Pokedex, I'm kind of leaning towards linking to theirs. We can always change it in the future if something doesn't work out. What we should definitely concentrate on, though, are getting some good Pokemon guides.  ech elon  00:40, 30 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I suggest being BOLD, and making one right now, and also link to theirs "for more information" as I'd hope they'd link to us for more information on guides. -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 14:46, 8 October 2006 (CDT)
 * And I have been bold. I'll make it a list of red links soon. :)

Well, I would have appreciated a little more patience on the matter. It's not that I object to having a pokedex on StrategyWiki. By all means, if someone is willing to put in the time and effort to make one (and I mean REALLY make a GOOD one) than we should go for it. But it's it just going to be a half-assed attempt to throw something up in order to claim that we have one, then I'd rather just rely on Bulbapedia, who has done a really impressive job. Mason, really question yourself as to how dedicated you're going to be in filling out the 386+ entries that need to be filled out. Either that, or find people who you know will be dedicated to the effort. Procyon 18:42, 8 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I won't be dedicated to it. But that doesn't mean the red links won't inspire those people who will be dedicated to it.  I think the pokedex is definitly within the scope of strategywiki and therefore we should make it as obvious as possible that if someone wants to be dedicated to something like that, then can do so.  But if not that's all good to, that's what the bulbapedia links are for. -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 20:33, 8 October 2006 (CDT)

Parser Functions
Parser extension might make some templates a bit easier to understand as its shorter than qif. I don't know enough about this stuff, but it looks interesting. -- Prod 23:15, 28 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Are these avalaible to test? --inarius 09:51, 29 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Does anyone know if there's a way to create variables and assign values to them? I wanted to do somethere where every other Special Move template shaded itself grey.  So the first one would set some variable to 1, and the next one would read it and if it was 1, shade the table row grey and set the variable to 0.  Then the next one would read it again, see that it was zero, and draw the row white, and so on.  But there doesn't seem to be any way to make your own controls like that.  Just curious.  Procyon 20:05, 29 September 2006 (CDT)

I was looking at the Mega Man 2 page which has references at the bottom. Perhaps we could get http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cite/Cite.php installed. -- Prod 10:14, 2 October 2006 (CDT)
 * ref and note already serve this purpose fairly adequately. You can see them in action in BS Zelda: Kodai no Sekiban/Cheats. GarrettTalk 14:23, 2 October 2006 (CDT)

Newbie section
It seems that this site is starting to attract larger numbers of people (it's getting tough to keep up with recent changes now) meaning a lot of new people. Many people don't know a lot about wikimarkup and need somewhere to ask questions. What I'm suggesting is some kind of Staff lounge -- Prod 11:45, 1 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Good idea! I'll see what everyone else thinks before implementing it, though. --DrBob (Talk) 13:25, 1 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Agreed, good idea. Procyon 14:58, 1 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I've implemented this as Staff lounge, and basically lifted it from Wikibooks, then changed some stuff. --DrBob (Talk) 13:00, 4 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Sweet, now we don't have to all watch your talk page :P. -- Prod 13:03, 4 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I realized that it's somewhat hard to find that page. Perhaps a link in the nav bar would be helpful. -- Prod 13:49, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

Game Categories
I searched through the archives and couldn't find anything about it, so now is as good a time as any. Should we categorize each page of a game under the game's name (or something similar). For example Category:Super Mario World or Category:Move Lists. It will help us clean up Special:Uncategorizedpages leaving only unused pages hanging around. -- Prod 16:03, 4 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I think this would be a good idea. It will have the added benifit of being able to categorize images by game in addition to the acutal image-type (which I think we should be doing). --inarius 16:20, 4 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I'm definitely against this. This would not encourage maintenance of the table of contents for a game, and thus would actually make it harder for people to find pages (tables of contents should be easier to navigate than category listings). We already have provision for categorising images by game, as you can add a "Game name images" category (note the lower-case "images"). --DrBob (Talk) 16:53, 4 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm with DrBob on this one. Honestly, I hate my own Move Lists category page.  I just can't think of a better way to organize it, and it's only just started.  As I and other members add more to it, it's just gonna get uglier and uglier.  That's the only aspect of the project which I'm unhappy with the results of so far.  It seems to me that most of the pages presented here on Strategy Wiki should at least fall under one single platform, unless it's a special project like the Move Lists or the MAME guide, and then I'm not sure what to do.  But I just don't know.  Personally, I think the SMW Category is a bit extraneous.  I think it should be any sub-page's author to properly add a sub-page to the parent page's Table of Contents.  Sub-pages don't need to be categorized as long as someone is doing a good job maintaining the TOC tree.  Just my $0.02 Procyon 16:58, 4 October 2006 (CDT)
 * About maintenance of the TOC page, it doesn't encourage maintenance, but it doesn't deter it either. It's just another category to add at the bottom of the page.  About images, Category:MapleStory images works fine for me, though I'd prefer it to be categorized along with the main guide.  But that's a minor issue.  I'm not too sure how it works, but it would also give a definate link for Related Changes.  I also don't see a reason to remove it if it's already there. -- Prod 17:48, 4 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I personally don't think it would hurt, but I don't think it would be very useful and mandating something like that would be near impossible and a bad place to focus our efforts. I think our efforts would be better served on a good TOC then a cat page.  Subpages in categories looks very ugly. -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 18:29, 4 October 2006 (CDT)

Search Plugin
Firefox strategywiki search plugin -- Prod 00:39, 5 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Good work! --DrBob (Talk) 00:59, 5 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Awesome! I like this very much! :)  ech elon  12:49, 6 October 2006 (CDT)

Spoilers
I've been seeing the Template:Spoilers on a few toc pages. Considering the toc is one of the first things (possibly) that the user sees, it seems somewhat...weird. I guess giving away the story by telling where the player goes, or who the bosses are is a spoiler, but how can that be avoided in the toc? -- Prod 20:15, 5 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I think any use of spoilers in the ToC is a bit of a mistake, and that it can be remedied by perhaps changing the link captions, if anything needs to be done. --DrBob (Talk) 01:06, 6 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I agree, Spoiler templates in the TOC isn't the best idea. Titles should be changed to not be as spoilerish (if possible) but as long as they are still useful to the reader who doesn't care about spoilers. -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 21:53, 7 October 2006 (CDT)

Category:Game
We have a Category:Systems, why not a Category:Game. Put all the main pages in that category (perhaps using the infobox). This way we have a proper place to classify Category:Unreleased games. More importantly, the alphabetical index can go to the game category to find games, rather than Allpages (which isn't very useful). -- Prod 20:55, 8 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I think that category would get quite unwieldy don't you? All the games can be easily found by their system.  -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 21:52, 8 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Additionally, the search feature works quite well. :-) I think such a category would be redundant. --DrBob (Talk) 00:24, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I mean it as a replacement to Quick index. Motivation being, someone who wants to see what's there, maybe something random to contribute to. Whatever the reason for that quick index applies here as well. -- Prod 00:34, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * It is possible to over-categorize, and I think we're rather close to being on the verge of this. Categorization should never be a replacement or an alternative to organization.  The problem is that there is an arithmetically growing number of pages that appear on this site, and it's becoming more important with each passing day that the basic organization of the site be maintained.  If I were to point to a site that has a simple and effective organization, it's gamefaqs.com.  I can't think of a single instance when I failed to find what I was looking for.  While genre, release date, and game series are nice categories, CJayC has obviously determined that a majority of people search for games on a system basis, and we should emphasize our own system selection as a way to introduce new and old users alike to the pages they are looking for. Procyon 09:14, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * The way I see it, there are a few basic "types" of pages (excluding subpages). System and Company are already taken, which leaves Game.  They are exclusive categories where things would only be in one.  It wouldn't be much of a problem to add the category to every main page of every game (just include the cat in the infobox template, which should be on every page). -- Prod 09:55, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I dunno, I guess I'm just not understanding your fundamental drive to categorize the one specialty that this site focuses on. When would it ever be unclear to a reader that a game is... a game?  And not that I'm trying to poke holes in your design, but what categories do pages like the MAME guide and the Move Lists fall under?  Clearly not system, company, or game.  Procyon 10:36, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Well, its not for classifying that a game is a game, its for saying that "here's a list of all games". Mame guide should go under systems (or nowhere as it would be a sub page of the systems guide).  Move lists is kinda weird....I guess it could get its own category (which it has).  Essentially, games are what this site focuses on, but how to filter out only the main pages to see which guides we actually have. -- Prod 11:13, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Actually Prod's idea of putting it in the infobox seems exceptionally unobtrusive, and I think it doesn't hurt anything at all. Just throw it in the infobox, then leave cat:game as a top-level cat with cat:systems cat:companies  and cat:genres.  My comment about it being "unwieldy" applied because it would be hard to tag every game, but since it's reasonable and efficient to have an infobox on only the main page of every guide, then this is a perfect way of incorporating it.  I think this addresses Procyon's concerns in that it isn't a replacement or an alternative to organization, it's simply 4 extra letters at the bottom of every page, and it can be done in 15 seconds.  Then we have an easily accessible list of every game, alphabetically.  It sounds quite elegant now that he pointed out the infobox option. -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 21:49, 9 October 2006 (CDT)