StrategyWiki:Staff lounge

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Welcome to all users! This page is where you can ask StrategyWiki-related questions to the staff and senior community figures, and they will do their best to answer. If you want to raise a topic for discussion (rather than just ask about it), please use the community issues forum instead. New issues are entered here, with the most recent at the bottom of the page. If your question does not pertain to editing StrategyWiki (e.g. asking for hints or game-specific information), please ask on the guide's talk page or on the forums.

Please review the Table of Contents to see if your issue has already been raised; also check the archives (to the right) in case it was discussed some time ago.

To facilitate ease of browsing and replying, please:
 * 1) Place your question at the bottom of the list.
 * 2) Title the question (by placing the title between equals signs: ==Title==).
 * 3) Sign your name and date (by adding four tildes: ~ ).

Prof. Oak's 5 Pokeballs
In Pokemon Yellow, if you defeat the rival without purchasing any poke balls or catching any pokemons, you get 5 free poke balls from Prof. Oak just as in Red or Blue. However, by the time the starter pokemon is leveled enough to do so, it's too strong to do any minor damage to catch any pokemon on route 22. Also, to be able to catch the low level pokemon on the route, the starter pokemon has to be at a low level to do any damage without defeating it.

So, therein lies the problem; either purchase poke balls, catch them on route 22 forgoing the 5 free balls from the Prof. or level the starter pokemon to 8 or 9 and either forgoing catching them or fight them for experience.


 * Feel free to mention this on the actual guide page where it is applicable. You are allowed to edit guide pages without discussion; editors will pounce on the chance to expand on your ideas and the controversy. It sounds like this would only matter to speed-runners, as most people would just buy some poke balls early on, and it sounds like a better idea to do so in order to cover the random failures that can occur and supplement the strength of the starter. Basically what you're saying is that there are only two choices: no early Pokemon + 5 free balls, or early pokemon and choices. -- 03:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

E-mail Verification and Need For Speed Underground 2 Guide
Hello Staff, I just registered here. I've been thinking for a long time of putting guides to some simulators that I know by heart. First off, the verification link is not received in my e-mail. Once upon registration, then now I resent it - nothing. It's not in the spam folder either. Second, I saw there have been some deleted guides for NFSU2. That was because the guys just copied and pasted stuff from another site, which is not cool of course. Is that correct? I intend on writing my own fair and square. I hope I'll understand how it's done after going through the walkthrough. If I have any questions though, is this the right place to ask? I saw the forum, but the last post there was Jan 2012. Finally, what about spoilers? Is this covered in the walkthrough? Can you have spoiler-free version and another with maps etc? Thank you. Kirka80286 (talk) 09:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello. What is NFSU2? Yes, plagiarism is a copyright violation, so we do not allow it. Walkthroughs should be spoiler free, but if necessary spoiler and spoilers can be used. Maps are not considered spoilers. We do not allow multiple guides. They must be consolidated into one super guide.


 * The forum is a separate entity from here. If you're interested in the wiki, don't use the forums. That is sort of a general chat and has been dead for a long time. This is the only place for "general chat" on StrategyWiki. We used to use StrategyWiki talk:Community Portal, but we never made a direct link to it so it was hard for people to find.


 * Prod and Procyon, can you guys help with the email verification issue? -- 18:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for a prompt response. Thought I wrote it in the title, obviously I didn't, so I edited that.Sorry. --Kirka80286 (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem! Note that sometimes it takes a few days to get a response if we're all busy with our lives. A couple of things:

The email functionality should be fixed now. Sorry about the inconvenience. -- Prod (talk) 01:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's best to link people directly to the page you're talking about; both for others' benefit, but also your own (clicking is faster than typing in the URL again and again). It's also the most specific way to communicate what article you're talking about. It can get really confusing on a wiki.
 * To help with a guide, just jump right in. We urge people to be bold.
 * If you don't know where to start, look at other guides, particularly featured ones.
 * My tips for jumping in: avoid the "Walkthrough" page - it is supposed to be an overview of how to use the guide as well as a pre-intro into starting the walkthrough from the beginning. Instead, focus on a particular track or mode. Make a page for that mode. To make a page, just go to it, e.g. Need for Speed: Underground 2/Track 1. Then, press the "Guide page" button above the edit window to place the basic templates required for all guide sub-pages (Header Nav and Footer Nav). Then after you add some content, save the page. Then add a link to it on the Need for Speed: Underground 2/Table of Contents. Then expand and make more pages! -- 05:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

A new page created
Hello! —I noticed a red-link on this page and since I knew a bit about the subject, decided to create the page for the associated link (Command & Conquer: Generals 2). I don't know what the policy is regarding projects cancelled prior to release (such as this); you might consider simply deleting the page and removing links. However, if this page should be kept, then it probably needs fixing by somebody who knows what they're doing (unlike myself). ~Thanks in advance, Eric:71.20.250.51 20:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC) —edit:17:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Eric. First, please register an account so that it's easier to talk with you on your talk page.  Second, thank you for bringing the page to our attention.  Since this is an unusual case, we will figure out what the best procedure is in this case.  Pro  cyon  22:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I merged the generals 2 info into generals. We do not allow unreleased games to appear here with full infoboxes except for minor notes. There are exceptions, such as Star Fox 2, because the game _could_ be played due to alpha versions of the game rumored to exist. An owner could dump the ROM to share with the world. Generals 2, however, had no leaked release. For now, it will redirect back to Generals. -- 17:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Sounds good; thanks. —Eric: (talk) • 71.20.250.51 20:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

SEIWA
Hi, I am TheFifteenthMember, an editor from the KHWiki. In our recent roundtable meeting, we agreed that SEIWA's status is practically dead and inactive so we proposed that the five members of SEIWA disband and continue on as independent sites. Former SEIWA members can then be linked to each other as affiliates. We'd like to know the Strategy Wiki's thoughts on the matter; do you agree with this plan?

Apologies for dumping this here. I wasn't sure where to post. TheFifteenthMember (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello. This is the best place to talk to us as a whole. What "Status" were you talking about? I thought SEIWA and other wiki alliance groups were about generally advertising to one another. This allows all members of all wikis to find good wikis to ally with - to develop inter-wiki link procedures and other beneficial cross-content collaboration. As far as I'm concerned, having SEIWA noted on each home page is sufficient for the basic requirements of the alliance. -- 20:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * By a dead status, we are referring to the fact that half of SEIWA's Wikis have reclined into complete inactivity since a single edit has not been made on them for the past 30 days, possibly longer. Additionally, the main SEIWA site itself has not had a single update for an extraordinarily long amount of time so it has been largely abandoned. The ex-SEIWA members will still be supporting and advertising each other by continuing as regular affiliations so that purpose will still be fulfilled. However, the affiliation will just no longer be under the name of SEIWA. For interest, Cronopedia has already agreed with the disbandment but we are still waiting to hear a response from the other Wikis. TheFifteenthMember (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think we have a strong opinion on the matter. I didn't even know SEIWA had its own site. We can make a miscellaneous alliances section to replace the SEIWA section of our homepage. We will continue to link to the other SEIWA wikis as long as they reciprocate. Thank you for notifying us.-- 01:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There are 5 wikis that are a part of SEIWA. KHW, DQW and SW are all active. CW and SEW may not have many updates, but they are maintained (mediawiki is kept up to date).  SEIWA is mostly just to have the communities in touch with each other and provide support/guidance when needed.  I don't see much point in disbanding an affiliation, we're all still independent sites. -- Prod (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't see why we should disband SEIWA just because the main site is inactive. SEIWA isn't doing any harm by existing. Also, shouldn't we really try to revive it rather than just give up and disband? -- 21:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the main issue is that they want to retire the SEIWA website, which I think is fine (because it is not needed and costs someone extra $$). Otherwise I agree that we should just keep our site the same way. We can always improve our relations with the others. -- 23:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The SEIWA site is hosted on a VPS alongside the Fire Emblem Wiki, SE Wiki, and a few others. Retiring it won't save us any more money, the space we'd free up wouldn't be enough to enable us to downgrade the hosting package. Maybe we'd save on not having to renew the domain name, but that money would then have to be put towards buying a new one for the SE Wiki. -- 00:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm in agreement something needs to be done, but I don't think disbanding is the right answer. The reason it became inactive, was, mostly, due to not a lot of people helping out. And the few that were had to leave to do other things (watch over other wikis, settle offline problems, etc.). If anyone has any ideas of how to improve the site or any off the wikis, feel free to bring it up or even make the edits yourself. I'm sure they would appreciate it. Tacopill (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Changes due to updates
Hello again. I noticed some minor errors on the C&C Generals faction pages related to units, structures, etc., and believe this may be due to balance tweaks included with various patches. Scanning the Guide didn't find anything related to this situation. Should the information be updated to reflect the changes? I also considered simply removing specifics that have changed.

For example, USA Upgrades: This is incorrect in the update version (1.08); armor has a different percent for each tank (20% & 40%, if I remember correctly). The above would be correct for any version by simply removing specifics, i.e.: Note: there are a few other examples as well. Another consideration was the addition of a sidebar, but my attempt (above right) is rather wonky.
 * Composite Armor - Available at the Strategy Center, add 25% more armor to Crusader and Paladin tanks.
 * Composite Armor - Available at the Strategy Center, increase armor protection for Crusader and Paladin tanks.

At any rate, advice is needed before proceeding. ~Thanks again; ~Eric: (talk) • 71.20.250.51 19:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for taking an interest in this. My opinion is that more info is better, so if it is possible, add both original version info and new version info side by side, but clearly noted. However, this should ONLY be done if the game can be played without updating (usually applies to MMORPGs and the like). If updates are mandatory prior to playing, then we can exclude the old version info. If not, multi-version info is best. Since each version offers different stats, it also changes the games' strategies. However, I do not recommend having version-specific strategies, as that would add a lot more content (it could be done, but I would focus on only newest patch strategies). All Walkthrough pages should be updated to apply to the latest version. -- 20:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Notmyhandle, the main content should have the updated info for the latest version. If there's a page for the character/building/unit itself, a section near the end titled "updates" or something like that could list any changes as they occur.  Does EA release patch notes that list all the changes with each version? That might make it easier to update the details of each change as they're made. -- Prod (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Eric, may I ask what deters you from simply registering an account on the site? You're a positively contributing member and we'd like to see you join.   Pro  cyon  00:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

← [outdent] I made some changes to the USA faction (here), and will soon-ish do likewise for the other two factions. Yes, there is a patch doc file. One complication is the fact that this is a 2003 game, with the final supported patch being December, 2005. Most of the problems fixed ("issues addressed") relate to multiplayer support. I haven't checked; presumably multiplay is defunct, at least on EA servers. The patch documentation does list various balance tweaks as well. Either the list is incomplete, or some of the discrepancies that I discovered here are simple errors. In either case, I'll make a note of them as I find them, and make corrections eventually. I guess I'll have to continue playing, strictly for research purposes only, of course. ; ) If you're really interested in why I haven't registered, then my talk page is a better place for that discussion.   —E: (talk)  • 71.20.250.51 03:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * But that's precisely the problem. Unless you somehow have a statically assigned IP, User talk:71.20.250.51 isn't guaranteed to be your talk page.  Then if someone else happens to get assigned that IP, there's going to be a whole discussion that does not pertain to that person.  That's the whole reason why we ask people to register; so that you get a uniquely assigned talk page where we people can communicate directly with you.  There are other benefits of course, but that's one of the nicest.  Personally, I just want to know so that we can identify things that we can do to better persuade people to register.  Perhaps there's some misconception that we can clarify.   Pro  cyon  04:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)