User talk:PiemanXC

Welcome to StrategyWiki!
Hello PiemanXC! Welcome to StrategyWiki. Thank you for your contributions. If you have any questions, just contact a sysop through their talk page or post on the staff lounge, and they'd be happy to help. If you need help editing, check the StrategyWiki Guide. If you have a question about the content on this wiki, you can check out our staff lounge page. If you want to ask questions or hang out in IRC, we're usually around. On the other hand, if you have ideas for StrategyWiki, bring them up on the community portal talk page. Please remember to sign your name on, and only on, talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (    ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field as this helps to document all of your hard work. Feel free to delete this message from your talk page if you like, or keep it for reference. Happy editing! -- 21:28, 12 March 2008 (CDT)

GHII
Yeah, the covers are really different, but having two infoboxes isn't necessary for displaying the game's information. I've added the 360 version of the cover art in as a thumbnail on the front page. As for the header, the Guitar Hero II guide doesn't look like it's going to break from the standard template enough to warrant an entirely separate header template, and it looks like at least one admin agrees with me on that point. If you think the GH2 guide struture is going to be radically different that the standard header navigation just won't work with it, I'm sure it would be accepted, but not using the standard header because you just don't like it doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. --aniki21 09:54, 13 March 2008 (CDT)


 * PiemanXC, until you have edited on SW using SW's system of header navs and navigation templates for a substantial amount of time to form an experienced opinion, please continue to use the standard templates for the ease of reader use, and bring any concerns you have to the Community Issue forums. Please believe that the issue of Header Navs has been debated to death, and the system we currently have is the result of a large amount of contributions from users over several years.  That's not to say that improvements can't be made, but your arguments would be met with greater reception if you at least try to work with them for a little while before you argue where they might fail.  Bottom line: play in our sandbox for a little while before you propose how you might change things.  This isn't any kind of stern warning or anything, so please don't take it as such.  Good luck, and have fun.  Procyon (Talk) 10:02, 13 March 2008 (CDT)


 * Aniki, I don't think it will be different, I just thought my header looked better than the StrategyWiki's header. The header design is actually a modified WikiBooks header. Which brings me to my next point.


 * Procyon, I sort of understand now. I'm from a more relaxed Wiki project, Wikibooks, where I've had a lot better luck designing the look and feel of my wikis rather than just being forced into the default designs. Not that this is your fault; different Wikis have different rules. You're right that I don't have the experience. I don't have any clue what you mean about debating the headers to death, nor do I understand why I have to "understand" the system, because I haven't been here long and the help page suggests the complete opposite. But since this is what you want, I will leave it alone as you asked. Pieman 13:14, 13 March 2008 (CDT)
 * Whenever creating a new page, try to use the templates at the top. They tend to hold the "required" templates, anything else will be mentioned as required. We've been debating the use of different layout methods and navigation bars a lot, and quite often we get a new person trying to say "this way is better".  As he said, if you have a suggestion for improvements to the nav, bring them up on the forums.  If any changes are to be made, it'll have to be done on the whole site, and we need to reach a consensus first.  We prefer to stick to the standardized layout since it makes it more familiar and hopefully easier to navigate the site, rather than different layout for every guide.  I also was from wikibooks initially and fortunately for me, the whole standard layout evolved as I was here, so I didn't have to worry about learning a completely new standard.  We've tried to keep all the information we could in the GUIDE. We do value your contributions, and any suggestions you can make to any part of the site are greatly appreciated. -- Prod (Talk) 14:21, 13 March 2008 (CDT)

Manual of style
It would be nice if you could give us pointers as to what you find so bad about SW's manual of style — we're open to reasonable, well-argued suggestions, and there's always room for improvement. :-) --DrBob (talk) 09:14, 3 April 2008 (CDT)