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

Template:Toolbox
Can the funcationality of this template be exteneded to monobook? -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 19:21, 29 January 2007 (CST)
 * Any response? I know Inarius set it up, but I'm sure someone with more css skills can make this work for monobook considering the fact that people from wikipedia may be more comfortable with it and some guides look really ugly without it. -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 10:29, 27 February 2007 (CST)

New organized effort to promote StrategyWiki
Over the next few weeks I'd like to begin a two-tier program to promote StrategyWiki to a new level of visibility, adoption, and usage. This involves a range of tasks such as outreach to other wikis and related websites and both direct and indirect forms of promotion. Here are some of the things I would like to try: In closing, this is a pending project that I would like you guys to consider and comment on. Each item is a suggestion and is not set in stone; we can tweak everything as necessary before we begin. The ultimate goal of this project is to increase awareness of StrategyWiki, increase our search engine rankings, and possibly add new and seasoned talent to our already growing pool of contributors. Comment away.  ech elon  03:41, 7 March 2007 (CST)
 * In order to rise in the google results, we need to do a little offsite SEO. Normally, a rise in search engine visibility occurs over time (as it has already), but a boost would not hurt. If we get links from highly ranked sources (other than Wikipedia--which we already have thousands of), Google will appreciate our site's value even more. One way to accomplish is to request links from similar websites and wikis, especially ones that are already seeing a moderate or good level of success. I don't think this is a bad thing to ask.
 * Along the lines of what was stated above, we could also consider more strategic partnerships, such as our one with Bulbapedia. I think the choice to work with them was a wise one, and we should choose a Zelda-related and MapleStory-related wiki to work with.
 * Beginning this week, I would like to start talking directly with GameFAQs contributors on a 1-on-1 IM or email basis. While the word "proselytize" may be strong, in essence this is what we'd be doing. We can tell GF contributors what a good resource we think their guides are, and then we can explain how we think StrategyWiki may be a great place for those guides to be accessible and extendible by anyone. Obviously, some editors will not want to join us. Be it pride, a sense of loyalty, or something else entirely, not everyone will see StrategyWiki as the next logical step in guide writing. Others, however, may see this as an opportunity to help build our project. Gaining even a few of these such contributors would be invaluable for our project. A great place to start would be with the map makers, as they must already be fed up with GameFAQs lack of inline images.
 * I'd like to use some of our budget on advertising, whether on adsense, through text links, or maybe even banners posted all over my (or your) college or school. I'm not sure how affective this would be, but it's worth a shot. There has to be some reason companies pay millions of dollars for ads...


 * May I suggest a way of advertizing, we could link to relevant Youtube videos, it should then show up on the Links section and we may earn a little free advertizing that way, I'm not quite sure if Youtube will count as a highly ranked source though:pRocky    (Contributions) 10:20, 7 March 2007 (CST)
 * I would also suggest looking at this discussion from a while back. Here are some of my comments on the suggestions. -- Prod (Talk) 11:11, 7 March 2007 (CST)


 * 1) When approaching another website, be sure to read their rules and see if they mention their external linking policy. I'm pretty sure most sites would be willing to do some kind of link exchange, so we may have to figure out how to add links to their sites.  I'm not too sure a link in our external links section will be enough of a trade for a link in their sidebars.
 * 2) There is a Final Fantasy wiki I think, but I'm not too sure about Zelda. There is only one wiki I know relating to MapleStory, but I think we're essentially in competition with them (maplewiki.net).  Most of the sites potentially willing to partner are standalone websites (hidden-street and any of the external links on MapleStory).
 * 3) I think the main reason many don't/wouldn't want to join is the lack of their name on the front of the guide. There are all sorts of "incentives" for people to contribute.  For example, there is a count kept of guides uploaded, saves contributed (should we add that?) and various other things.  I think the fact that GF is owned by CNET might have reduced the loyalty of some people (fight the power! :P).  One thing they have which we don't, is a thriving community (ours + abxy is somewhat small at the moment, and fairly disjoint as well).
 * 4) Ads are always good :D There are some small gaming stores nearby, and I think they might be willing to put up an add for a gaming wiki if they were asked.  With the Wii gaining popularity (and the non-gamers perhaps looking for help) getting access to people offline would probably help.  In general, when putting up posters at universities and stores (or any building) you have to get permission from the owners.  At the university I went to, there is a special department that decides which advertisements to allow.  Anyone attempting to put up posters should look into this first.
 * 5) Gamerankings and metacritic (and similar sites) link to websites which host "official" reviews for games (not community reviews, but site staff reviews). If abxy can get recognized by these sites, and has reviews for many games (plus link to strategywiki) we should be able to help increase our traffic.
 * I found a Zelda Wiki that doesn't seem to have walkthroughs (which is good for us). As for GF, I think it would be a good idea to talk with them one on one (maybe getting the LUEs to start up a thread in the forum as well). Also, GF's "thriving" community consists mostly of immature idiots (not to insult anyone at GF, but it is a fact), so I think we have them beat there. We could also try getting an ad into the newspapers, maybe the local ones (as it usually doesn't cost as much). --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 15:39, 7 March 2007 (CST)
 * From my experience with working with GF users, so far image users, is just the fear of GFDL licensing and "public domain" works. They are afraid they will lose their copyright and thus the connection between their name and their work.  --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 17:55, 7 March 2007 (CST)
 * Their name will always be retained in the page's history as well as their contributions, so I really don't think that the connection between their name and the guide is that big of an issue (unless they like to put their name in the forefront). Also, they really shouldn't be worried about the GFDL because it only changes one thing, the fact that they don't have to sort through e-mails and retype the guide if there is a simple spelling error (someone else will do it for them here). As for other people copying the guide, they'll do it anyway no matter what it is licensed under, it just so happens that GFDL makes it legal. --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 18:35, 7 March 2007 (CST)
 * Exactly, the few that I have spoken to (the ones who haven't accepted my request for use of their work) want their name to remain on the images. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 19:06, 7 March 2007 (CST)
 * Yeah, Ryan, GFDL seems harmless to you because you're comfortable with it, and you don't have the kind of ego that needs your name advertised all over your work. GF authors have a different mindset (as they are entitled to have) and strongly protect their work as their own.  It's simply a distinction of philosophy.  I used to be a GF author, and I understand how they feel about it.  I was strongly protective of my work too.  Coming to SW was simply about accepting the wiki philosophy.  I know that I don't own any of my work here, but I know what work is my own, and I'm fine with that.  I gain recognition, not by claiming any of the work that I do, but by contributing positively to this community.  It's not easy for everyone to make that jump.  Especially if they've produced a large body of work.  I think approaching GF authors is a good idea, but I think the approach chosen is key to the success of that kind of attempt.  Procyon 19:55, 7 March 2007 (CST)
 * I find it best to just email a GF author with a large amount of contributions, explain StrategyWiki and GFDL and encourage them to join so that their work can be spread more efficiently. The thing is, I don't want to say it to them, but it's not like we won't use their information if they don't want to join or give us permission to reproduce it =/  --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 20:30, 7 March 2007 (CST)
 * How about we work on a kind of template e-mail? That way we can contact those who contribute to GF most effectively?  It's not very personal, but they are e-mails so it won't really be known that they are template e-mails and it would be more efficient.  I've contacted about a dozen GF authors already, mostly on specific guides that we could use here, and only a few seemed really interested, but I didn't explain everything as well as I could have (and can now) so I think something like a template would be useful. -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 16:56, 8 March 2007 (CST)
 * Sorry if I'm butting in here, but I don't think that having a template letter would be a good idea. The way to rope - er, I mean, convince :-P - people to join would be by gaining their trust and slowly bringing them around to the idea.  I reckon that you could achieve this with some editors who are working on a new game that you have, and you give them a few effective strategies for bosses, puzzles, sidequests, etc, but tell them that you're giving the strategy to both them and SW (and provide a link to the page if you like).  This would be slower, but it potentially could bring in more people.-Froglet 02:50, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * Note:You aren't butting in :). -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 10:07, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * I have to agree to the thought that template letters are a bad idea. There's nothing less personal than a--excuse my convictions--half-assed attempt to lure someone into following our organizational goals. I can think of times I have done this in the past and I have never felt good about it afterwards; maybe it's just because I don't have the loose convictions of a car salesman, who knows. What I do think we should try is working on a perfected series of talking points, where we concisely and succinctly put into words every reason why GameFAQs contributors should move their efforts here. We can all study this plan of ideals and use it to lull their every concern away. Every time we encounter a new objection on their part, we can discuss it and amend our document so that we can counter it in the future. As we gain practice doing this, I am sure we will begin to see the results. And since we'll be talking to them on a one-to-one basis, they will see that we are, in fact, a community. I think that would be most effective.  ech  elon  06:02, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I think if we follow What_makes_StrategyWiki_different in general during our discussions then this will work out good. I'm gonna do that today for a few guides that I'd love to have here. -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 08:16, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I think the one problem with this is that Strategywiki and GameFAQs attracts two very different kinds of contributor. This might just be me, but I think that GFAQers can be arrogant (not all the time!) and very driven - there are guides out there that are absolutely massive, with huge amounts of information and stuff which evidently have taken ages to put together.  I don't think that these types of contributors would like to have their work taken and put on a wiki because they did the work, and so they should have the rights to splurging their name all over it.  SWikians on the other hand are a bit more laid back, (although you do get the odd territorial one), which is why SW appeals to them - they can just contribute, go away for a bit, come back, contribute some more and they don't get pestered with emails like 'why haven't you put down XYZ?'.  Sure, I reckon there are loads of people out there who can be persuaded to come to the dark side, er, I mean, join us (:-P), but there are many 'regular' contributors who will outright refuse and then publicise it to everyone else and make it much harder to bring in more people. - Froglet 06:32, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Eh, we can't get everyone, I imagine as time goes on we will lure more and more though. -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 08:16, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

Wikibooks and StrategyWiki
Hi all, I think some of you know me from Wikibooks (SB_Johnny), and I was hoping to get some feed back from you regarding the VG/RPG policies there. If I understand correctly, StrategyWiki was originally created as a fork from Wikibooks after Jimbo Wales (presumably speaking for the foundation) called for an end to the creation and hosting of most VG-related Wikibooks.

For those of you who are familiar with Wikibookian culture, it should come as no surprise that there's yet another angry exchange going on about the subject :). I know some of you watch the VFD page for new material, but I was wondering if anyone watches the Administrators Noticeboard, where the most recent reincarnation of the dispute is/was taking place. It's a bit wordy, but the conversation is here.

One of the concerns seems to be about the "status" of StrategyWiki as a "sister project". My own opinion on that is that since SW is at least in some ways a fork from WB, the best all-around policy is to treat SW as a sister project and encourage those interested in writing on the topic to all come here (to the same place), rather than scattering everything to the winds. In any case, I think the way we've been collaborating for the past several months has been beneficial to both our projects, and I generally take the approach of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

One hard part of this is that the user who wanted to make the book has now marked his account as "no longer active", and I was hoping you folks might have some encouraging words for him as well. SB Johnny 10:03, 11 March 2007 (CDT)


 * I'm not sure about the initial reason for the creation of SW, but I know it existed before the game guide removals from wikibooks. Nevertheless, those guides did give us a boost in content initially, and continue to trickle in more content that we wouldn't have had otherwise (and most definitly appreciate).


 * That being said, we could consider ourselves a "sister project" to you, at least in my opinion, if people came here wanting to write about stuff outside of our scope, but within the scope of wikibooks, I would definitly send them there. If that's what you mean by "sister project" then I think that's accurate.  I'm going to look at the Admin noticeboard when I get a chance, and would love to encourage a guide writer to come here if his work isn't within the scope of wikibooks.  Who is this user?


 * Also, glad to have you visit, hope you enjoy SW :). -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 10:55, 11 March 2007 (CDT)


 * The user is Seraphimblade, and he wants to write about Xenosaga. Apparently the book is going to be more aimed at the background story of the game, but I can only imagine that that sort of material would be an excellent thing to have as part of a strategy guide.
 * I'll stick around... next time I'll leave a note here when such conversations start, rather than after the Game writer gets frustrated. To be honest I really don't play video games (the last game I owned was Super Mario Bros on Nintendo), I just want to make sure that those who are passionate about them are directed towards a wiki where their contributions will be valued, since the Wikimedia Foundation isn't thrilled about such content being on wikibooks. SB Johnny 11:32, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Hi. StrategyWiki was originally created because a few people were tired of the text-only approach of GameFAQs and similar sites, and saw an opportunity to make a good wiki. It was created before game guides were removed from Wikibooks, but it is true that a not inconsiderable amount of our content has come from Wikibooks, due to Jimbo's ruling about them. We would definitely like to continue treating StrategyWiki as a "sister project" to Wikibooks, and continue taking game guides/game guide writers as appropriate. By all means, encourage Seraphimblade to come to StrategyWiki. :-) One point I feel I should make in response to a comment on Wikibooks' admin noticeboard is that StrategyWiki is not for-profit. The adverts we've put on the site are purely to raise money for server costs, so that we can eventually buy co-located servers. Thanks for your visit SB Johnny, and keep referring people to StrategyWiki! --DrBob (Talk) 12:27, 11 March 2007 (CDT)


 * I hadn't caught that, but I think I knew before that it was non-profit. I was hoping that one of you guys (rather than me) could maybe try and get in touch with him: while I certainly didn't intend to offend him, I'm pretty sure I did (I had provided a link to this page earlier in any case, but it may have gotten lost in the "throng").
 * I also just noticed that SW is a link prefix (you can just use Pagename, so I presume metawiki had already decided that this was an official sister in any case :).
 * In any case, I'm always glad to help... I'm actually an administrator on Wikiversity and commons as well, so I have a bit of experience in facilitating cross-wiki relations (Wikiversity was also once a part of Wikibooks, and there were some hard feelings about the forking for a while). In general I feel that contributors should always be steered towards the most appropriate, welcoming, and supportive community that is available, and I've lurked here often enough to get a good sense of your community here. I'll try to keep checking in, but as I said on my userpage: if I don't respond in a reasonable amount of time, give me a poke on Wikibooks and I'll head on over. SB Johnny 12:56, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I've just left a message on his talk page, and I hope he gets it. It's quite nice that we've got a link prefix on Wikibooks, but would it be possible for you to fix it? It's currently linking to strategywiki.net, and we're now strategywiki.org (although the former redirects to the latter, so it's no big problem). Thanks for all you've done. :-) --DrBob (Talk) 14:36, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
 * The interwiki map already has the .org, so that will probably be fixed whenever the script runs next. GarrettTalk 18:10, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Interwiki shortcuts don't indicate sister project status; anyone can request one at Interwiki map (which is how we got ours). Only those listed in sister projects templates get the real perks. GarrettTalk 18:10, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Heh, shows how smart I am :). SB Johnny 20:25, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

Cheat Code Wiki
Check this out:. Cheat Code Wiki is up for sale. (Just to clarify, I am not intending anything)--Lunar Knight (Talk to me + Contribs) 12:43, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
 * That appears totally ameteur IMO. What benefit is there between buying a wiki full of cheat codes, which will require tedious merging and handwork to get integrated into StrategyWiki, than just searching for cheats on Google? Not to mention licensing issues, an acquisition of this site is simply out of the question. I wish the owner good luck on finding someone to buy the wiki.--Dan 14:19, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
 * It seems to be released under the GFDL, meaning we can use the info directly (with attribution). Of course, we can take the codes themselves, we just need to rewrite the descriptions (information wants to be free :P). -- Prod (Talk) 15:10, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Well...I was just spreading word. Lunar Knight (Talk to me + Contribs) 19:45, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I'm going to ask Nick Weinberg if he thinks buying the domain would be a decent investment. (I'm of the immediate opinion that it is not, but Nick would know if it were able to drive more traffic to us.)  ech elon  06:12, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

Registration problem on Bulbapedia
Is anyone here a member of Bulbapedia? For some reason (I am very aggrevated at this) I cannot join the site. I enter a user name, real name and e-mail address and it comes up with the message 'The action you have requested is limited to users in the group "Administrators". What is going on? Lunar Knight (Talk to me + Contribs) 13:46, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I have an account there and I remember having the same problems. Check through the forums, I think I posted something in there (and may have gotten a reply >.>).  IIRC, I finally got it solved over IRC. -- Prod (Talk) 15:12, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

Partnership with Xenosaga Wiki
This is an offshoot from the discussion. From links on seraphimblade's talk page, I found Xenosaga Wiki. They seem to have a lot of info about Xenosaga in general (which includes a few ps(2)/ds games and anime as well). What they lack is a walkthrough section. I feel that the annotated plot guide would approach the boundaries of our focus (the anime is what worries me) and would be best either on wikibooks or xenosaga wiki. -- Prod (Talk) 15:21, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I think if we can get them to link to us for guides and we link to them like we do in bulbapedia, it would be great for us both. -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 19:00, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
 * If that's going to be the case, someone ought to let Seraphimblade know before he gets to work on all the Xenosaga work he plans on doing... Procyon 19:58, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

Template:Spoilers
The message within the notice focuses on plot elements; what about unlockables and secrets, easter eggs and such, aren't those spoilers? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 18:57, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I Think things you can unlock, unless they are related to the story, are not in themselves spoilers. Knowing I can unlock characterx wouldn't really be a spoiler, but knowing that I can unlock characterx as he was as a zombie would be a spoiler, if the reader didn't know he'd become a zombie.  Or something like that. -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 19:02, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I think this is going to have to be decided on a per-case basis. That's what talk pages are for of course. Though if an argument is ever to break over whether or not something should be considered as a spoiler we should probably go ahead and mark whatever is in question as a spoiler simply to be on the safe side.  ech elon  06:16, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

Broken SVG rendering
The SVG to PNG rendering is completely broken. For example look at Wikimedia's rendering of an upscaled compared to ours. Not only is there no transparency, for some reason the smooth rectangles end up being fuzzy... any ideas? With behaviour like this, SVG is far less useful. GarrettTalk 16:51, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Was the original svg image just created using fuzzy lines? Thus whoever made it should just make another one. Other than that I have no suggestions ='( --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 16:55, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 * They're both the same image. I uploaded the Commons version here. I recall Blendmaster mentioning the lack of transparency in the past, but this is far more significant as it indicates some SVG images won't be rendered correctly at all. GarrettTalk 15:48, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
 * We're using the default MediaWiki 1.9 list of SVG->PNG converters, so there's something wrong with the configuration of one of them, or something else wrong on the server. This probably a situation for Dan. --DrBob (Talk) 16:34, 13 March 2007 (CDT)