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

Feature Guides Template
Ok so breaking off from that other thread, I decided to make one of my own (I made a cleanup one for Wikipedia with an optional small parameter). Anyways, you can check out the template in use at User:Notmyhandle/Sandbox2 and you can use the template (until it gets moved to the correct name) by using. How does it look? Thanks Garrett for some of the things (icon filename, feature guides page link). --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 10:18, 29 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Why is your CSS more complex--what's difference does it make? Also, why is it further over--we don't have any other header templates do we? GarrettTalk 20:16, 29 June 2007 (CDT)
 * <_< >_> I just couldn't get yours to work so... can you show me an example? I don't even know how to subst/place yours.  --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 21:40, 29 June 2007 (CDT)
 * I've only just restored the .topicon class, which is probably why it didn't work for you. Do a hard refresh (Ctrl+F5) of this file to ensure it displays correctly. All going well, you can see it in action at the top of Sandbox. GarrettTalk 21:54, 29 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Mmk. Looks delicious, why isn't it at Template:Featured guide yet? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 21:57, 29 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Cause we don't have Featured guides yet. -- Prod (Talk) 22:25, 29 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Yeah, we don't have a featured guides voting system or anything. My idea was to have it sort of like a sixth stage where only the best of the best would be. But first we need some way of determining what makes a "better than simply being complete" guide. GarrettTalk 00:41, 30 June 2007 (CDT)
 * One way of determining "better than simply being complete" guides would be to have candidates for featured guide be reviewed, as on Wikipedia. Currently, level 4 guides aren't reviewed, are they? --DrBob (Talk) 14:23, 30 June 2007 (CDT)


 * Nay they aren't DB. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 17:30, 1 July 2007 (CDT)

Does anybody else think that we should go ahead and get started on this? We came to a general agreement that we should have featured guides, so all we need to do now is come up with policy and standards. Here are some important things I've been thinking:
 * To be nominated, the guide must be at level four completion.
 * A featured guide should:
 * Have all the features of a lvl 4 completed guide
 * Contain no drivel
 * Make good use of images
 * Be easy to follow and understand
 * Have very few spelling/grammatical errors
 * Have no red links
 * Majority rules
 * Confirmed and approved by sysop/bureaucrat on look/feel committee (this I'm unsure about, any thoughts?)
 * Featured guide, once approved, gets a star in place of lvl. 4 completion

Would there be a way to prevent people from making a guide a featured guide without going through the process? That is the only real concern I have (especially when SW becomes larger).-- Duke Ruckley  13:02, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I would say no to the look/feel committee, as they have more to do with standards. Actually, forget all committees whatsoever. What we should do is have a page similar to the Collab page and Promising page, where we have a discussion and voting process by the community lead to a consensus. Then, once a certain day comes (say like 5 days before the first of the next month), a few volunteer sysops look over the nominated guides and judge what they think best follows the outlined points of a featured guide. Then, whoever is in charge weighs what the volunteers think with the votes and comes out with a winner (actually, forming a Featured Material committee might be nice for that). As for people making fake ones, that's why every registered user on StrategyWiki (besides blocked ones) have the ability to revert edits. -- 13:22, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
 * How does Featured guides sound? *Edit* Er, Skizz, just create the page. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 11:21, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 * ??? -- 11:27, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Just create StategyWiki:Featured guides, outlining what they are and discussing the creation/voting process. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 11:29, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

OK. I've promoted Garrett's template to featured, since I was going to use it. However, some low-life dissidents on IRC put up a fuss, and we need to clarify: Should the star be intrinsically linked with stage 5 status, and always be displayed on guides at stage 5, or should it only be displayed on the guide most-recently promoted to stage 5? I'm going with the former, because the latter doesn't really make sense IMHO; the star is there to promote that the guide is of exceptional quality, and this should always be happening for all stage 5 guides. --DrBob (Talk) 12:16, 12 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Yeah that second idea is just strange. Make them all have a star. -- 14:23, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

WikiProject
As wikipedia has WikiProjects, we could have something similar, perhaps with a gaming theme. Some options: Others could be Move lists, Box artwork, Categories, Series. -- Prod (Talk) 00:57, 30 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Achievements StrategyProject
 * Achievements Taskforce
 * Achievements quest
 * Achievements party
 * Achievements guild
 * Achievements clan


 * I like the idea. We could probably get things done a lot faster. Oh, and I like "quest". It is certainly a gaming theme, and... I don't know, it just sounds better than the others. Baejung92 12:09, 30 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Can we hack the software to put in a WikiProject namespace, that'd be good.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 12:14, 30 June 2007 (CDT)


 * Hmmm...What exactly would this be for? I'm not opposed to the idea, I'm just curious what this would be for exactly. Lunar Knight (Talk to me + Contribs) 12:22, 30 June 2007 (CDT)
 * It's like an ongoing collaboration. On wikipedia there are groups like WikiProject Video games who focus on improving the video game guides.  Since we are only video game guides here, we can have more specialized ones.  For example, we already have the Cleanup project (which would be renamed to the Cleanup quest).  -- Prod (Talk) 13:40, 30 June 2007 (CDT)
 * I like this idea, it would be really good to have a sort of 'co-ordination list', where people can look in, see what needs to be done (eg, categorise all the pics involved in Final Fantasy games or something), and do it to cross it off the list, and people involved can send wikilove to them :-P.--Froglet 22:02, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

Actually, we don't have to use any hacks to add namespaces. If we decide to implement this as a namespace, it's as simple as editing the configs.  ech elon  00:05, 1 July 2007 (CDT)
 * We could have games in the scope of the Project, It'd be really good, also, we could have a Game help project which lists all the games completed and will give advice.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 01:38, 1 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Er, what? --DrBob (Talk) 10:00, 1 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I like this idea, but I think it'll only be useful for large projects (such as achievements and cleanup). I don't think it'd be useful to have organised "projects" for single games (such collaboration could just happen on the game's talk pages), although large series such as Pokemon could have projects. I'm opposed to calling them anything silly like "quests" or "clans", as I think that's just confusing and not very professional (OK, so I'm boring :-P ). Projects could easily go in the StrategyWiki namespace, just like the cleanup project (which is not being renamed!). --DrBob (Talk) 10:00, 1 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I agree with DrBob about the professional aspect of it... It may not be as fun, but it will save a lot of confusion in the future.  I like the idea though.  It won't really work out much until we have more people though.-- Duke  Ruckley  13:00, 2 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Cleanup quest... lol. Yeah, keep it simple! Why not just create the various namespaces for now? We don't need to wait for more people. So what ones do we want? Cleanup, Featured guides, Completion Ratings, game series? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 11:57, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 * We've already got Cleanup project. The only other one I can see us needing is Achievements project. Featured guides, completion ratings and game series aren't really worthy subjects for a project. --DrBob (Talk) 12:21, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Well what is a project? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 12:48, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 * An organised group of people working towards a common goal which would benefit from a collaborative effort, and be largely ignored otherwise. That description isn't particularly good, but hopefully you get the gist of what I mean. --DrBob (Talk) 16:57, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Main Page WIP
Dan thinks it's really important that we get community feedback on some proposed changes to the Main Page, so if everybody would care to look at Main Page/WIP and give their opinions, I'd be grateful. The proposal is to add the "system browser" (system browser) just below the introductory text. --DrBob (Talk) 11:38, 2 July 2007 (CDT)
 * First order of business, do we use it at all. It would be much easier for me to use since I don't like reading... (then again, I rarely visit the front page).  After that, we can decide on placement.  There are two options so far


 * 1) Right at the top of the screen
 * 2) Just below the introduction
 * I prefer 2 since it merges in with the content much more "cleanly". -- Prod (Talk) 11:46, 2 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Thanks DrBob. One of the main issues with the new system nav is that if the browser window is just small enough, the nav jumps out of the page margin and overlaps the toolbox. We need to imeplent a min-width on StrategyWiki to fully fix this problem, and obviously that is an entire different discussion by itself. So until then, I think the logos should be made small enough such that the total width of the new nav is just as wide as the Genres browser. Another gripe of mine is the placement of the nav itself. Having it between the four-point columns and the SW introduction seems very displaced and attention-stealing. If it were smaller, it'd make more sense for it to be placed on the top of the page. And to reply to Prod (I jumped into an edit conflict with him at the time of this writing), I choose 1 on the notation that it steals attention from Most Promising Guide and What is StrategyWiki? columns. Seeing how many people read those sections and few will ever look at the console nav, it's not balanced.--Dan 11:57, 2 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I'd like to offer a third placement that may be more difficult to implement, but more appealing visually. What if we put it inside the introduction box?  The logos would need to be smaller, which I think should be done anyway.  This might prevent it from distracting from the rest of the main page.-- Duke  Ruckley  13:07, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

2 Important things: 1) We need to support lower resolutions; currently the new main page and community issues pages have graphics that extend beyond the edges of the screen on even 800x600. I use a lower resolution at work, and people on Wii's are going to have an even smaller resolution (I think). 2) An easy way to resolve the community issues page is to make the image dynamic (left border, stretchable image, text, stretchable image, right border) with some html. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 18:35, 2 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Additionally, I think the main page icons could be considerably smaller. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 18:38, 2 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I like the graphical icons, but I think they should be smaller and not slanted diagonally (or at least, have *all* of them slanted rather than just some).Pelago 16:23, 13 July 2007 (CDT)
 * They wouldn't fit in 64x64px if they weren't slanted (without being illegible). --DrBob (Talk) 16:31, 13 July 2007 (CDT)
 * OK. To restart the discussion, I've modified the system browser template to use a scrollbar if things start overflowing, so if you now go to Main Page/WIP and resize it down to 800x600, things won't start leaking. I think the only issue that remains is that of the image size, which people think should be smaller. I'll have a go at sorting that too. --DrBob (Talk) 09:31, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
 * I've changed the template to use 24px icons, which seem to work better, and it's no longer stealing all the attention. With people's support, I'd like to move this to the main Main Page pronto. --DrBob (Talk) 09:38, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
 * I'll support it, looks great. Although, now that they are 24px they could all now be horizontal instead of diagonal. -- 09:42, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Support, so long as it still looks good on 800x600 resolution (it does now). Skizz, diagonal?  Everything looks rightside up to me. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 11:47, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
 * I meant the icons themselves, like PS2, PS3, PSP, and GBA were diagonal so that they could fit without taking up too much room. However, they would look better as horizontal, even if they take up an extra 4-8 pixels in the process. -- 12:20, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
 * I've gone ahead and pushed the WIP onto the main page, due to the support. The icons can be de-diagonalised at somebody's leisure. --DrBob (Talk) 17:02, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Well, it looks terrible in IE6, I think as default javacript is turned off so all the icons look absoulutely terrible.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 07:15, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Well, that gives you two really good options then (and one so-so option). Option 1, turn on your javascript. Option 2, get Firefox (and don't tell me that it keeps crashing, try re-installing it if it does). Option 3, get IE7. Also, how do the icons look "absolulutely terrible"? Is it because of the transparency? If so, consider options 2 and 3 and forget about 1. If you just grumble that you don't like it and don't specify why, we won't be able to improve it. -- 08:24, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
 * There's nothing we can do about the icons without JavaScript turned on. I don't actually have a copy of IE6 (anywhere) to test, but I'll boot into Windows (ugh) in a minute and give it a try in IE7. --DrBob (Talk) 09:08, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
 * This would be a good reason to revisit Unresolved issue 8.7. Far less significant sites besides our own slap a label on the front page that says "Best viewed in FireFox at 800x600 or higher".  I don't see why we shouldn't either.  There doesn't seem to be any contrary opinion to the fact that the site looks bad in IE6, and IE7 just seems passable.  Procyon (Talk) 09:32, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Is there any way to make the entire table box be clickable? It would be nice. -- 19:35, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Probably not, as that is all cellpadding. -- 19:53, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
 * I don't think there is; the typical way of doing such things involves putting the image inside the same link element as the text, and from my experiments just now, that's not possible without using plain HTML, and MediaWiki won't allow  elements. --DrBob (Talk) 04:16, 11 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Yes, but I wouldn't like to look at it on a low resolution, take a screenshot of the box and imagemap the links and pics, that's the only way I can think of, on another point, it will solve the browser issue.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 16:26, 11 August 2007 (CDT)
 * That's a nasty solution, and I'm not going to let it happen. *nods* --DrBob (Talk) 04:38, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

How About a Top Ten
Could the bottom section of Special:Statistics be modified to only include Category:Games and a copy placed on the main page? I really like the top 10 on GameFAQs. If implemented, it would add some mercuriality (there's the word I was looking for) to our otherwise fairly static main page. It would also link to popular content. Like a featured guide, but voted on by pageviews. --  blendmaster | talk  ]] 23:11, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Sadly, I don't think that is possible without code modifications, and we don't really want to start making them. --DrBob (Talk) 07:26, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 * We would need the DynamicPageList extension in order to do so, and even then I'm not sure If it would work (link). Special pages are very touchy with what kinds of content you can include in them, as you must edit the MediaWiki namespace to change their content, and there is no documentation out there (that I can find) that explains what all the various strings are (like $1, $2, etc.). Even then, it might require code modification, and that is one thing that should be avoided. -- 10:21, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm not suggesting we change the Special page. I'm suggesting we put a Top 10 on our Main Page. Which is what DynamicPageList would be perfect for, it seems. --  blendmaster | talk  ]] 13:20, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Dan has installed the DPL. Check out the sandbox to see it in action. -- 14:26, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
 * So, should we put this into Special:Statistics or on the Main Page (or both, or somewhere else, or nowhere)? -- 15:42, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Main page, for sure. I'll start up another WIP page so we can work on integrating it. The Special pages are hard to change, as you mentioned, so Special:Statistics can stay the same. -- 19:35, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Yes, I thought modifying MediaWiki:Sitestatstext would work, but it doesn't put it in the right location, so we're not putting it on Statistics. -- 19:53, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
 * I added this to Category:Nintendo GameCube as well. What do you think? -- Prod (Talk) 23:48, 11 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Nice, maybe the games need a little pic or something e.g link's head but it looks good, needs to stand out a bit more though because first time, i didn't see it.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 04:12, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

Donate?
I don't mean a big donation drive with a bar at the top of every page, or anything that big. However, some of the more philanthropic people on the internet would probably click a paypal donate button or link, if there was one. How about it? --blendmaster 17:32, 2 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm willing to donate periodically. What I really want is a bluecloud themed SW shirt with admin on the back XD --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 18:36, 2 July 2007 (CDT)
 * That would be a totally kickass shirt, not to mention it could seriously interest others in joining our cause:
 * "Hey, where'd you get that shirt?"
 * "Oh, I got it at this cool website, StrategyWiki.org..."
 * I like that idea a lot. Perhaps Teddy could bestow upon us some heavenly design of his. echelontalk 23:09, 2 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Only for admins? I want one but not with the word "Contributor" or something on it... haha Baejung92 14:30, 3 July 2007 (CDT)
 * The idea of a shirt is pretty good, though a few diffirent versions would be required. It could be fun to have a few that had odd titles like minion. I would buy one to go be a billboard at some of the local cons in my area. I imagine if we make good guides that leave users satisfied they would want to donate. --Zaiqukaj 03:16, 4 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Well we can probably just leave the text totally customizable. Most print shops allow only upper case letters and numbers, no symbols.  --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 11:04, 4 July 2007 (CDT)
 * How 'bout cafepress? --blendmaster 14:18, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Cafe Press would work well for white and black shirts. We just need a good bluecloud themed SW logo (not just the text, but with clouds behind it). --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 12:01, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

I don't really care about any merchandising, but a paypal donate button seems easy enough to add to either the bottom, near the "Powered by MediaWiki" icon, or Wikipedia style, with a link in the left navigation. Is any progress being made on this? -- 14:47, 11 August 2007 (CDT)

Guide search
I've added some code to search the current guide to my user js. It adds a link to the toolbox to do a search of the current book. Think we should implement it in MediaWiki:BlueCloud.js? -- Prod (Talk) 17:54, 8 July 2007 (CDT)
 * My one thing is that I would switch "book" to "guide," like I did in my user js. -- 18:45, 8 July 2007 (CDT)
 * One minor problem is that the page name isn't used as an exact expression—searches started from The Legend of Zelda will also result in hits from The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time and the like. More worryingly, it can't search titles with parentheses (e.g. Shadowrun (Genesis)) or special characters (e.g. We ♥ Katamari) even though these pages are indeed found if you do a web search for site:strategywiki.org. If these problems can somehow be resolved (perhaps by using the Custom Search Engine service?) I can definitely see implementing this. GarrettTalk 00:42, 9 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Sounds good in principle, but the issues Garrett mentioned would need fixing. --DrBob (Talk) 15:08, 9 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Does that mean we can do it or we can't? If not, this should be archived.  --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 12:03, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Wikipedia article
I think it's about time we seriously pursue a Wikipedia entry about StrategyWiki; having an article about our project will boost the visibility and viability of our project in the minds of others and further serve to boost our growth. Our notability statistics should already be more than enough to meet Wikipedia's concerns for WP:WP:NN and WP:WP:WEB.

We've worked on Wikipedia Article in the past, but I think we should rethink the content a little and focus on the key points. By focusing on the history we've had with Wikibooks, the past year of growth, and the lessons we've learned about presenting wiki guides, I think our article will give people a sense of what our project is and where it is going. Half of what we're saying just needs to be rephrased.

We don't really even need to mention GameFAQs. I'm tired of us being compared to GameFAQs in every Digg, blog writeup, etc. we ever have. :(

I'd like to post it to Wikipedia in a week.

What do you think? echelontalk 18:33, 8 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I agree with severing the tie with GameFAQs (like I mentioned in our last digg. As for notability, I think it could stand up through the deletion nom and be kept (I almost guarantee that it'll be nommed for deletion). The one thing is that the infobox is missing the owner and created by info, and I think that it would be nice to include (don't know who you could reference for it, though). -- 18:50, 8 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I still doubt we'd survive it. We have no "notable" references.  And using wikibooks as a proxy is fairly weak as well (they threw all their "junk" at us).  We have to be noticed by some major websites, or get in the top 10k alexa ranking. -- Prod (Talk) 19:41, 8 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Not to mention scale to another server via Squid and Replica (when it's finished.)--Dan 23:19, 8 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I say hold off on anything until we are actually noteworthy. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 12:04, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Half-Life
There's a wikibooks:Wikibooks:Votes for deletion up for deletion on wikibooks. Do we want it or not? If yes, how would we arrange the pages? If someone can tell me how to arrange them, I can take care of the transwiki (edit history and all). -- Prod (Talk) 21:12, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
 * We should definitely have them here, as they do provide some nice information. As to where we should put them, I have no idea. I've transwiki'ed them over to GameInfo on Wikia just in case WikiBooks decides to delete them before we can get them here and/or we decide not to have them here. -- 21:54, 12 July 2007 (CDT)


 * I'll help sort that out later. I've beaten HL like 10 times, OF like twice and played half way through blue shift.  For now, just dump it on something like Half-Life/Wikibooks Dump.  --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 22:44, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Well? What are we going to do about this? The page has been deleted at wikibooks, but I still have the xml file of all of it sitting on my hard drive for an easy import. So, what are we going to do about this? -- 10:33, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Go ahead and import it? --DrBob (Talk) 11:41, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Done. It's at Half-Life Fact File, and every page on it will more than likely need major cleanup. -- 11:49, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 * That's fine. People will get around to integrating it soon. Topic closed. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 12:05, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Unresolved CI discussions
I'm going through the old CI archives looking for stuff that we didn't full complete but archived due to inactivity. I'll be bringing them up as I find them here. -- Prod (Talk) 14:40, 14 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Can you delete them once they've been resolved or are you going to wait for a full archive? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 00:28, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

Category renaming
Only ones remaining from this are: Super NES and SNES are the official names if you visit the website. SNES is more common and matches the Category:NES name (showing that it's an extension of the NES). This change would take about 1 day with my bot. -- Prod (Talk) 14:40, 14 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Category:Super Nintendo -> Category:SNES (Official name)
 * Category:Super Nintendo controller buttons -> Category:SNES controller buttons
 * Fine by me. --DrBob (Talk) 14:54, 14 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Yeah, go for it. -- 18:03, 14 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Done the 2nd one. First one I'll wait till tomorrow to give other people a chance to reply (it would take longer to undo). -- Prod (Talk) 21:36, 14 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I say yes, change Super Nintendo to SNES. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 23:51, 22 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Done. -- Prod (Talk) 23:07, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

Trademark/copyright
This was about having a short trademark/copyright notice at the bottom of all image pages. Not sure if this one was completed. -- Prod (Talk) 14:40, 14 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Looks like it's already been done. --DrBob (Talk) 14:54, 14 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I only see the GFDL message. Don't we need something like All trademarks are the property of their respective owners, or something similar? -- Prod (Talk) 21:39, 14 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Top of this section. --DrBob (Talk) 03:30, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Where is that shown? ([|nothing] links to it). -- Prod (Talk) 09:34, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
 * In BlueCloud, at the bottom right corner of every page is a link called "Disclaimers", which leads to it (it's right under the About StrategyWiki link). In MonoBook, it's located at the bottom center, also called "Disclaimers". -- 10:18, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Should there be a link to it in SW:Guide? Also on SW:Guide should we have a section for just SW related info?  --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 12:09, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Er, what? I don't think there's any need to link to it in the guide, and I've got no idea what you're on about with your second point. :-P --DrBob (Talk) 12:22, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 * We don't have a page that lists all SW pages. I think, rather than throwing them onto the SW:Guide that we make Category:StrategyWiki.  Why would we do this?  To help locate things like disclaimers, SW:Mettings, projects, admins, etc.  We don't have a single, easy to locate, portal.  --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs)
 * Um... Special:Allpages anyone? Just choose what namespace you want. -- 13:11, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Hm, I didn't know that existed. Special All pages StrategyWiki: worked for me.  But is that a good way for our community to look up SW pages?  Seems a little... unorganized compared to a category.  --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 13:16, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Posters
Anyone else have some posters they'd like to share? Perhaps some kind of competition? -- Prod (Talk) 14:40, 14 July 2007 (CDT)
 * /ping echelon --DrBob (Talk) 14:54, 14 July 2007 (CDT)
 * How about setting up an "official" contest at Poster contest? -- 18:03, 14 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I've kept one continually posted at the entrance of our campus' CS lab year-round, but it's not really noteworthy. It'd be cool to have a sweet graphical poster/ad that draws attention. echelontalk 21:22, 14 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I know it isn't really widespread right now, but this image of QR code is a link to our site and might look "cutting edge" on a poster (or just confuse them all :P). -- Prod (Talk) 22:16, 14 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Very few phones have the software for QR codes in the US... :( echelontalk 00:59, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I'll see what I can come up with next week, but for now, Ech should take the bluecloud SW logo and extend the boundaries of it, then release the image. Also, isolate the text and release that by itself as well (as like .psd's and other file types).  If you help spur the competition, more submissions will come!  --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 12:24, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
 * We just got the old PSD, and I think Teddy has worked with it some. I'll ask him which version we should release. echelontalk 16:29, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I got one too--Image:SW Poster stumped.png. -- 11:23, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Competition has been spurred: . --blendmaster 13:31, 17 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Nice. How about this? -- 14:58, 17 July 2007 (CDT)
 * No... If I have to spend more than 5 seconds reading an advertisement, they don't get me. Blend's is most effective so far.  I think we also need something along the line of Red vs. Blue.  Procyon (Talk) 15:39, 17 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Here's my submission, based on Procyon's suggestion. Image:Prod StrategyWiki Poster.png -- Prod (Talk) 22:45, 17 July 2007 (CDT)
 * What do you mean something along the line of Red vs. Blue? I'm imagining a sitcom set in wikicode, where sysops battle for two contested page revisions; perhaps they make jokes about a certain user's lightish-red signature. But no matter. Concerning Prod's design: It's nice and simple, but something about that Microsoft(c) WordArt(TM) doesn't tickle my pickle. It's just so, well, PowerPoint. Those garish letters superimposed upon a low contrast background conjure memories - bad memories - of long hours wasted watching my fellow students' presentations fly, sparkle, roll, and explode onto one of those chintzy canned backgrounds, while they recite an equally entertaining harangue, consisting completely of the composition ( 4 bullets, no more than 6 words each ) on screen. --blendmaster 23:39, 17 July 2007 (CDT)
 * OK, my turn. These were some ideas that I was tossing around with Echelon.  They're meant to be short, simple, and too the point.  I present Mario, Street Fighter, and Sonic.  Also, when I was a little kid, Atari ran advertisements like this one for Ms. Pac-Man, so I replicated it a little bit for StrategyWiki here.  I would consider these by no means well done.  They're just to communicate a point.  Teddy could do a much better job with these than I could.  Procyon (Talk) 16:34, 18 July 2007 (CDT)
 * This is Skizzerz's idea, and I think one of his best quite frankly. I did the execution of the idea, but I didn't use very good source materials.  Anyway, Skizzerz, this is what you were thinking of, right? Procyon (Talk) 19:19, 18 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Nice. Blends in well too. *sigh* Why can't I make them like that? :P -- 19:27, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Can we also get some suggestions for black and white versions that don't cost a ton of ink. -- Prod (Talk) 20:27, 18 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I like Procyon's so far, but they need to mention StrategyWiki's actual URL (could we integrate the ".org" part into a version of that logo, somehow?), and as Prod says; they need to be slightly less colourful. To be printed cheaply, they need to mostly consist of two or three major colours. --DrBob (Talk) 01:25, 19 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Someone needs to make a head on (2d) logo for StrategyWiki. The 3d logo looks horrible on anything but the website header. Are those word balloons perhaps word spheres, and the letters extend inside of them? Also, a domain name extension definitely needs to be appended, lest consumers think we are a book, magazine, or perhaps some sort of custom Ouija board, designed to illuminate video game strategies.


 * I do, however, like that Triforce ad. If anyone knows their way around POVray of Blender3d, they could probably render a pretty nice looking Triforce, and superimpose it upon a white background with black text, thus creating a low cost as well as attractive poster. One thing though. No more Times New Roman, okay? --blendmaster 10:37, 19 July 2007 (CDT)
 * As I said, my work is strictly conceptual, and should in now way be used as a final product. I leave it to more skillful artists such as yourself or Teddy to make more professional looking versions of what I did.  Procyon (Talk) 12:47, 19 July 2007 (CDT)


 * Here is a two color poster ( I do like that shade of blue ). However, I kinda borrowed-without-permission the robot model, so it's not final. The small text can be safely ignored as well. --blendmaster 13:37, 19 July 2007 (CDT)
 * What is it with that shade of blue? Is the gamma different on my monitor, because that is almost blinding me. :-\ However, I do like it, although the text could use some hyphens and correct capitalisation. --DrBob (Talk) 15:53, 20 July 2007 (CDT)
 * This is my black and white poster submission. Enjoy. Tedbradford 21:23, 19 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I don't think you need "StrategyWiki" twice at the top; the ".org" could just be below the logo (which looks nice, btw). Perhaps the text could mention we're not just plain-text, or that we're a wiki? And WTF is a "thwart", other than a verb?? --DrBob (Talk) 15:53, 20 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I think advertising that we're not plaintext is speaking to the wrong crowd. If these posters are meant to be posted in public places, why are we advertising the the GameFAQs crowd? There's a chance that many gamers don't even know what GameFAQs is--but that doesn't mean we don't want them to visit. I think the only thing we need to mention in our ads is that the purpose of the site is for videogame guides. echelontalk 17:39, 20 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I must disagree. We're advertising to gamers (the only people who would want walkthroughs and stuff). Pretty much all gamers have heard of GameFAQs and similar sites, so we should (at least in passing, and probably not directly) differentiate ourselves from them. --DrBob (Talk) 18:33, 21 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I halfway agree with DrBob. Most gamers do know the GameFAQs brand, but no doubt some are still conned into buying printed strategy guides. "Free guides" is good marketing. Myself, I kind of like the "Wikipedia for game walkthroughs" angle. Although the main point is that we're editable by anyone, the comparison also suggests we have a damn lot of content. Not a bad suggestion, for sure. --blendmaster 11:52, 22 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I personally feel that it is best to have multiple posters with different "themes" anyway. We could have a "Wikipedia for game walkthroughs" theme, "death of plain text" theme, and maybe even a "be bold" theme.  We don't necessarily have to stick to one thing only.-- Duke  Ruckley  10:34, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

Zelda Partnership
This was a thought to have a partnership with ZeldaWiki. Did this ever get finished? -- Prod (Talk) 14:40, 14 July 2007 (CDT)
 * They seem to be linking to us already (see infobox), so I think we should get some sort of partnership going (unless this has already been done?). --DrBob (Talk) 14:54, 14 July 2007 (CDT)
 * There seems to be no record of such a partnership anywhere on the site, plus it was added by an anon (125.238.138.145) on April 8th, and then slightly modified by another anon (24.57.132.221) on April 21st. No registered users took part in the modification of their game template. However, a sysop (Adamcox82) made a comment on the talk page for The Legend of Zelda NES, and is seemingly in favor of linking to us. Therefore, it seems no official partnership was ever discussed. -- 18:03, 14 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm going to solidify this, Bulbapedia-style. It'll be worthwhile for us in that I think I can get us some better recognition there (and extra Google credit), plus it will help them out with incoming traffic too. echelontalk 21:31, 14 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Yeah, and I always felt a Triforce external link icon would be really cool, too... I'll work on one once I find out how big it should be. -- 10:24, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I just talked with Jason (their webmaster) about this deal, and he seems enthusiastic about it. I think we may eventually be able to do more cross-promotion for each other than what has come of the Bulbapedia deal. As you can already see, I've uploaded the logo he gave me (sorry Ryan--I guess you could still make one though) and added it to the css. I've tested it out in a couple of places, usually where a term appears first or a link might be most useful. What do you guys think? We might also be able to make something that functions in a way similar to Template:Wikipedia in some instances. I don't know if that would be overkill though. Any thoughts? echelontalk 23:44, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
 * It might be good to include on the front page, but it depends how many links that we get in return. If all they are doing is linking to us in their infobox, then the inlines are good enough. If they do more, then the box on the front page might be in order. Oh, and how's [[Image:Zwlink2.png]] as the link image? It's 15x15 so it won't be cropped when it's used as the link image (like the current 16x16 one is). -- 08:40, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
 * That blends in with the background a little too much, I think. --DrBob (Talk) 13:49, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Dan added some interwiki links ZW: and ZeldaWiki: to make linking easier. :) -- Prod (Talk) 20:27, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Shortcuts
I don't think this was solved. The reason for it has something to do with adding items to the toolbox instead of tabs. Not sure how difficult it is to solve. -- Prod (Talk) 20:02, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Going mainstream
Bringing this up again since we've finished more steps. -- Prod (Talk) 20:14, 14 July 2007 (CDT)
 * 1) (done) Set up the website, get the admins, basic stuff.
 * 2) (done) Tell people how to use the site. Essentially, have enough documentation so that within 10 minutes they can start editing, but easily find more in depth info after (or at least some direction).
 * 3) (done) Set up a good amount of background guides which follow the policy and are good examples of how to continue other guides.  Having one main example is good, but we should probably have a few that show different aspects of what can be done.
 * 4) Plan a specific opening date.  Get lots of advertisement (probably should have a page with suggestions for this).  Plan some kind of event for that day (abxy should be able to help with that).
 * 5) (done, good number of sysops) Make sure there are proper controls so that if we do get a lot of people, there are ways for us to make sure things stay under control.
 * 6) By getting lots of people around the same time, it will show how active the site is, and it will help the any ratings that require a huge jump to become notable (ie. Alexa.com).  To this effect, I might suggest allowing anonymous edits for a few weeks around that time, depending on how bad vandalism is.  Once people are hooked they may be more willing to register (just my opinion).
 * 7) Profit!!! A new layout would be great to release at this time.  Something to show that the site is going from "Beta" to "Official".
 * So all we need is 1) an anniversary date (you can't re-open a community!) 2) a new theme and 3) advertising! --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 12:13, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm not so sure we need a new theme, actually. I quite like BlueCloud, and while it has a few bumps (which can and should be fixed), I see no need to replace it. --DrBob (Talk) 12:24, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Yeah that was Prod's idea, and I'm not for replacing but having another awesome one just like BC as an alternate (perhaps a dark themed one? Our current ones are all white and a lot of people prefer dark because it's easier on the eyes). --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 12:53, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Endorse Firefox?
Not really a topic about endorsing firefox, but what issues are there with the other browsers? -- Prod (Talk) 20:20, 14 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Lots. :-P We should try to support them all, but I certainly wouldn't be against putting a Firefox link in the footer. --DrBob (Talk) 03:39, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
 * The main one that we HAVE to keep standardized is the div widths. IE cannot have the widths add up to 100% while other browsers can, thus when we have 3 columns, it's 33% each.  Now that I think about it, I'm not sure about using 25%, I thought it worked at one point, but if someone can find me a ToC with four columns, please post a link so I can test.  --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 12:28, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Pokémon Gold and Silver/Table of Contents--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 12:51, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
 * As I've said before, IE should be able to have the widths add up to 100%, but only if there are no paddings and margins interfering, because its box model is b0rked. --DrBob (Talk) 17:16, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Regular "staff" (IRC) meetings
Topic says it all. Plenty of discussion, no actual result. -- Prod (Talk) 20:23, 14 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Everyone needs to get in touch with me ASAP. I have something to discuss concerning our meetings. echelontalk 00:58, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I should clairfy. Please email me or get in touch via AIM when you can. It's to discuss a meeting we'll be holding this upcoming Saturday at noon EST, and I want to give each of you various topics to consider before then. echelontalk 16:27, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
 * So, seemingly the meeting occured. What the rest of us mere mortals want to know, what were the resolutions, and are there any logs of the discussions?  I think I stumbled upon the log a while ago, but the computer crashed before it could fully load.--Froglet 19:55, 4 August 2007 (CDT)
 * The logs were meant to be put on the staff lounge talk but they're not there, any1 help as i had to leave and came in halfway through?--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 03:35, 5 August 2007 (CDT)
 * The logs can be found at Meetings. -- Prod (Talk) 09:00, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

StrategyWiki Forum
Once again, topic says it all, lots of discussion, no result. -- Prod (Talk) 21:44, 14 July 2007 (CDT)
 * We're going to do this, but we have to discuss the short-term implementation details. I do not want a hack. echelontalk 00:57, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
 * The phpBB forums aren't really a hack, but they do have limitations. A nice thing about them though is that you can put in an extension that lets you share the user database with the wiki. -- 11:19, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
 * phpBB is spaghetti code, and I refuse to use any of their software. :-/ We'll find another option. We may have to code our own. Anyway, this will be discussed I suspect this upcoming Saturday at noon EST in an IRC #strategywiki meeting we're holding. echelontalk 16:25, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

"Getting started" vs. "How to play"
From what I can tell, we ended with "Getting Started", but I still see some with "Basics", "How to play" and other inconsistencies. I have a feeling there are too many opinions for this to reach a proper consensus, but lets try again. -- Prod (Talk) 21:56, 14 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I always liked Getting Started best because it denotes information just for noobs and such, it's like the stuff you'd find in the game manual and additional game features explained (that's for the getting started page itself). Then the sub pages under that ToC heading all make sense because it's like basic information.  I just don't like using the term basic and Getting Started is like BAM hey noobs, read this.  How to Play is too specific to like, doing things.  Getting Started gives us a general term that lets us explain things beyond playing the game (i.e. controls/mechanics) like characters, background info, etc.  --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 12:36, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
 * ^-- Agreed. --DrBob (Talk) 17:18, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Games that begin with "The"
Only thing decided was that it doesn't belong on the ToC page. Should we still add it to the main game page? Anyone know anything about the ability to have it named with the "The" at the end in the category lists? The only possible way I can think of right now (which I am highly against) is renaming those games with the "The" on the end. -- Prod (Talk) 21:59, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Priorities - What types are there?
For the TODO lists, we need to specify a priority for them. But shouldn't TODO lists on game guides all be the same (i.e. priority=Additions or something along those lines)? The only priority type I know of is personal - for user pages. We need a list of types and we need to put it on the TODO template page for easy reference. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 09:58, 23 July 2007 (CDT)
 * You may want to check out Todo priority. -- 10:35, 23 July 2007 (CDT)
 * So I moved the info out where people will actually see it. The question now is how do we want the numbers to work and in what order?  Does priority 1 mean "These tasks are our number one priority?"  Or does it mean "These tasks are of the lowest priority?"  How do we classify them?  1-9?  We have a 1-4 scale for completion, should it mimic that instead?  --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 00:46, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I don't think priorities are required for the todo's themselves. Each todo is for the game itself and there is no way to say one game is more important than another.  I would say "priority" should be changed to "category" (ie. personal, project, etc.). -- Prod (Talk) 19:43, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Yeah I don't like number rankings because they don't mean anything. But my suggestions are like Prod's, make them just the same as the type of article they accompany:
 * Personal -> User/User page.
 * Project -> Project portal (cleanup, collaboration, etc.).
 * Game -> Game article.
 * Category -> Category pages.
 * --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 14:16, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

Wiki Merger
I've recently stumbled across a Gears of War wiki and discovered that they had a complete walkthrough, among other things, for Gears of War. Since they are GFDL, we could technically just transwiki everything over, but 92 articles and 51 images is a lot. Therefore, I am proposing that we offer to them that they merge their content into our site. Before I bring it up with their community/webmaster, however, I would like to hear what you all think about this. -- 18:23, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm guessing they'd say no, but please try anyways. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 00:30, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Don't propose that we merge their content; propose that we merge their community (+content) in. :-) --DrBob (Talk) 12:51, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

Thumbnail size standardization/policy
Recently Procyon or Prod informed me that thumbnails get resized as to user preference (which I have now customized to my liking). Thus, when using thumbnails shouldn't we forget about using the #px parameter? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 17:37, 6 August 2007 (CDT)
 * I may be mistaken, but I'm fairly sure the thumbnail sizing would only affect thumbnails that lack the width parameter. Regardless, a lot of people don't sign up or don't change that setting, so for them the images will still appear as intended. GarrettTalk 18:03, 6 August 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm all for dropping the "*px" parameter; I've never used it, and I've removed it from every guide I've cleaned up if it's been used in conjunction with "thumb". --DrBob (Talk) 18:17, 6 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Yeah, once logged in it doesn't make a difference, and the default size is good enough for it, so I'd say drop it. If at all possible, we should have any image that uses the #px or #em (as em is accepted with thumbs as well, I believe) be categorized in some category so a bot can take care of removing them. -- 18:36, 6 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Garrett, yeah. What I'm saying is "DROP THE WIDTH PARAMETER ON THUMBNAILS!"  We don't need it.  --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 19:18, 6 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Time out... I need it. It's really valuable for maps.  I use it through Pokemon RBY and Link to the Past.  NMH, I mentioned that for you because you were slamming some thumbs to 150px, and that seemed to be your "default" size, so all I meant was let the user settings determine the default size.  I did compliment you on your choice of selecting certain key screenshots to be 250px.  It's up to you if you want to keep that or not, but I choose very specific thumb widths for a lot of maps.  So I would say if all you're thumbing are screenshots, leave the width parameter out.  If it's something else, and you have a valid reason for setting it, we shouldn't take that ability away.  Procyon (Talk) 22:14, 6 August 2007 (CDT)
 * I think what people need to understand is the difference between thumbnails, and images in general. Images are only thumbnails if you use the "thumb" parameter; and if they're a thumbnail, I think you shouldn't set a specific size for them. If they're not thumbnails, then setting a size is fine (or they'll consume all the space they can). --DrBob (Talk) 04:37, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Piggy-backing on DrBob's point, there are regular images, frames, and thumbs. An image can be resized, but you don't get a caption.  A frame gives you a caption, but can't be resized.  I tend to go with thumbs because you get the best of both features.  You can resize it, and you can give it a caption, which tends to be useful for labeling maps. Procyon (Talk) 08:57, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
 * The thumbnail size parameter is a feature, not a bug. There's no point standardizing it apart from a few places.  Boxart I think is set to 250px, but other than that it's up to the writer.  Every policy has to be policed, and a policy like this could go wrong quite easily. -- Prod (Talk) 22:22, 6 August 2007 (CDT)
 * And this is why I started the discussion. At the time I couldn't think of any reason why we would need to specify it, even on large pictures like the maps of LTTP, but yeah I see that they are good and that we need it for stuff like boxart, etc.  Now, as Procyon says and I totally agree with, "I would say if all you're thumbing are screenshots, leave the width parameter out."  Excuse me for being so rash with my words, I didn't really mean "cut it out;" I was just forgetting where it becomes useful.  --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 22:53, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past
For roughly the past month, I have been working tirelessly to complete this guide, and I think that tonight, I can finally say that it's done. The way I ended up working on it was quite funny actually. I was sitting the IRC channel, and I sarcastically asked what I should work on next (because I always have a laundry list of games I want to get to,) when Garrett suggest A Link to the Past, a guide that he started a while back. At first I thought the idea was funny, but since it's one of my all time favorite SNES games, I figured why not, so I got started on it. I would say that what you see tonight is the final result.

Unlike with Pokémon Red and Blue, I wasn't just shooting to construct a model guide, but rather to create the first guide that might be eligible for the distinction of being at level 5 completion. Unlike a level 4 completion which is pretty thorough, but not without some small room for improvement, a level 5 guide is one that you could not possibly add something to it and greatly enhance it. As we discussed some time ago, level 5 guides need to be voted upon. I don't know if everyone will agree that LttP is at level 5 yet. People may feel that it still needs work. It definitely needs proof reading. Since I've been using Firefox 2.0 my spelling error rate has dropped substantially (thank you Mozilla), but what it doesn't catch is when I mistype one word with another correctly spelled word (such as if I meant "through" but I typed "though"). So I really need people to analyze the writing and look for obvious mistakes.

Anyway, the point of this long winded message is to kick off the level 5 voting procedure. I suppose we could copy the format used for sys-op nominations. I just fear that someone like DrBob or Skizzerz is better suited to take care of that than I. But I'd also like to get people's opinions on the matter as well. Thanks very much to the usual suspects for their tremendous support. Procyon (Talk) 20:12, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Great! I've just proof-read all the pages in the first column of the TOC, and apart from a few mis-apostrophications, things look good. I've changed the layout on the enemy pages slightly (so that the TOC is less intrusive), and you should probably look at the Items page, as it says it's a WIP, and the description for the "Magic Hammer" looks wrong to me. Overall, the guide looks great.
 * As far as level 5 voting goes, I think Garrett did some stuff towards this before, didn't he? Something involving templates and golden stars in the top-right, or am I mistaken? --DrBob (Talk) 08:36, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 * How about an 0005.svg? --  blendmaster | talk  ]] 13:34, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 * That's cool. I think it'll work. echelontalk 18:44, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Oh yes, and I'm against copying the format used for the sysop nominations, as it seems far too complex and prone to being mucked up. We should be able to come up with something simpler. Keeping things all on one page would be nice. --DrBob (Talk) 08:37, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Check out Featured guides/Current requests and voice your opinion about The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past. -- 13:19, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 * I've just finished proofreading the pages in the second column of the ToC. Still looking good! :-) --DrBob (Talk) 14:38, 12 August 2007 (CDT)
 * I can't thank you enough for you efforts DrBob. There's still the matter of the GBA sections that needs to be resolved.  I'll take my next point to the featured guides request page.  Procyon (Talk) 15:17, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

Archiving
I've just archived a huge amount of stuff from this page, but I've left a number of discussions behind, since they don't seem to have been resolved. Could people take a look at them, and hopefully we can resolve and archive them too? --DrBob (Talk) 09:51, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

More Infobox improvements
I think it would be a good idea if we modified the infobox so that it automatically categorised a page as Category:Pages needing an infobox if certain parameters weren't filled out. The list of parameters I've got so far is: I'm primarily looking for feedback on the list of parameters, but feedback on the idea itself is welcome. --DrBob (Talk) 16:45, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 * title
 * developer
 * publisher
 * released
 * genre
 * systems
 * First of all, great idea. This way we can reduce the number of edits and extra 9 characters per main page.  Secondly, we don't need the japanese title as a requirement.  I think we only need the title, publisher (easier to find than developer at times), release date, genre and system.  Developer could be required, but the publisher is usually the one that people find out most easily (online games, for example, always have a publisher however the developer is sometimes hidden).  But hey, this can be rare at times so... it's up to everyone except me.  --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 23:49, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 * I've implemented it, using the original list of parameters, since they're the parameters which are never hidden (i.e. the row is displayed in the infobox even if no value is given). --DrBob (Talk) 16:36, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Misspelling Corrections - Everything?
I was wondering what you guys thought about fixing literally 99% of the spelling mistakes on SW (we can't get rid of the ones listed on the Mispellings page). Besides guides/image pages, what about user pages and talk pages? I'm requesting that we allow everything be spellchecked 1) to make my spell check (and others') job easier and 2) to make everything more accurate. The second point is definitely not as strong, but the first is. Right now for some words we have like 1-25 pages that are talk or user page related. In another 1400 guide pages how many do you think we'll have? It could get messy, and everytime we go to spellcheck we have to go slowly through the list to identify what pages need it or not (not that we aren't careful anyways). It's minor, but is anyone against it? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 19:03, 9 August 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm against this. However much I'd like to correct everyone's spelling and grammar, it's rude and unnecessary to fix misspellings on talk pages. You should be able to exclude talk pages from the search results by limiting the search to the main namespace. --DrBob (Talk) 04:01, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
 * i'M knot fore it ether. Eye thnk tat it is a wird idea. On another note, Spel Chek™ FTW! -- 16:22, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Permanent system browser
Don't you think that something as important as a system browser should be on every page, not just the main page? All the major gaming sites have their system list in the navigation at the top of the page. A lot of them even have navigation links at the bottom of every page. I think it would be good to have even just a text menu below the left navigation linking to all the systems and possibly the genres. -- 20:42, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
 * There's not enough room at the top; but if we could add it to the very bottom (like where disclaimers and the licenses are shown) I think it would work pretty well. -- 23:30, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
 * You'd have to hack MediaWiki to get stuff down there, which is not going to happen. If they want to go to the system browser, they can simply click on the "Main Page" link and head from there. -- 10:07, 11 August 2007 (CDT)
 * But that's an extra click. I doubt that many users click on the links at the bottom of Gamespot and GameFAQs, but they're still there. Even if it's hard to put links at the bottom of the page, it should be easy to put more links in the left navigation. Right now, they're all pretty meta. They're what Wikipedia puts in the "toolbox" and "interaction" section. We need some more links to actual content. -- 14:02, 11 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Sounds good to me. On the left nav I would only like to see some visible break between the tool links we have now and what we might add.  We need to keep things very simple when we do this, so what do we want?  I propose the section (assuming we are only adding one) might have a title, perhaps "Guides" and then links to Systems, Genres, etc.  -- 22:34, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

System and Genre portals
Since we have the new system browser, the pages it links to need an overhaul. Right now, they are pretty barebones Category pages, some with a bit of content, like Category:Nintendo GameCube. We should make Portals, like Wikipedia. They still have category pages, but with no extra content. Example: Portal:Arts and Category: Arts. The portal pages are great. They have category specific featured content, a todo list, and a link to the list of articles. We can add top ten lists, and gaming specific things, like the content on GameFAQs' system pages. Example: Wii. Portals would look a lot nicer than our current pages: a dull list of guides, with no way of knowing how finished they are. -- 14:41, 11 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Check what I've done to Category:Nintendo GameCube. -- Prod (Talk) 23:49, 11 August 2007 (CDT)
 * I like, but I think it's going to be largely ignored if it's on the right. You should make a template for it which uses a coloured border (green? I feel we need some green...) to highlight it, and stick it in the category page itself. --DrBob (Talk) 04:37, 12 August 2007 (CDT)
 * That would be possible to do, but it needs mode=usermode. Also, the template would work because (*gasp*) DPL actually accepts parameters when used as (which is another way to use it). I'm working on the template right now, it's going to be called, fittingly, Portaldpl, as it's being used in the 'portals'. -- 10:08, 12 August 2007 (CDT)
 * It's been superseded by modifications Prod and I have made to system, which will now display a list of popular guides for the described system in the system's infobox. --DrBob (Talk) 11:40, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

When "one game, one guide" fails...
This topic has come up a lot recently in light of attempting to promote The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past to feature guide status. A permanent policy must be decided upon before the status of that guide can be determined.

Obviously, the "one game, one guide" philosophy is a desirable one. Very few games have more than one version, and we distinguish ourselves from other game info sites by presenting readers with one obvious choice instead of a multitude of gambles. However, when we encounter games that have more than one version, we run into quite a little conundrum. We have plenty of examples of this situation on our site already, and no consistent way of handling it:


 * Super Mario 64 / Super Mario 64 DS: Clear redundancy of information, and no central organization between the two guides.
 * Street Fighter II series: All pages share identical Table of contents that interlink all of the main pages into one guide.
 * Super Mario Bros. / Super Mario All-Stars / Vs. Super Mario Bros.: We have a main guide, a portal page, and a supplimental information page.
 * Pokémon Red and Blue / Pokémon Yellow: One is the main guide with an inclusive walkthrough, the other contains exclusive version information with a transcluded Table of Contents from the main guide.
 * The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past / The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords: The very guide in question, we have a SNES walkthrough with GBA appendices.

So far, I have been in favor of the Pokemon guide's approach, but I have a feeling that I'm in the minority on this. If I were to guess Echelon and Prod's position on the matter, I think they would prefer the Zelda approach. I think we can all agree that the Super Mario 64 approach is terrible. The only reason the Street Fighter II approach works is because they are all "onepage" guides. As for Super Mario Bros., well, that's just a headache that can be solved if we adopt a better official policy (personally, I consider Super Mario All-Stars a compilation title, and is subject to compilation policies.) I will start this debate off with my opinions. Procyon (Talk) 10:16, 13 August 2007 (CDT)


 * I personally prefer the Pokemon guide approach for the following reason: I like the segregation of version information. If I'm looking at Pokemon Red/Blue, I don't want to know anything specific about Yellow that does not pertain to Red and Blue.  If I'm looking at Yellow, I only wish to know what's different about Yellow.  The introduction page should educate the reader that Yellow is a tweaked version of Red and Blue, and that the walkthrough information of Red and Blue pertains to Yellow.  The Yellow guide is simply where you can locate specific Yellow information.  Therefore, I propose that I would like to see GBA information about A Link to the Past excluded from the SNES version of guide, and only specifically included in the GBA version of the guide.  Now, having said that, I'm already prepared to accept the majority opinion of the community, which I believe will be along the lines of the inclusion (that is, one Link to the Past guide that includes all version variations.)  However, should that be the case, problems that currently exist with all of the other guides that I mention above need to be addressed, especially the Super Mario 64 guides. Procyon (Talk) 10:16, 13 August 2007 (CDT)
 * I must admit that I'm a bit crazier than even you Procyon. While I'm also in favor of exclusion, I would also create a modified walkthrough that pertains to the other guide instead of making them go back to the original version (So Four Swords would have its own distinct walkthrough, much like the GameCube version in Twilight Princess has its own distinct walkthrough). Of course, you don't have to type out the walkthrough again, a simple would suffice if there are no differences in the walkthrough itself, but I'd say give the other version a full walkthrough as well (of course, that also means that I'm under the opinion that Red and Blue should be split up, but I'm probably outvoted on that one). -- 10:59, 13 August 2007 (CDT)