From StrategyWiki, the video game walkthrough and strategy guide wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcut:
[[SWt:CP]]

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



Site Problems

I'm having problems with the site, half the images aren't showing even thought they're there and it's changing skins to a very very basic one, does any1 know how to fix this.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 01:57, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

about 52/200 images are showing in categories
There's a problem with the media server which holds all the images and themes. It'll be fixed. --DrBob (Talk) 04:29, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
I'm not exactly sure what was the cause of the issue, but whatever it was, it's now fixed.--Dan 08:11, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
Was thttpd down? I wonder if there's a way to check whether or not it is actively running so that if it ever crashes we can restart it. I do know for a fact that when the server restarts thttpd fails to restart. :( echelon 23:20, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
Well I think it's down again now but it's not as bad as before.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 02:14, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
I just restarted thttpd. I don't know what the issue is. :( I'm thinking of making a PHP script (for Sysops) that allows people without server access to run the startup command using php's exec() or something similar. (I wonder if that would work? I'll look into it when I wake up tomorrow.) echelon 02:31, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
Well it's gone again, (I thought it was just my PC 'till I looked at images).Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 16:09, 3 May 2007 (CDT)



Undo Revision

When you press the undo link when looking between diffs the summary is wrong, it says (Undo revision 128080 by Special:Contributions/Rocky (User talk:Rocky)) whereas it should say (Undo revision 128080 by Rocky (talk)), can sum1 change this please.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 03:55, 11 April 2007 (CDT)

done. -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 07:26, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
Great, thanks!
Sorry, is there a way to stop it saying that I haven't provided a summary even though the text is in the box.Thanks.Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 15:53, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
Thats a check box in your settings. Its there for people like me who are anal about always filling out the summary field. --Argash 17:52, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
That's actually the problem, I've got the box checked but when I use the undo feature, it puts a lot of text in the box but a message appears saying that I haven't provided a summary, try it out here, feel free to save.Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 00:44, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
It worked for me just now. Are you using MonoBook instead of Blue Cloud? Sounds like a JS error or something. GarrettTalk 00:55, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
It's probably IE6 then (sigh). It still happens for me, just a question though, do you have prompt me when not entering an edit summary ticked in preferences?Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 01:08, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
No I don't, but the Blue Cloud-specific JS equivalent kicks in anyway. You could always try adding an arbitrary character (a space, even) to see if that is enough to satisfy the check. GarrettTalk 03:24, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
Actually, the js is enabled in MonoBook as well, and it requires at least five characters for the summary to be "valid" (no idea why its messing up with undo revision though, as it has an auto summary) --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 08:06, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
Actually the limit is only in FF, I only realised when I tried editing in FF, that's why I use "more" in my to do, there's no warning or anything, also my summary now doesn't give a warning.Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 10:20, 30 April 2007 (CDT)


Determining Completion Level

Just out of curiosity how is a guides completion level determined? Is it just each editors best guess? Or is there a formal process? --Argash 23:36, 24 April 2007 (CDT)

Right now its just editor best guess. We have very generalized levels at the moment; but its based on the walkthrough part of the article. Refer to Category:Guides by completion stage for more information. Later on, when the community gets much larger I assume we will start having a review process/committee groups start going through and actually assesing them. But for now its pretty simple, i.e. nothing, something, more than just a little, almost done, done. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 23:42, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
I would have to agree. Right now we're not large enough to require the kind of bureaucracy that would mandate a committee or voting on completion level. For now, if there's a dispute the best way to settle it is to use the talk page or community portal. If you ever feel something doesn't match its completion level, just edit it. Be bold! echelon 15:18, 25 April 2007 (CDT)

Mobile Phone games/genre

When working on ActRaiser I noticed that Wikipedia has the game listed under Mobile Phones as a platform, since Square Enix made a version of the game in 2003 for such a platform (according to Wikipedia). How do we accurately note this information? Should a general Mobile Phone genre be created? I don't have a cell phone, but what sort of software is involved? Does it make a difference? Do the cell phones themselves, the model or brand for instance, change anything besides availability of the games and software (engine)? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 20:40, 26 April 2007 (CDT)

Category:Mobile. -- Prod (Talk) 20:41, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
Mmk. Ambiguity for the win. What should it be categorized under the game platform though? Mobile Phone or just Mobile? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 22:04, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
The problem with the genre is that the game will probably be very different so we would need a disambig page for the game and that would be annoying with games that are already done or half done.Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 00:57, 27 April 2007 (CDT)
It's pretty much gaurenteed to be different, although since 2003 I assume much has developed in the way of cellphones. ActRaiser was a game that got reduced to a three level platformer. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 01:34, 27 April 2007 (CDT)
Actually for something like this we could probably do ActRaiser (disambiguation) and link to it at the top of the main ActRaiser page. I say that since the SNES version is WAY more common and what people would most likely be looking for. Thats how disambig typically works on WP anyway and I don't see any reason why we shouldn't copy their policy on this. --Argash 08:54, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

Interesting recent feedback

Hello everyone. I have recently been polling a lot of the retrogaming community about the layout and formats of our guides (specifically, but not exclusively, the ones that I have been focusing on), and I've received some interesting feedback that was not along the lines of what I expected. The predominant concern that I've heard is the lack of awareness of the existence of information beyond the front page of a game. Despite the fact that we include a Table of Contents link in the AGN, and despite the fact that we typically include a TOC somewhere on the front page, not everyone realized that these were actual functioning and complete links. And these are not unintelligent people by any means. One person commented that the The Legend of Zelda/Walkthrough, whose current content I am primarily responsible for, was very sparse. When I asked him what he thought of the content that the page links to (e.g. Underworld Level 3, Overworld Section 5, etc.), he did not realize that the blue words were hyperlinked. Again, these aren't dumb people, and I think they are primarily mislead by the preconceptions they have about FAQs and Walkthroughs in general, where everything of interest appears on one page. Our multi-page approach is even a departure from most Wikipedia articles.

By no means would I ever suggest that we revert to an archaic single-page format. However, I am beginning to reconsider how important it is to stress the existence of information beyond what can be found on the page they are currently looking at. For this reason, I am strongly considering moving the TOC's that I have listed on each of the main pages for the guides that I have created above the introduction! And not simply move it, but expand upon it so that it's clear what information can be found. For example (I'm using Pac-Man here):

  • Controls & Characters: Descriptions of the game's controls as well as every player and enemy found in the game.
  • Gameplay tips: Learn the various features of the game, and survival techniques.
  • Home version comparisons: Find pictures and descriptions of every home conversion of this game made, as well as comparisons of their differences.

...and so on. I'm not sure if this is overkill or not. I would prefer to leave the TOCs where they are, but perhaps that may lead to continued confusion over this issue. We know that the format we're using is good. I just wonder how effectively we are communicating this. How does everyone else feel? Thanks. Procyon (Talk) 13:00, 30 April 2007 (CDT)

Looks great, we'll have to redesign it for bigger guides but it looks OK. IMO I think that we should make the TOC link stand out a bit more, on my first visit to the Chips Challenge page, the AGN was really confusing, It took me a few more visits to work out about the show button.Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 13:30, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
I think this makes things just look really messy, and totally detracts from our vision of being organized. The newer game ToCs (as seen in OoT) have done a great job in attracting people to view other areas of the guide, mainly because they are near the top of the page and receive lots of screen space. Not in an entirely critical sense, your proposed format isn't clean as the descriptions, since each description are clumped next to each respective link and makes it stand out no more than any other paragraph. If our goal for the ToCs is to make them newbie-friendly and accessible, we should work with a system that already exists and works well, that ToC system being the one employed in the OoT guide. Immediately, anyone can recognize that it is the one stop place to navigate around the guide as it resembles a Table of Contents in a regular book, and anyone who has ever been through school or have seen a book to the least will be familar with this system, and thus know how to use it. The pros of this system go on and on and on, but I'd rather stop here and let you figure the rest out to your heart's content.--Dan 21:49, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
I for one really dislike having descriptors next to ToC links; its messy, unnecessary unless you're brand new to the site and don't understand what "introduction" or "getting started" or "controls" or "characters" means. When someone goes to a page, the top should have a small note in italics if there is any confusion about another page that contains related but separate information; i.e. character bios versus move lists. Luckily we often make the information duplicated so that both pages contain the same thing. Reiteration is quite powerful, but unnecessary if excessive. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 22:11, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
Dan, I completely agree with you about LOZ:OOT (although I personally hate how much white space exists between the intro and the TOC. We should get at least one image in there to fill the space.) But that format only works well for guides that require such a large TOC, like OOT, or Pokemon, etc. It's much more difficult to generate that many pages for older games, and at the same time, we want to avoid throwing all of the content on one page. The result is the 4~6 or so page template that I've been following. I'm just not certain how to highlight the TOC more than it is (in both navs and in the center of the page.) Maybe it really is just a matter of experience. Maybe there is a "learning curve" to using StrategyWiki, and some casual users may not catch on unless they visit frequently enough. I don't think that's an adequate conclusion to the matter, but I don't have any other ideas. Procyon (Talk) 22:46, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
I'm blank on ideas as well, but I do know for one thing that if we don't call something a Table of Contents and instead call it "In depth", you won't find many people using that as a ToC. It has to be made so that if we wish to introduce the idea that there are more pages beyond the first, we have to have a uniform way to do that (aside from the AGN), and calling every bunch of links a ToC will help. Of course, small game ToCs might not have to be in the exact same layout as can be found in the OoT guide, but things surely become easier for the newcomer.--Dan 08:33, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

I just had an idea for newcomers and non-registered users: we could put a notice below the nav bar on the left that says some basic stuff like "Blue links lead to other pages and red links are currently empty." It might help... And by newcomers I mean like display the message for the first ten days after registration. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 18:18, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

I haven't read all the comments, but we have the {{Continue Nav}}'s usually after intro sections (or should be adding those, link in the bar just below the edit box). Perhaps we should also clarify the One game, one guide slogan. -- Prod (Talk) 19:03, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

You know, when you're right, you're right. Prod and Dan have both provided me with rather constructive criticism, and although it will take some time to apply these to all of my guides, I will change "in depth" to "Table of Contents", and make sure all Introductions are followed by a Continue Nav. I am also contemplating moving things like the box art galleries to the home version comparison pages if a guide contains one. I'll work on Pac-Man first and get your thoughts when I'm complete. Procyon (Talk) 19:36, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

Reformat test

OK, I redid the Pac-Man front page in an attempt to incorporate the ideas presented here. I moved the box art gallery to each appropriate section of the home version comparisons. Not sure if switching between a left and right picture for 1-2 images, and a gallery for 3+ images was a great idea. Anyway, please take a look at the main page and the home versions page, and share your thoughts. Thanks guys! Procyon (Talk) 22:25, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

I think it looks great. Additionally, your thoughts would come in handy for the StrategyWiki:Guide and applicable policies. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 22:54, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

Reformatting complete

Wow, that was draining. I've touched up every one of the guides that I started. I still don't feel like it's perfect, but I may never feel that way, and it will have to do for now. On the plus side, the fact that there are more pages to each guide should be very readily apparent. On the minus side, I worry that anything below the TOC will be ignored; it seems silly to me that the Continue Nav and the TOC are right next to each other; and if a reader scrolls all the way down to the bottom (not that there's much down there anymore), the reader has to scroll back up to get to the TOC or the Continue Nav. I would consider moving the Continue Nav to the bottom and treat it like a Footer Nav, but I don't wanna edit all of those pages again. At least, not for a while. :P Procyon (Talk) 21:01, 5 May 2007 (CDT)

Collaboration of the Month URGENT

It's the end of the month, and there's no Collab assigned! See main page A.S.A.P! --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 01:11, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

Heh heh heh, I'd been wondering about that... Get to it guys, gals, etc, put votes in if you haven't already, sort this out Quick!! :-P --Froglet 04:08, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
We still need a promising guide of the month. Vote, people!--Dan 08:27, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
Currently, Pokémon Gold, Silver and Crystal is in the lead with 2 for votes and 0 oppose votes! I'd say this candidate would win unless some new votes are added (and/or new candidates)! --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 16:28, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
I opposed G/S/C, but I want to be clear about why I did. At some point I intend to reformat G/S/C to the format that R/B/Y uses, and the less stuff that's already there, the easier it is to do. I know it's not for me to say, "no, you can't do that," and I'm not trying to say that. I'm only asking to be given an opportunity to get through R/B/Y and then I can start G/S/C in earnest. Read my comments on the collab page for more. Procyon (Talk) 16:47, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

Math Tag, doesn't work?

I tried using the math tag and it failed:

Is something wrong? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 17:06, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

It might be disabled... If that's the case, it should really be removed from the toolbar. --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 18:10, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
Math? Who needs math on a site like this? :P--Dan 19:39, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
That requires TeX. I also doubt that we need it. :P echelon 01:06, 5 May 2007 (CDT)

Completely redone the CI archives

I've completely redone the archives for this page to hopefully make it easier to find stuff. Previously it was in something that vaguely resembled chronological order with a lot of stuff in completely random order. I've now organized everything by the date of the first SIGNED post in a topic. Please remember that the existing archives are still wildly out of order with in each month because thats how they come out of the old archives and I didn't feel the need for perfection. Going forward it should take care of itself though. --Argash 05:26, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

So are we archiving threads by last post or by creation date?--Dan 08:21, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
The best practice is by creation date or the date of the first signed post. On WP the standard practice is to archive a discussion when it appears to be finished (a few days with no new posts). Then after that discussion is archived if you want to revive it you start up a new topic on the main page referencing the archive. This helps to keep only the most relevant discussions up front and free of dead discussions. --Argash 16:03, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

Need help with Template:Talkarchive

I might have been too clever in the way that I set up the new archives. If you look at the link generated by Template:Talkarchive on StrategyWiki talk:Community Portal/2007/March the link to the main discussion page points to StrategyWiki talk:Community Portal/2007 instead of StrategyWiki talk:Community Portal. Anyone have any ideas how to fix that?--Argash 01:50, 4 May 2007 (CDT)

Well, Until we find out, I've redirected it to here.Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 00:54, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
Hah such an easy solution that i couldn't even think of it! good job sir! --Argash 01:50, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
Thanks but we really need a fix for this so we don't have to deal with the the 2008 bug :P. I'll look at the template tonight or tomorrow.Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 10:19, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
I asked at wikipedia and the only suggestion was to put a {{BASEPAGENAME}} on a subpage of each page that you want to archive ans subst: it to the page but that would mean doing it for every page, I've got an idea with the parser functions but for now, just redirect them.Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 13:35, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
I'll take a look later today, see if anything can be worked out. -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 19:09, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
I don't understand why you don't just hardcode StrategyWiki talk:Community Portal in instead of that basepage crap. lol --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 20:05, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
Ohhhhh is the template used for ALL archive pages? ahaha I thought this was specific to just the comm portal talk. Anyways, why not just add a parameter for the page? {{Talkarchive|StrategyWiki talk:Community Portal}} ...? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 20:10, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
{{Talkarchive|StrategyWiki talk:Community Portal}} doesn't work as it has to be an external link (like http://strategywiki.org/wiki/StrategyWiki_talk:Community_Portal ). Anyway, I've modified the template a bit so all you have to do is {{Talkarchive|CP}} and it links to the community portal talk page. (It uses #ifeq so it HAS to be exactly CP, it IS case-sensitive) --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 20:41, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
Works for me thanks for the fix Argash 21:38, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
I asked at wikipedia and they've come up with a different solution for this, it will work for every page so I'm testing it out here and here. When it's done I'll copy and paste it. BTW Is it OK to stop at 2 subpages (e.g a/b/c) or should I do 3 (e.g a/b/c/d), i'll set this up so you put "|2" for 2 and "|3" for 3 on the template.Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 13:20, 5 May 2007 (CDT)

I'm headed to Florida for a week

Just so you guys know. I'll be using some of my time down there for guide writing. No internet though. If you need anything, let me know now. Otherwise, talk to Dan or DrBob about any server problems/issues you have in my absence. See you guys when I get back! Also, I'm out of college for a few weeks until summer semester (which will be a light load). Cheers! echelon 00:21, 4 May 2007 (CDT)

Have fun man. Thanks for everything. What guides? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 01:23, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask is first on my list. I may finish taking screenshots for Ocarina of Time as well so that every page has them. echelon 11:02, 4 May 2007 (CDT)

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.) echelon 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 Template:PAGESINNS:1 talk pages across the entire site for articles, we have 45,575 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-Ryan Schmidt (talk · contribs). 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, <pre>, <code> and <nowiki>, also most HTML has been disabled over there, not sure if it would affect us though [1] - post 7--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 01:52, 13 May 2007 (CDT)
  • I'm with ^these^ guys.--Froglet 02:41, 13 May 2007 (CDT)
  • Strongly Against Old - lacking features. Looks like a hack -- Prod (Talk) 14:10, 13 May 2007 (CDT)
  • Undecided, but somewhat against' New - Stated reasons above but against because: Separation of POV (comments/discussion) from NPOV (guides); direct competition with ABXY; Can we even use it? -- Prod (Talk) 14:10, 13 May 2007 (CDT)

Mediawiki Bug

Take a look and scroll down here, MS rambot.png's file is broken because it's a gif and it was uploaded as a .png, is there any way to fix this apart from renaming the file because it will probably happen again.Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 06:27, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

The only way to correct that sort of error to me, is to just delete the image and re-upload it with the correct extension. If there is another way of correcting this, please correct me if I am wrong. Lunar Knight (Talk to me + Contribs) 12:55, 6 May 2007 (CDT)
Yeah, I'd just like to know if any1 knows a better solution instead of renaming them because it will probably happen again, Keep it for an example for now and when this gets archived I'll rename it.Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 13:21, 6 May 2007 (CDT)
To answer your questions: 1) There is currently no better/easier way than renaming, and 2)I've already re-uploaded it here, but am keeping the previous one until this gets archived. --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 15:06, 8 May 2007 (CDT)
There was a problem so I decided not to re-upload it, I don't think that the MS monsters template covers .gifs so don't delete it until we have the template changed.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 15:12, 8 May 2007 (CDT)
I fixed it by converting it to PNG. That's easier than retrofitting a template to handle a merely decorative GIF animation. GarrettTalk 00:12, 9 May 2007 (CDT)
To note, the template can already handle alternate file names (in the docs). But the image isn't really needed since all the other images are regular non-animated. -- Prod (Talk) 00:34, 9 May 2007 (CDT)

StrategyWiki:Layout

I'm thinking that we should get rid of this policy (and the sub-paging policy) and instead have StrategyWiki:Guide/Organization as the new policy, as it is more up-to-date and accessible (linked to indirectly from nearly every user's talk page). Let me know what you think (the policies are at StrategyWiki:Layout and StrategyWiki:Sub-paging). --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 11:46, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

I don't think we should exactly get rid of the Layout policy. Maybe we could merge it with the Organization policy? Lunar Knight (Talk to me + Contribs) 12:58, 6 May 2007 (CDT)
The organization page is (a) not yet a policy and (b) pretty much an updated version of what is covered in layout. If you really want to keep layout, it will have to be updated (for example, we don't subpage the walkthrough pages under /Walkthrough/, just under the game's name). --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 13:08, 6 May 2007 (CDT)
Although we don't Ryan, that information isn't noted on the Organization policy (I skimmed it, no header examples were used so I assume headers aren't on there). Merge! --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 15:38, 6 May 2007 (CDT)
Sadly we can't use [[../]] on the pages, the transclusion of the AGN messes it up, on Pokémon G/S/C it looks ok in the TOC but on any other page, the links are broken.Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 12:30, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

Time to work on guide completion?

I did a manual count of guides by completion stage the other day and this is what I found:

Empty Sparse Maturing Thorough Complete
505 227 95 67 152

I'm thinking it might be time to start going through the guides and verifying and updating the completion levels to move those numbers to the right as much as possible. I know that the active user base is still quite small but IMHO this is important as the number of completed guides will directly impact the sites usability and thus traffic will increase and the user base will increase.

Now I want to say I DO NOT think we need to start a formalized committee to start reviewing the guides. However I do think that the time has come to start codifying exactly what each level means so that guide developers can start updating their guides. Obviously every guide is different but we need to start laying out what items most guides should have, for example:

  • Generic requirements
    • Main guide page has the TOC
    • Main guide page has an infobox
    • Main guide page is properly categorized
    • Main guide page has a concise introduction paragraph
    • Main guide page has {{Continue Nav}}
    • All guide pages have {{All Game Nav}}
    • All guide pages have {{Footer Nav}}
    • All guide pages use proper english spelling AND grammer
    • Walk through is clearly outlined from beginning to end of game
  • Genre specific
    • RPG guides have item listings
    • RPG guides have spell listings
    • RPG guides have race/class/character descriptions (in game stat form)
    • FPS guides have weapon descriptions and strategies.
    • Fighting games have full move lists
    • Platform games item lists
    • RTS & TBS guides have unit / race listings
    • RTS & TBS guides have technology listings

Here's a more complete basic list taken from StrategyWiki:Guide/Organization#Table of Contents

Adventure

  • Characters
  • Commands
  • Game Overview
  • FAQs
  • Walkthrough
  • Items
  • Secrets

RPG

  • Characters
  • FAQs
  • Walkthrough
  • Sidequests
  • Enemies
  • Items
  • Weapons
  • Armor
  • Spells

Racing

  • Controls
  • Cars
  • Tracks
  • Cups

Fighting

  • Controls
  • Moves
  • Tactics
  • Tips and Tricks

This list is by no means complete and definitely should be worked on it's meant only to provide a springboard. Once this is done guide developers can create a list (which could be on the guides talk page) of what all their guide should have versus whats already done and determine with a much greater level of accuracy how complete their guide is. Additionally this will ensure that when the time comes to form a review committee they will already have a base to start from.

--Argash 15:28, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

I approve. Additionally all main pages must have Template:Continue Nav. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 15:41, 6 May 2007 (CDT)
"All guide pages use proper english spelling AND grammer". Did anyone else get the irony in this sentence? :-P I try my best to make 'full' pages when I start a new game page (boxart, release dates, systems, etc), and for some of the linkies on the ToC blued out, even if it's just an 'outline' of spells and characters, just that it's a mammothian task to undertake on your own and you need more than a bit of drive to complete the really tedious stuff (for example, the Loot list in Final Fantasy XII, which is so boring I don't think I can finish the list without losing every shred of sanity I possess). We do what we can, but we need more people to get everything done - a problem shared is a problem halved some say, and this is particularly true here. It's a hell of a lot easier to complete, say, spell lists when you're only doing the MP cost and prices when somebody else is putting down where you can find the spell, etc.--Froglet 03:47, 7 May 2007 (CDT)
Heh that's why guides need to be spell checked :) I do understand what your saying about item lists and such though (I'm going to have that facing me at some point with the NWN guide). I'm thinking that what we'll have to do is weight each element of any given guide and place the most weight on the walkthrough. My thinking is while we should delineate between a fully completed guide and a guide with a full walkthrough but not much else, we still need to let people know that those walkthroughs are complete. For example lets take FFXII, the most important thing a reader will ask himself is: "Will it take me from start to finish of the game?"
Now lets look at how this question will be answered depending on the state of the guide. If all the spell lists, item lists, armor lists, weapon lists and character lists but nothing else is completed, then the guide will essentially be 50% complete but the answer to this question will be no. Now lets say that the full walkthrough is complete but nothing else is, the guide is still essentially 50% complete but now the answer is yes. Thus while both guides might be 50% complete one is infinitely more valuable to the reader.
What we need to do then is come up with a way to quantify which guides can say yes to that all important question and then list that number on the main page and proudly proclaim it right alongside the number of guides that not only say yes to that question but are fully complete. Those are the two most important numbers that every person who visits the site wants and deserves to see! --Argash 04:27, 7 May 2007 (CDT)
Well if it's like that then can't we have a completion level on the walkthrough link?Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 05:02, 7 May 2007 (CDT)

FF7 footer thoughts

Currently the pages inside the FF7 guide use {{Final Fantasy VII/Walkthrough Navigation}} instead of {{Footer Nav}} do we want to leave this as is or update it to the proper footer template? --Argash 01:20, 7 May 2007 (CDT)

Things like this are kind of cool. One thing I like about GameFAQs that I'd like to see on StrategyWiki as it continues to expand is per-guide originality and flair. Ocarina of Time has it with the Gold Skulltula sidequest bars (though the blue on green link problem needs a fix..) The great thing is that so long as our conventions are mostly consistent between each guide, I think it's great for certain guides to exhibit a uniqueness about themselves that speak for the game (and the people that play them). That said, nothing should ever be too inconsistent. Finally, on the issue of FFV itself, I am not sure if it is completely clear as to how it is to be used. Are those chapters within the game itself? (If so, that may work just fine.) echelon 00:01, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

Not-Exactly Game Guides

Is it against policy to add information about software for games systems that aren't exactly for games? I'm not talking about things like Windows Vista, but I've lately been thinking about creating a page for the Nintendo DS Opera Browser, for clumsy people like me who lose the instruction manual and forget how to change the settings. So far I haven't lost the instruction manual, but I was wondering what the policy was on such things (after a mate of mine yes, lost the instruction manual and had to go to great lengths to figure out how to change the settings on her Nintendo DS). My reasoning that it should be here is that it's a piece of DS software, you could potentially use it to play games on, there are instructions that can be complicated in using it, and we also put in 'Controls' sections to game guides, so this could just be a sort of extended controls section or something like that. I was wondering what everybody else thought.--Froglet 07:50, 7 May 2007 (CDT)

Well we've got a guide to MAME (An emulator) so I guess mosgt guides are all right as long as we don't get really silly and do a guide to Ubuntu on a PS3 or anything like that.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 08:01, 7 May 2007 (CDT)
So long as you don't plagerize go ahead. I've created the NHN/Hangame registration guide to help Hangame.co.jp players who don't speak Japanese. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 16:57, 7 May 2007 (CDT)

Image troubles

I've imported Image:Broom icon.svg and Image:Broom icon.png from wiki commons. The SVG shows up but doesn't have any transparency. The PNG version doesn't show up at all. Can someone tell me what I'm doing wrong? --Argash 22:55, 9 May 2007 (CDT)

It's not you. The image server was not responding to requests at the moment. Dan should be resetting it as I type this, and the problem should be solved momentarily. Procyon (Talk) 23:16, 9 May 2007 (CDT)

Image Troubles on Google

Why aren't any of our images showing up on google, we have around 3 and 2 are from strategywiki.net, see here--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 14:56, 11 May 2007 (CDT)

I don't see any from strategywiki.net... --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 13:22, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
I found them about a week ago, now they're gone, I forgot to post (I also did that with the Math Tag :P). Also look at the America's army pic's URL, it's actually from Americasarmy.com and it's linkd to by URL, see here on our site so we don't have one image now, it's a bit bad really.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 15:17, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
Note that this is only in google, see here and here just note that some of these are from .net--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 15:19, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
Maybe it has something to do with metatags/file names? The one interesting thing I found from looking into this is this little article on Ech... --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 15:45, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
I haate that wiki article. :P echelon 23:55, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

Does anyone else think the new front page stats are too complex?

Anyone?--Dan 22:31, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

Only if you don't understand "encompassing." --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 22:40, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
I don't think the number of pages stat has as much relevance for us, the other two are noteworthy. -- Prod (Talk) 22:43, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
I'm torn between removing the numarticles statistic and keeping it. On the one hand, it looks like each guide may only have 6 pages if you do the math. On the other hand, without it it looks like we could be a wiki consisting of nothing more than incomplete 1-page guides (which we are most definitely not!) echelon 23:34, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
I think we should delete it for now really, this statistic will probably push newcomers away and we don't want that. We do have quite a few good quality 1-page guides though.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 23:44, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
How about some nicely rounded numbers? (Floor rounding using modulus so we don't report more than we have.) Rounded numbers have a tendency to look more aesthetic (certainly less distracting) and can be read smoothly. Take a look now and see what you think. echelon 23:52, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
Seems good apart from we still have 1000 6-page guides and special:statistics doesn't show 6000 anywhere.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 00:00, 15 May 2007 (CDT)
That number comes from a {{PAGESINCATEGORY}} count of Category:Sub-pages. It's a truer count than Special:Statistics' modest estimate. GarrettTalk 01:31, 15 May 2007 (CDT)
Well, shouldn't we link there then.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 01:50, 15 May 2007 (CDT)
I would say not. That category's sole purpose is to make Special:Uncategorizedpages usable, and won't be as understandable to a visitor in the same way as a category of individual game entries. I think there's a MediaWiki: page controlling the text on Special:Statistics so it should be possible to append those counts there. I'll look into that. GarrettTalk 02:39, 15 May 2007 (CDT)
It's here, it's there with text in even though it's red. I don't want to edit in case I mess it up.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 10:17, 15 May 2007 (CDT)
Ah, thanks. The page didn't exist, but MediaWiki automatically pastes in the default text for whatever MediaWiki: page you start editing. I've replaced the pages count with the number of guides (derived from Category:Games) as well as the total number of pages (derived from Category:Games and Category:Sub-pages). See what you think. GarrettTalk 16:16, 17 May 2007 (CDT)
I'm not really in favor of the new stats since they don't change as much as the original stats do, and if they don't change often, there's really no point in putting them on the front page.--Dan 19:11, 17 May 2007 (CDT)
It is useful to see about how much of everything we have, but I think we should floor off the count at the tens place instead of the hundreds. Also, I really think that we need to somehow incorporate a link to Special:Statistics somewhere in it, as it was removed when we removed the "legitimate" pages count. --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 19:57, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

Wikipedia Article

When are we actually going to put this on Wikipedia? We've had it sitting there for ages and I think it would be a good idea to put it on now, it will get us a bit more popularity and will give the site a boost, does anyone have any objections?--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 15:40, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

If you think the page meets the criteria outlined in WP:WEB, I'd say go ahead. If not, it is likely to get deleted again (as that was the reason for the first deletion--see here). --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 16:34, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

Continue Nav Placement and Compilation Completion Status

Ok, so does the Continue Nav go below the game information and above the story section? Or below the story section? Whatever the policy, it should be noted in the template docs.

Compilations, such as Sega Games Can Vol. 1 shouldn't be noted as completed, since the games they contain aren't completed. Until then, they should be at completion stage 1 because the guides pertaining to that game (the compilation) aren't complete. Think of it in literal terms; you have a book containing various works, however no real content exists beyond the forward, cover and publishing information... Isn't very accurate is it? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 02:41, 18 May 2007 (CDT)

I disagree about the compilation status. Each guide's completion stage should reflect that guide and only that guide, regardless of any content that it may be conditional upon. It indicates that while the guides that the compilation points to may not be complete, there is little-to-nothing needed to add to the compilation's explanation and is complete unto itself. By enforcing a rule that a compilation's page is only as complete as the guides it points to, you create a situation where a compilation may be created or edited prior to the guides that it points to being completed. Then the guides are completed, but who is responsible for updating the status of the compilation page? It's not a fair policy, nor is it a reliable one. The point of a compilation page is to discuss what games a compilation contains, as well as any additional features or game play not found in the original titles, not to reflect the completion of the guides that it points to. Procyon (Talk) 09:12, 18 May 2007 (CDT)
I agree with what Procyon says, mainly for the logistical problems (updating the number once the sub guides are finished). As for the continue navs, my view is that they should go high enough that they show up on the first screen when the page is loaded, but as low as possible. The closest location to this is right after the introduction, but usually before the story. -- Prod (Talk) 09:16, 18 May 2007 (CDT)
I have adopted the Continue Nav policy that Prod explain above in all of my guides. The only problem that I have with it now, is that when I get to the bottom of the first page, I have to scroll back up for either the TOC or the CN. There's nothing at the bottom of the main page that allows me to move on to another page, especially since we don't put Footer Navs on front pages. I know that ordinarily, front pages aren't supposed to be that long to begin with, but it's a minor pet peeve that I have.


Broken Image (Literally)

Here is the image, I think it happened because it had a bad name but how doI rename it if I can't select it? P.S the image is Image:Windwaker-link.gif TLOZ- the Wind Waker--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 13:35, 18 May 2007 (CDT)

I'll take care of it. -- Prod (Talk) 13:39, 18 May 2007 (CDT)
Thanks P.S The link is still there and works (Or doesn't as the case may be).--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 14:37, 18 May 2007 (CDT)


Search Engine Rankings

[2] I wonder who's ranked #10 on Yahoo! for strategy guides... Oh wait. We are. We're 24 on Google from a sad 36 one week ago. We're moving up quickly now that we gained some momentum. You guys are doing a great job. I don't think we'd be anywhere close to that if it weren't for the constant added efforts of you guys spreading the word. Now let's get to #1! --ConfusedSoul 01:22, 19 May 2007 (CDT)

N64 Controller Buttons

I think these could be easily done by someone willing; just get the gamecube buttons, recolour them, perhap's get the wii's Z button and recolour it, and also recolouring the Wii's C button and plonking generic arrows onto the end would be easily done and effective. --Muzer 03:08, 19 May 2007 (CDT)

I'll give it a go, got any good pics of a N64 though, they'll help a lot.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 02:37, 19 May 2007 (CDT)
I can tell you the official button colours if that's what you mean. If not, I'm sure they'll be plenty on google images. I do have an N64 but my photography is crap and I don't know where the camera or card reader is :p
OK, here goes:
The C buttons are yellow and circular, about 1cm in diameter (that's from one side of the circle to the other, intersecting the centre) File:N64-button-C.png
The B button is green and circular, and about 1.5cm in diameterFile:N64-button-B.png
The A button is blue and the same size and shape as B File:N64-button-A.png
The start button is red and circular, and about 1.25cm in diameterFile:N64-start.png
The analogue stick is light grey and 1.5cm in diameter
The D-PAD is dark grey and 1cm from the tip of 1 point to the centre. The points of the cross are also 0.5cm wide
The L and R triggers are also dark grey, the same colour as the D-Pad, and have the bottom side straight, the top side sloping downwards to the left with L and right with R. They are 3.75cm long, and the thin side of them (the left side for L, the right side for R) is 0.75cm wide, and the thich side (the right side for L, the left side for R) is 1.5cm wide.
The Z trigger is also the same dark grey and is rectangualar in the "portrait" position (ie height=longest dimension). It is 2cm high and 1cm wide.
There, I hope that's not too much info. --Muzer 03:08, 19 May 2007 (CDT)
Thanks, I'll add them here as I do them--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 03:59, 19 May 2007 (CDT)

Requests for Checkuser

Is there a way that we can do a checkuser on a few users:

I think that this vandalism has gone on for a bit too long now, I'd suggest banning the IP with account creation for 2 months because we've had too many attacks on the MapleStory Pages.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 03:02, 19 May 2007 (CDT)

Retrieved from "https://strategywiki.org/w/index.php?title=StrategyWiki_talk:Community_Portal&oldid=139241"