User talk:Jdorje/Archive 1

Welcome to StrategyWiki!
Hello Jdorje! 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 forums. 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! -- najzere T 21:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason to use instead of  ../Page name/? —  najzere T 21:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Because you have to do Page name, which is quite tedious to do repeatedly.  I asked about the use of a template here on irc and aside from pointing out the ~ template, nobody had a better idea. Jdorje 22:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How is Page name less tedious than ? They have the same amount characters and the wikilink doesn't require the shift key to make braces and tildes. Anyway, the reason I asked is to find out if there was some MediaWiki or server overhead associated with using the standard method that I didn't know about. If there's not, then I don't know why we'd want to increase transclusion on the page and use an unintuitive method that most editors won't be familiar with. Who did you speak with on IRC? — najzere T 22:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Instead of Page name, all you need is . Jdorje 23:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Or ../Page name/ or even  /Page name/ if you're going down a level. :D If all you wanted was a method where you didn't have to type out the full address, then this one already exists. You can see on the What links here page for ~ how much use we get out of link shortcut templates. Anyway, it's just odd that you needed a shortcut before you even have any edits to the wiki. Maybe this is a migration from one of the wikis you do edit, but one of the things we're supposed to cleanup is duplicate templates, so I'm trying to determine if this one is needed or not. Who did you speak with on IRC? —  najzere T 23:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, nevermind, I just thought of a good use for it on Table of Contents pages. I don't know if that was your original intention (if it was you could have saved me a lot of time by just saying so :P), but we've traditionally had to use full links on the ToCs and this template will make that much easier on guides for games with long names. Thanks! — najzere T 00:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It cuts out the duplicate writing, yeah. If you have to have a separate link text, it wouldn't save you anything as you point out...though i added that anyway.  I'm not sure the use in ToC pages but for normal articles it should be useful within just about every article.  I'm also not sure about the name though. Jdorje 00:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We've typically been against shortening links for clarity's sake. Also, it can make things confusing (i.e. ../../../../../Page ) for readers and editors. -- 00:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick walkthrough?
What is the point of adding a "Quick Walkthrough" on Dragon Warrior? Wouldn't it make more sense to add a page that provides good strategies on how to level up? Or to incorporate level up information on to the existing pages? Further more, you've been an editor here long enough to know that you should be using the page templates that add the header and footer nav, and you certainly should know that if you're going to bother adding a page, you should include it in the ToC. What's going on?  Pro cyon  03:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps much of it should be integrated into the strategies page, yes. Since it is currently orphaned (perhaps should have been started in userspace or talk space), I felt it was okay to leave it incomplete for a few hours.  I'll finish it by tomorrow.  The fundamental problem I'm trying to address though is with the current walkthrough; although it is a good piece of writing it's not a walkthrough at all, leaving crucial items unexplained while instead rambling on for pages with storyline.  A true walkthrough for this game should be about five lines long. Jdorje 06:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually I really don't know what to do with the DW strategy wiki. Even the general strategy page is so verbose and unfocused that someone looking for actual help with the game would not find it helpful...it is more of an introduction/manual to the game than a strategy guide, and I feel this applies to the entire DW wiki really.  Maybe part of the strategy page should be split off into a "how to play" page, leaving room for a more advanced "strategy" page that can give actual strategy advice.  Then I can have my "quick walkthrough" page separate; if indeed a walkthrough even needs a full page once the strategy part of it is removed. Jdorje 06:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You and I differ greatly on the opinion of what constitutes a walkthrough, not that there's anything wrong with that. But I do not consider that general strategy page "unfocused."  It addresses many different aspects of the game which a non-RPG player would not be immediately familiar with.  I agree that to an experienced RPG player, some of what is on the page might be considered cruft, but that is not the intended target audience of that page.  While I certainly champion your efforts to provide a more succinct resource for more experienced players, I would prefer to see it incorporated in harmony with the current content.  If that's not possible, then there's nothing wrong with a separate page for a more direct approach to completing the game.  I only strongly disagree with your claim that the current walkthrough leaves anything in the game unexplained.  It practically holds the players' hand through the entire game, explaining the goal of every moment of the game, and the purpose of every item you are looking for.  It also provides recommended levels for each section, as well as strategies to fight particularly tough monsters.  While it may be verbose, one cannot claim that the current walkthrough leaves any aspect of the game unexplained.  My approach to writing is to assume that the reader knows absolutely nothing, not that the reader happens to be an established expert at RPGs in general.  If a player truly is an expert, then he or she should be able to drill down through the Walkthrough and identify the single piece of information that he or she is looking for.   Pro  cyon  11:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose we do. One thing i think a walkthrough should cover is all the tricky parts of the game, though.  In your walkthrough for Charlock Island, for instance, you don't even fully explain how to enter the dungeon - instead just saying "the throne room contains a mystery".  For the most part though the walkthrough is quite good, I'll agree.  Let me think about this some more and see how our different views can be reconciled. Jdorje 20:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay here's for starters. After a bit of copyediting I'd like to move the "General strategy" page to "Basic strategy".  A separate "Advanced strategy" page can then be included which separates out a few elements from that page as well as a couple others that I was going to write about, plus some elements currently in the walkthrough (like "study the map well") which are strategy not walkthrough elements.  The "short walkthrough" can then be moved directly into the Walkthrough page which can provide a "walkthrough summary" along with the further detailed walkthrough (still not sure how this will work without having too much obvious spoilers in it, but we'll get to that later).