StrategyWiki talk:Community Portal

http://media.strategywiki.org/images/4/49/SW_CP_Banner.png

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

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,,   to the end of an SW URL. Using MonoBook, the printable version of the page you want to print above would be here. Hope that helps.--Dan 17:49, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

More content for "Getting started" here
I think someone should add something like "Controls" and Battle Concepts" in the "Getting Started" section. Your thoughts? --Myth 11:37, 5 June 2007 (CDT)
 * The wiki motto is "Be Bold". If you feel it's necessary, add the links to the ToC.  If you have the time, add some info.  Otherwise, just leave the "red link" and hope someone else is interested in filling it out.  -- Prod (Talk) 11:56, 5 June 2007 (CDT)

Tekken 3 Movelists up for edit.
Thanks Procyon for assisting me King2 18:29, 5 June 2007 (CDT) (previously known as King) with cutting my Tekken 3 editing time and also with providing me with a very useful template as I don't have the time to learn the ways of creating professional pages. I will be periodically editing the Movelist so it will take a very long time to complete on my own. If you don't see any improvement for a whole please refer to the talk above about Tekken 3. This is why it would be very helpful if users also assist with this project. Tekken 3 is considered to be one of the revolutionary fighting games of its time and for the StrategyWiki younger generation who know where to easily find game strategy and don't have access to the much more expensive Tekken 5 to get it from their favorite wiki strategy site would create a new generation of Tekken pros.
 * I'll help clean up and organize whatever you add. Just add more!  --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 19:56, 5 June 2007 (CDT)
 * King2, in all honesty, the best course of action for both you and StrategyWiki would be to recruit other Tekken enthusiasts and get them to assist you with the movelists. SW is always looking for more members, but your pleas for assistance with the movelist won't net you very much help.  If anyone here was interested in working on Tekken 3, they would have already started.  Since no one has, it falls on you to either do a little bit at a time, or find others who aren't yet associated with SW, and get them to sign on and help you.  I have my hands full with other projects, or I would help you myself.  Working on movelists is a very time consuming task, but it can be very rewarding to look at when it's complete.  Good luck, and I'll provide whatever assistance I can.  Procyon (Talk) 21:13, 5 June 2007 (CDT)

Standard: Sequals with New Features
So for games that are in a series, like Tekken and Heroes of Might and Magic, each game basically adds on to the last. Now the problem lies on where the info for such changes should lie. Front page? Or Getting Started? I say getting started. First of all, we don't really haven't really defined what goes in GS and I think this would be one of the prime things to have in it. Since it's actual game related info, it doesn't need to be placed on the front page, which is basically the "title page" of for the game. We have a good system at trying to keep things to a minimum thus far and yeah, it's not necessary. The two main info points on the main page are the general description and the brief summary/catchy story. We don't need it on the front page. I keep saying just the front page, simply because that's where it's been appearing the most (and yes I am at fault for putting them there at times, I might also be the only one to do so). --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 19:53, 5 June 2007 (CDT)
 * I'd say "Getting Started" would be the place to go with it. The front page can have a sentence or two about it, plus the stuff in the infobox, but things that pertain to new features in gameplay and such should go elsewhere (Getting Started). I think other aesthetic stuff (like a note of the cel-shaded graphics in Wind Waker) can go on the front page, though. --SkizzerzTalk - Contribs 20:00, 5 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Agreed. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 20:08, 5 June 2007 (CDT)
 * You might want to have a look at Street Fighter II, Street Fighter II Turbo, Super Street Fighter II, etc. This is why we set the "parent" parameter up for the Header_Nav.  Granted, these game only required one page between them, so NMH's argument is valid if you're talking about a game that requires more than one page.  I believe that the Super Mario 64 DS guide needs to be collapsed better with the Super Mario 64 guide.  Personally, I believe that only the bits of the game that are unique to Super Mario 64 DS should be mentioned in that guide, and everything else should point back to the content in the original Super Mario 64 guide. Procyon (Talk) 21:18, 5 June 2007 (CDT)
 * If they don't have this feature already in MediaWiki, someone should advocate for tags that you can enclose text in and then subst it to another page. So, in this case we would take 64 content and subst it to the DS pages; we would have "separate pages" but they would contain literally the same content (besides the extra HN/FN and special subst markup).  Theoretical suggestions are great aren't they?  --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 01:14, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
 * This feature already exists. Use  to tag text that won't be shown when used in other pages, and   to tag text that will only be shown when used in other pages. You then insert the page like a template, but with a colon in front (e.g.  ). The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time Master Quest uses it extensively; all that differs is the dungeons, so the rest comes from The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. GarrettTalk 04:10, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

More content on Emerald than D/P?
Why is it that there is way more on the Pokémon Emerald Guide than the Pokémon D/P guide? Is it because Emerald has been out longer, or no one has D/P yet? --Myth 15:24, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
 * That's a rather silly question. The answer is based on multiple factors, but the simple answer is that more people have spent more time contributing to R/S/E then D/P.  SW is not like a professional organization like IGN or EGM where people are paid to sit down with a game and write up a guide for a particular game whether they want to or not.  SW is strictly contributed to by anyone on their own free time, and thus only contribute information about games that interest them.  Naturally, since R/S/E has been out for such a long time, it will have a lot more content.  But even if D/P has been out for a long time, there's no guarantee that anyone will have contributed content for the game.  Is that unlikely?  Yes.  But is it guaranteed?  No.  Procyon (Talk) 15:46, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
 * StrategyWiki has no paid staff, no paid anything, everything here is done by volunteer work. Therefore, people work on what interests them most at whatever pace they feel like. If something isn't being worked on, chances are those knowledgeable enough to write a good walkthrough for it are either busy or haven't came yet. However, if you feel that content is missing for a game that you have, add it in yourself. You don't need anyone's approval to do this, be bold and do it yourself. If it's not completely correct, someone else will eventually come along and correct it. Putting messages here might attract some attention to it, but don't expect much. --SkizzerzTalk - Contribs 15:47, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Saying that, having G/S/C on the main page attracted no-one :(. BTW it hasn't even been released in Europe yet and I think you get errors if you transfer Pokémon from different languages--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 16:05, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for clearing that up. I guess I should have known seeing the variation of highly detailed guides to almost completely empty guides. --Myth 18:40, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Pokemon D/P
I jotted down some notes I got from Route 225 from my game today, but then saw on the D/P page that no Route 225 exists. Could someone please add it in or tell me how to re-add it? Thanks. --Myth 18:43, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Just create the page with the proper formatting and add a link to it in the Table of Contents between the appropriate two sections. --SkizzerzTalk - Contribs 19:03, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Sinnoh Pokémon for Diamond and Pearl is whack
The Sinnoh Pokémon there have their Bulbapedia entries mushed into their pictures. Does anyone know how to fix this? Myth 20:15, 7 June 2007 (CDT)
 * I've tried that page on Firefox and IE7, with BlueCloud and Monobook. Looks fine in all cases.  What browser and skin (and extensions?) are you using? -- Prod (Talk) 20:27, 7 June 2007 (CDT)
 * works perfectly in IE6, even the PNGs have transparency. Something must be really wrong :P.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 02:57, 8 June 2007 (CDT)
 * There must be something wrong. Because everything loads up fine, and then the words move over three inches and mash inside of the sprites. Myth 12:08, 8 June 2007 (CDT)
 * What browser are you using? -- Prod (Talk) 12:18, 8 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Also, what screen resolution are you using? If your resolution is small (like say 800 by 600), it might cause some squishing-together of items. --SkizzerzTalk - Contribs 15:04, 8 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Hmm, that seems to be exactly the problem. Firefox doesn't suffer from this :P (though the ads overlap the content in that case....). -- Prod (Talk) 15:26, 8 June 2007 (CDT)
 * That happens to me anyway with 'd text and big pages with images like maplestory bosses 100-199 or whatever it is :P. Is there a way to make them go off to the far right like they did In IE.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 15:38, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

I'll admit that I don't have a very large computer screen (15", but I payed for it, so what can you expect?), but I had the box enlarged pretty big on my screen. I'll try it on a computer with a bigger screen to see if it works on that. Myth 00:41, 10 June 2007 (CDT)


 * I tried it on a larger screen, and it came out fine. I guess it was my screen size o o. Myth 01:03, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
 * What resolution are you running? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 01:43, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. Myth 13:36, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Right click on your desktop, click properties and go to the far right tab (Usually), there should be a picture of 1 or 2 screens depending on your OS, in the bottom-left of the box there should be a slider, read the no. by it, mine's 1024 by 768, if you don't have windows then it's a bit iffernet, I can't remember how to do it on a mac but I think it's in one of the options when you click on the apple in the top left corner but I'm not anywhere near sure. Oh and you can drag the slider to change the resolution to be a bit bigger. Sorry this is so long.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 13:51, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Mine's on the highest resolution: 1080x800. That definitely isn't the problem. Myth 18:36, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Ok then, what browser are you using (and what version of it)? You can find out in Help-About or whatever is comparable on your browser. Make sure that you are running the most current version of it, whatever it is. Alternatively, you might have your text size set a bit too high. Try decreasing the text size and see if that works (usually under View-Text Size-Decrease or something like that). --SkizzerzTalk - Contribs 21:31, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Just to note that I made a change a day or two back. Try and check again after clearing your cache (usually ctrl+f5). -- Prod (Talk) 21:41, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Actually, I just figured out that it's the size of the page. I enlarged it to full-screen and they moved over. Now we can finally stop taking up a billion inches of Community Issues space. Myth 16:06, 11 June 2007 (CDT)
 * You think this is big? Check out this one, this one, and this one! Glad you figured it out though. --SkizzerzTalk - Contribs 16:19, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

Legendary and Rare Pokémon for Diamond and Pearl
I think there should be a section for Rare or Legendary Pokémon in the D/P guide, as there is no section now for it and no place you could really put it elsewhere. Any thoughts on the matter? Myth 13:39, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Add  to the TOC and then click on it to make the article.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 14:48, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Where should I put it though? Myth 18:31, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Should I put it in the Getting Started Section, as that's where the Un-Obtainable Pokémon is listed. Myth 18:41, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
 * I'd put it under Getting Started immediately before Un-Obtainable Pokémon, but it is entirely up to you (you're the one adding it, put it where it feels right). --SkizzerzTalk - Contribs 21:32, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Linking to a website
Isn't it banned on Strategy Wiki to link to a personal website on your userpage, or basically anywhere else? I ask because Echelon had a link to his personal site and someone should drop him a note if he's not supposed to have it. Myth 20:21, 11 June 2007 (CDT)
 * We don't have such a rule as yet. Generally, if the mention isn't of the >>>>>VISIT MY SITE!!!!<<<<<  variety it's fine. Since external links all have   applied (which tells Google and the like to not factor them into any ranking algorithms) the spam value of such links is minimal anyway. GarrettTalk 20:33, 11 June 2007 (CDT)
 * We have nofollow?--Dan 20:40, 11 June 2007 (CDT)
 * I think it's a MediaWiki default. Either way, it's on at the moment. GarrettTalk 20:58, 11 June 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm pretty sure it's not on by default in MediaWiki. In fact, from the previous discussion on it, I thought we didn't have it. --SkizzerzTalk - Contribs 21:10, 11 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Nofollow is definately on, check the source. -- Prod (Talk) 21:23, 11 June 2007 (CDT)