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

Welcome to all users! This page is where you can ask StrategyWiki-related questions to the staff and senior community figures, and they will do their best to answer. If you want to raise a topic for discussion (rather than just ask about it), please use the community issues forum instead. New issues are entered here, with the most recent at the bottom of the page. If your question does not pertain to editing StrategyWiki (e.g. asking for hints or game-specific information), please ask on the guide's talk page or on the forums.

Please review the Table of Contents to see if your issue has already been raised; also check the archives (to the right) in case it was discussed some time ago.

To facilitate ease of browsing and replying, please:

  1. Place your question at the bottom of the list.
  2. Title the question (by placing the title between equals signs: ==Title==).
  3. Sign your name and date (by adding four tildes: ~~~~).

Remove PC system requirements[edit]

I'd like to suggest we remove all pc game requirements from our infoboxes. Essentially every instance of {{pcreq}} (almost 400 uses). The template is inflexible and needs updating over time as computing power increases, and often the template isn't used (properly). The information doesn't help users play the game or find new games to play. It's not frequently updated by users anymore, and Steam covers all this information more directly/accurately. PCGW also covers it much better than we do if it's something a user needs. -- Prod (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm in favor of removing the requirements. It's good info, but I don't think people use our site to preview games and therefore need sys req recommendations. They likely already have, and are playing, the game, so they must already meet the reqs. If it will simplify our infobox, I'm for it. Procyon 01:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Indeed it seems way out of place and takes up a lot of vertical space in it's current form. Matthias (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
There were only two instances of the requirements parameter in the infobox which weren't for PC games, so I've removed them and added the info to the page directly. the template and all uses has now been deleted. -- Prod (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


Why does {{~}} exist? It's a quick way to link subpages within the current project but, as Prod has just pointed out to me, [[../page name/]] and {{~|page name}} have the same result, and by extension so do [[../page name|label]] and {{~|page name|label}}. Is it redundant, and should usage be avoided?

I ask because I've been considering making a more generic version of {{KotOR}}, which is a quick way of linking to page sections within the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic project: for example, to link to Nerve Enhancement Package I can just use {{KotOR|Implants|Nerve Enhancement Package}} instead of [[../Implants#Nerve Enhancement Package|Nerve Enhancement Package]].

I was considering editing {{~}} to achieve this, but the new parameter order would be counter-intuitive ( {{~|page name|label|section name}}, not {{~|page name|section name|label}} ) and it's already linked to over 500 pages (although it'll be less than 500 once I remove it from pages I edit).

If I created a new template, provisionally ?, to allow a quick way to link page sections within the current project, then I'm pretty sure I'd use it on multiple projects, even if no one else did... or does such a template or other functionality already exist? Onderduiker (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

In theory (and not in practice because we don't typically go two sub-directories deep), {{~}} has and advantage over the .. usage in that it can be used to refer to a link off of the main guide, even if you were two sub-directory levels deep. With the .. approach, you'd have to use "../..", etc. That's really about the only advantage I can think of. Your approach to changing the behavior of {{~}} seems weird to me because in just about every wiki convention, the label comes last. You are definitely more than welcome to make a custom template that supports your work, regardless of whether anyone else might use it. If it's useful to you, it's useful to the site. I'm just not sure about "?" for the name, although I don't have a better suggestion. Procyon 01:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
{{~}} is already in use on just over 500 pages and already has two parameters (1 = page name, 2 = optional label), so adding a third would be problematic. I could add an optional S parameter to maintain the conventional order ( {{~|page name|S=section name|label}} or {{~|1|S|2}} ) but that's not ideal either.
Hence I'm leaning towards creating a new template. Due to the frequency with which I'll use it, its name should ideally be a single character, and I suggested "?" because the links will often be used to answer the question, "What's that (again)?" (for example, items listed in merchant inventories).
I've checked Wikipedia templates and there doesn't appear to be one by this name, so it shouldn't cause confusion. I'm open to other suggestions though (S for section? Also looks like ~ once flipped horizontally and rotated 90°), and I plan to work on model screenshots for the next week or so, so a decision isn't that urgent. Onderduiker (talk) 11:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I also thought {{~}} would be pretty cool until Najzere (talk · contribs) showed me [[../Page/]]. I'd rather switch to that instead of the template since it's part of the software and probably more efficient. {{s}} is probably a good option, with usage like {{s|page|section}}. Adding a parameter for label is redundant with the ../ syntax and I think only saves 1 character.
{{~|Page#section Name|Label}}
{{s|Page|section Name|Label}}
[[../Page#Section name|Label]]
-- Prod (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the redundancy of the label parameter for my proposed template. I'll create {{s}} shortly for use when section name = label... although I'm a little surprised something like this doesn't already exist here, since you can't just create pages for everything for ease of linkage (although even when you can, you probably shouldn't: hundreds or thousands of pages can be harder to organize, maintain and navigate). Onderduiker (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I've now created and used {{s}}, and I'll use it to replace {{~}} and {{KotOR}} going forward: I think two similar templates I created earlier, {{DII}} and {{DIILoD}}, are still necessary since they allow linking to Diablo II pages on Diablo II: Lord of Destruction pages, and vice versa. Onderduiker (talk) 19:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Cool! If you want to do a simple template switch, I can set my bot to do basic search/replace. Or, you could try AWB for anything more complicated. -- Prod (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer, but I'll most likely be editing all 100 or so pages on which I've used {{KotOR}} for other reasons over the next month or so, and it has a third parameter (albeit an optional and redundant one) which the new template does not. I'm happy to do it manually, killing two birds with one stone. Onderduiker (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Remove media parameter from game infoboxes[edit]

I'm thinking of getting rid of the |media parameter from infoboxes. We have less than 100 games which use the parameter. I feel it's unnecessary information, that is better covered elsewhere. Console games generally have only one possible media, apart from eShops which are listed as a method of distribution. The only distinguishing point is the size of the media (256 Megabit cartridge), which is not useful for guides, and should be listed elsewhere. PC games are slightly more interesting (floppies), but all modern games are generally available via digital distribution (Steam). -- Prod (talk) 01:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree. It's only useful for a very few cases, and that can be handled on the Getting Started page or PCGamingWiki when it's relevant. For other computer platforms supporting multiple media formats, such as Commodore 64, the worry about whether you have the needed tape or disk drive is no longer important simply because of the current situation. Even PC games might not be that interesting, as most floppy/CD games can be installed on the hard disk, as opposed to the unique ones that run directly from disk. --Sigma 7 (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Also agree, but primarily because I don't really work on too many computer games, so it doesn't affect me greatly. Sigma's points about the PCGamingWiki are valid, but only for DOS/Windows games, and probably won't be applicable to older Atari and Commodore systems. That being said, I really don't know who would come here seeking that specific information. Presumably, they're coming here because they already possess in the game, in whatever format, and are here to learn how to play the game, not how to load it. Procyon 17:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The media parameter is now gone. -- Prod (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

NES Classic Edition[edit]

A user made this change. This seems like it should be it's own system, since it's completely standalone and connects directly to the TV. -- Prod (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

That begs the question of whether standalone, non-expandable systems are systems in the traditional sense at all. An arguable alternative is that the whole system could be treated as a compilation cartridge with no system at all. I think the footnote is worth leaving on the Category page, linking to a main game page similar to Namco Museum or something similar. Procyon 17:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd treat them similar to compilation disks - only difference is that it's a hardware device rather than a collection of software. --Sigma 7 (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Maybe we should have Category:Single-use systems? That way it's clear you don't actually need an NES to play the games. -- Prod (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Tabbed navigation bar covers and hides on-page link targets[edit]

OK, I may not be using the correct terminology here. Also, the question may have been asked before because I am too lazy to review 120 months of past discussion, especially since there is no table of contents on archived pages of the Staff Lounge.

Anyway, when I click an on-page link (or a link to another page with a specific section as a target, like this: Quake II/Items#Combat_Armor), the link target is positioned at the top of the browser window, as one would expect, but the navigation bar with the tabs on it is frequently repositioned from near the top of the page, after the banner ad and page title, also to the top of the browser window and there it covers and hides the target. I can't find any information on how to deal with this. Suggestions, please? Bayram (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

StrategyWiki:Staff lounge/2015/January#Non-section jumplink skin bug. Unfortunately, it's a difficult problem to fix. -- Prod (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Simplify {{Series}} further[edit]

Following up on May cleanup, I'd like to suggest getting rid of a few more entries from our series templates.

  • Distributor - Doesn't really define a series. More relevant to each game. Only used on 10 pages (4 correctly).
  • Modes - If it's important to the series it can be mentioned in the text, otherwise it doesn't help tie a series together. Used on 375 pages. Generally says "Single Player" and "multiplayer", 2 say "MMOG", 22 say "co-op".

-- Prod (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Main Page Rendering Issue[edit]

When I go to the Main Page, I see that the header text in the "NIWA" and "SEIWA" sections is wrapped (apparently to the width of the image that sits next to the text in question). I’m using Safari 10.0 on a Mac, if it matters. I would have posted a screenshot of this, but seeing as I haven’t edited here for a while, I am unsure about the proper protocol for doing such. If you could advise me of it for future reference, that would be great. Thanks! Wjk (talk) 00:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I see the issue as well, thanks for pointing it out! I'll look into fixing it. -- Prod (talk) 04:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Third-party cheating devices[edit]

I'd like to delete all pages that are about codes for the various cheating devices (Game Genie, Game Shark, Code Breaker, Action Replay). They're not part of the game and essentially defeat the purpose of using a walkthrough. Cheat codes that come with the game and console commands (steam) should be fine to keep. -- Prod (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I would second this proposal. StrategyWiki's purpose is to give gamers a hand by providing strategy and other methods to, "lawfully" beat a particularly tricky part. Cheats rob gamers of the struggle, and truth be told, there are numerous other sites that hold cheats. Those people that like to cheat are free to seek them out, but we shouldn't be providing them in the first place.Orion35 (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. When it comes to completing games, you may need to use cheating or debugging techniques in order to figure out how to win the game, or otherwise make it easier to practice a rather difficult section in the game. With knowledge that can be obtained from cheating, you may at least personally witness how the game actually works in the late stages (better than just reading text), and can at least plan better for regular play. Close variations of this have been done in the past with the TAS community (memory scanning is closely related), before the knowledge gained leaked its way into regular speedruns. They're simply yet another tool to eventually to complete a game.
Of course, there's not that much of a need to create further cheat pages, since they've mostly fallen out in favor of quicksaves or other alternate tools. The only need to list them is to get past the rare bug. --Sigma 7 (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
If it's required to play the game then we can include it. We don't need pages like Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire/GameShark. I think the mention of the beta world on this page should stay since it's inaccessible otherwise. But everything else on the page should be wiped out. -- Prod (talk) 13:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Sigma7 here. There's two kinds of cheating: cheating the game, and cheating against another player. While I'm against the second, I think that for a self-contained single player game, if a player wants to know how to cheat in order to make something easier for themselves, and potentially more enjoyable for them, who are we to judge whether that's right or wrong? Furthermore, from a business perspective, I'd rather see SW be a one-stop-shop for any and all information about a game, as opposed to saying, "Here's a walkthrough on how to beat the game so that you don't have to figure anything out for yourself, but if you want to cheat, you'll have to go to Google and find some other site for that information." Seems kind of hypocritical, and it gives some other site traffic that would otherwise be ours. Procyon 13:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I can't comment on those third party cheating devices, but I think built-in cheats and console commands should still be covered since they can be used for more than just completing the game. Aside from the debugging and research already mentioned, people don't just complete games, they replay them: when they do, they may just want to replay their favourite levels, and not all previous ones to get to them; or they may want to have fun with a rocket launcher on a level where they don't normally have one. There are also people who aren't interested in every aspect of a game: for example, they may play it for the dialog and story but have little or no interest in its combat, so cheats allow them to trivialize the latter while concentrating on the former.
Cheats can also help contribute to guides, beyond debugging and research: for example, noclip and notarget cheats allow screenshots to be taken from positions with a better view of an area than might otherwise be possible, without enemies converging on you to attack. This screenshot wasn't taken using such cheats, thanks to Stealth (although it was taken with a character edited to be a Rancor, for extra elevation), but it is the kind of screenshot that could be taken in other games with them... and it can be much easier to take screenshots of enemies themselves when they're not trying to kill you (or they can't). I've also used cheats to skip levels to quickly expand Tables of Contents, giving a better idea of how much work needs to be done before a game and its guide are completed properly.
While other sites may have cheats, even in my limited experience I've found they can be wrong, supplying the wrong way to activate cheats, codes which don't actually work, or inadequate descriptions (for example, infiniteuses for Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic applies to your enemies as well: everybody with grenades and medpacs gets an endless supply!). It might be possible to get these updated on other sites, but I find it much easier just to add information I've personally verified to this wiki, and if I get it wrong then it's much easier for me or someone else to correct it later. Onderduiker (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I completely agree that the built-in cheats should be covered. StarCraft/Cheats and similar pages are part of the game the developers delivered. My issue is that we should get rid of all these codes for Game Genie/Game Shark when there could be thousands of codes that are almost impossible for people to fully verify. I've bolded/clarified this in my original comment.
@Procyon (talk · contribs) These codes don't get checked very often, and if too many new users come to us and find bad codes, it could make us look bad. -- Prod (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
As some of you may know, I'm in the process of editing the Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen guide. One of the pages is "Action replay codes". Of course, once you go in there is a large list of codes, but little explanation of their use. I saw no Master Codes, which are essential to using cheats in this way, nor did I see an explanation on what the "Move" section was supposed to do, or how to make them affect the game.
I added a Master code I found on the web, but I still don't know if it will work anyway. This is just one sample of how "Cheats" make our wiki look bad. I say that either we delete these pages (again I talk about Gameshark or the like only, not cheats that come with the game or command codes), or at the very least we make a serious effort to edit them or replace them with something worthwhile.Orion35 (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)