StrategyWiki talk:Community Portal

This page is for discussion of general community issues; if you just want to ask a question to more experienced users of the site, please use the staff lounge. To start a new thread [ click here]. Resolved threads are gradually archived; see the archives box to the right.

A new skin is under development. If you have any suggestions, please add them to the list

StrategyWiki Forum
I know a few of you have asked for a forum in the past--the key reason being that a forum has been seen as the missing link between our community and GameFAQs. While a forum for editorial discussion purposes would be completely redundant, perhaps a community forum integrated with the StrategyWiki accounts would help spur new editors to become more involved and have fun in the process. What do you guys think? This could be a really good idea or a really bad idea. (I won't be able to answer/provide feedback until I get back from Florida, but it's a good topic to get you guys started on debating now.)  ech elon  01:11, 5 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I was hoping that ABXY would fill this need. A forum would be great, but getting editorials/news/reviews would be even better. But yea, a forum would be excellent! -- Prod (Talk) 01:16, 5 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Well, once the abxy user sign up issue is resolved (if it isn't already) you could create a handful of StrategyWiki-specific forums and link to them from here. If they get a good deal of traffic you could then focus on integrating the skin and hosting it at forums.strategywiki.org and all that. I can certainly see the advantages of a forum--while I like how MediaWiki talk pages allow for nested comments, quotes and the like can do this job fairly well too. I'll post more thoughts about this later. GarrettTalk 01:33, 5 May 2007 (CDT)
 * This sounds like a good idea, although the random chit-chat forums (believe me, even if you intend for all talk to be something SW-related, 'How was your day?' threads and suchlike will soon spring up) would soon be the most active (I'm a moderator on a forum, so I know) and there would be some who seem to do more on the forums than they do editing. Still, it would be a good idea, it makes sure that others who seem to be the only ones out there editing (some days it does seem like that :-P) know that they're not alone!--Froglet 03:33, 5 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Well every page has it's own talk page maybe we should make that more obvious rather than going the forum route? --Argash 12:40, 5 May 2007 (CDT)
 * If this is the case then it will be easy to impliment, just a note on the top of the main game page and we can do this by modidifying the infobox templateRocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 13:11, 5 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I always thought that the Discussion pages were for editing talk. I thought that the idea of a forum would be more like it is on GFAQs - for debate on all the stuff you probably shouldn't debate and gossip about on the Discussion pages (eg, the non-neutral POV stuff that usually gets removed from the page - 'most useless character', 'why does this guy do this at the end of the game?' and so on).  Of course, I may have interpreted this wrong.--Froglet 06:49, 6 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I agree, maybe we could link it to GameName/Forum which would be the forum still using the infobox idea. But at the moment, we only have talk pages across the entire site for articles, we have  articles at the moment and it's not like those missing talk pages will be used because most guides are done by 1 or 2 authors and user talk communication is the best way when that happens. So I'm not sure.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 07:49, 6 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I don't think that would work very well either. I think it'd be better to go along a model similar to that of the Nintendo of Europe's forum base - there's system boards, etc, but the main boards would be the General board(s), the popular game/series boards (Pokemon and Legend of Zelda spring to mind), and of course the random babble boards (these are by far the most active, I've noted).--Froglet 08:45, 6 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I favor the idea of a forum, but what exactly would be discussed there? As stated above, wouldn't topics irrelevant to Strategy Wiki eventually spring up? Lunar Knight (Talk to me + Contribs) 12:52, 6 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I reckon that may be the point. It would stop people from aimless chitchat on the editing talk pages, and it is easier to maintain as a forum than as a bunch of editing talk pages - if a user creates spam on an editing talk page, you can remove it but the fact that it is freely editable stops it from being effective in discouraging people not to do that.  With a forum, you can at least delete posts and lock discussions.  I have a notion that it would also help create a better strategies for certain games, for example with a DS wifi game that hasn't had its online maps mapped out, two editors could switch friend codes and not only fight each other but also map the level out.  Sure, a lot of idle chatter will occur, but it's a good diversion from editing (or to let off steam when you're not in a neutral POV mood).

Of course, forums like this will need moderators and suchlike to keep the discussion civil, but I reckon it could work.--Froglet 18:47, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

I am vehemently against using MW talk pages as a forum. User talk pages are fine as discussion between people, but they are terrible for general discussion. All content on strategywiki right now is GFDL. Forums typically say ownership of a comment belongs to the writer. I'm not too sure how compatible they are, so I would suggest keeping them separate. Also, forums tend to be POV, and we're trying to keep SW NPOV. ABXY does have most of the stuff needed already (moderators, some users, etc.) but they've been having some problems. What would be cool is if we could add something to the agn like http://abxy.org/forum.php?name=gamename or something similar, and have it link to the relevant forums. Admins on ABXY could add forums for games as they are created (after some basic verification). -- Prod (Talk) 23:41, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

I actually think it's kind of funny that people are suggesting a forum be added StrategyWiki when ness just killed ABXY for the second time - claiming it's hogging all the server resources. It's a shame too, ABXY could have easily been used as a forum outlet for SW users. But instead of helping to fix the problem, he just took the site down. Those who want a forum here, I wouldn't hold your breath... apparently ness doesn't like them. Katana 08:54, 8 May 2007 (CDT)
 * ABXY has been bringing down the whole server. It tends to do it every few days, which is why he took it out. The code needs to be fixed, which is most likely up to echelon (Note the message that tends to come up: too many connections to localhost).  As SW is the one getting most of the traffic, ABXY is sacrificed for the greater good :P. -- Prod (Talk) 23:48, 8 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I love Froglet's idea! Being able to meet up with people somewhere more appropriate than a talk page and trades FC's and map out levels. Brilliant! It indeed would be a good diversion from editing, an area where you can just sit back and relax (Not that I'm not relaxing when I contribute, contributing here is one of my top ways of relaxation, aside from playing the 'ol DS). Lunar Knight (Talk to me + Contribs) 19:37, 8 May 2007 (CDT)
 * This could be put on trial, using a forum tool such as invisionfree.com, with a few discrete links to it on the site, with a few consoles, gabber and games/series on it just to see how regulars would react, whether it would attract more people in and suchlike. However, there is the query if there are people willing and able to administrate and moderate such a venture (I would be more than willing to assist in such aspects).--Froglet 08:35, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

Check out inside.wikia.com's forum. It's phpbb but is linked to the MediaWiki user accounts. PM buttons point to Talk: pages and everything! I don't know if the extension is available, but this is probably the best implementation since existing accounts would still work there. GarrettTalk 16:43, 12 May 2007 (CDT)


 * Check these out before implementing though--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 16:58, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
 * That page is regarding bugs with MediaWiki 1.10a (which isn't a stable build; Wikia, like Wikipedia, tries to follow the builds fairly closely). The Forum: namespace isn't for discussing the phpbb extension but is part of an earlier, unrelated forum extension. GarrettTalk 19:56, 12 May 2007 (CDT)

Forum implementation vote
Indicate whether you are for the new style of forums (like at the Inside Wikia, for the old style of forums (like at Wikia), against the implementation of forums on StrategyWiki, or undecided/neutral (and possibly a reason why). source code for new forums can be downloaded at http://www.phpbb.com/downloads/


 * For new-. I think the new forums are a great idea, and it would help build StrategyWiki's community. --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 22:14, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
 * For new. It combines a great forum system with our existing user accounts and markup language. GarrettTalk 22:18, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
 * For new. But the forum misses some basic markup,, and  , also most HTML has been disabled over there, not sure if it would affect us though  - 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)
 * For New Generally, I think forums would be a good idea, especially for discussing the sort of things that we shouldn't put in the walkthroughs.  I'm having a hard time even recognizing the old forum style as a forum at all.--Puretext 22:38, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Front page placement of Continue Nav and TOC revisited.
This is a continuation of the discussion started earlier (this discussion if it has not yet been archived) that prompted me to reformat all of the front pages of the guides that I worked on. The general out come of that discussion was:
 * 1) Prod's assertion that the Continue Nav should be placed in such a way that it is immediately visible on the front page of any guide.  Therefore, the most logical place for the nav would be immediately after the guide's introduction.
 * 2) Dan's assertion that the best way to alert readers (especially new visitors) to the fact that a guide is composed of multiple page, and is not limited to the front page, is to highlight the existence of the Table of Contents, which I did by moving it immediately below the Continue Nav in every guide that I altered.

Now, it is apparent that there are some problems with these choices.
 * NMH (which I am now permanently adopting as Notmyhandle's handle ^_^ ) feels that the TOC should be placed beneath a guide's story, which he bases (I believe) on the aesthetics. I am inclined to agree with this, but for a different reason: It seems awkward, even redundant, to have the TOC directly beneath the Continue Nav.  It's like saying, "Continue to A or B.  Also, there's page A and page B (and maybe some other pages)," and that doesn't make much logical sense.
 * I know that in general, we wish to keep front pages small (and I tend to be a big offender of that practice, I can't help myself >_< ), it concerns me that if a reader scrolls down to the bottom of the front page, such that the Continue Nav and the TOC has scrolled off screen, the reader has no choice to scroll back up to find a link because front pages do not use Footer Navs.
 * There's a general, less pivotal, issue regarding choosing header levels for their proper hierarchy, or their aesthetic look (sometimes H3 looks better than H2 even though something should technically be an H2.)

For the reasons stated above, I feel that links should be made available in two places: Immediately after the Introduction, and at the very bottom of the front page. Now, this can take the form of Continue_Nav beneath the intro, and move all of the TOCs to the bottom (they are in the AGN anyway), or it can be the other way around, which contradicts Prod's concern. But I will go one step further and claim that Continue Navs may not be the best solution afterall and that a modified Footer Nav, a special front page Footer Nav, might be the best possible solution as it would standardize the placement of continuing links. I propose that it might look something like this:   [Go to top] Super Mario Bros. How to play → Walkthrough → Table of Contents What do you all think? Procyon (Talk) 13:59, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Seems good but just to note, in point 3, is there a way to modify the software or add a template for a 2.5 heading (2 on TOC but has a line like a 3). If we can get someting like tha working then it'll help.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 14:02, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
 * First, the continue nav acts as a short jump into the guides. If people know how to play, but not sure where to start, they click walkthrough.  Secondly, the ToC is there so that new people who don't realize that the AGN and Footer nav's have drop down views will see the ToC.  A footer nav for the front pages seem fine to me; but this stil doesn't solve the universal order of sections that we really need for standardization/cleanup procedures.


 * Rocky: The Wikimarkup is simply using the  tags, and then formatting them to display the bar/edit button. So, unless we shift all the numbers up, there's no way we can do this (there are only like 6 different header values available.  (Correct me if I'm wrong.)


 * For the standardized layout I propose this order (codewise/visually): AGN, Infobox, Game Info, Continue Nav, Story, ToC, Miscellaneous Info, References, External Links, Footer Nav, Cats. Additionally, non-sub sections must all be H2's.  --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 15:03, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
 * But if a link to the Walkthrough is already contained in the front page TOC, how is that link less useful than the same link in the Continue Nav? Just to place my vote for the layout, I propose: AGN, Infobox, Introduction, TOC, Story, Misc. Info, References, External Links, Continue Nav and/or the above Footer Nav, Cats. I know it won't ultimately end up that way, but this would be my personal ideal.  I'd be satisfied with anything as long as it's agreed upon. Procyon (Talk) 15:10, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm under the opinion that the story should have a basic outline without spoilers, and have a separate story page (maybe with some spoilers in a bottom-ish section, but not on top). Plus, the continue nav should definitely be above the ToC, as it is more likely to get noticed that "hey, those are real links instead of pretty blue text" instead of the ToC (which seemed to be a problem with a few visitors to this site >.< ). There should not be anything under the ToC, though, and if there is, there should be a footer nav leading to the same links as the continue nav. In regards to the headings, there are a few ways to get around it. You can enclose the ToC in a div like so:  to take the tiered numbers off the ToC, or you could restrict to what heading sizes appear on the ToC with   (which would restrict the ToC to only displaying lv2 headings, -3 does lv2 and lv3, and so on). Currently, I haven't put in the CSS that accomplishes this, but if there is consensus, I'll do it. --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 15:31, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Ryan, that is how the story sections are currently laid out as. The front page stories are ambiguous introductions so they shouldn't take up much room.  So far we have a unanimous decision on the layout besides the ToC location.  Ryan: Nothing under the TOC?  Do you want the References/External Links sections to be above it as well?  Actually, now that I think about it the ToC does make a good bottom area; although I would still put Ref/Ext sections below that.  But Misc. Info seems to go better above it, since people will read the stuff or skip down and then find links to other pages.  --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 16:55, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
 * The reason that Dan suggested the TOC be placed higher up was so that people who are new to the site would easily comprehend that guides are composed of multiple pages. If we stuff the TOC on the bottom, it might be easily missed.  That's kind of why I was arguing for TOC up top, and Continue Nav or front page Footer Nav on the bottom.  Think about it: If the TOC comes after the introduction, and people want to jump right away to their favorite page (which might not even be on the Continue Nav), the TOC is right there for them to click on.  On the other hand, someone who bothers to read all the way down to the bottom of a front page is more likely to be follow through the guide sequentially, at which point it makes more sense for the Continue Nav to be placed at the bottom where the user can be lead to the next section of interest.  That's what I don't understand about the current suggestion.  I think people want the Continue Nav under the intro instead of the TOC because it "looks cooler," even though the TOC is more functional.  Likewise, something is needed at the bottom of the front page.  If the Footer Nav points readers to the next sequential page for a regular guide page, why shouldn't there be something similar to serve the same function on the front page?  Doesn't that make sense?  Procyon (Talk) 17:11, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

(Undoing indentation, wow this is long) Looking at your arguments, I'll have to agree with NMH and Proc about the placement of the ToC. However, having the continue nav at the bottom of the page looks really bad white-space wise (maybe an optional param to style it like a footer nav instead?). From how I see it, though, there are a few decently feasible options (other info is actual information, references, external links, and the like):
 * Option 1
 * AGN
 * Infobox/Intro
 * Story
 * Continue Nav
 * Table of Contents
 * Other Info
 * Option 2
 * AGN
 * Infobox/Intro
 * Continue Nav
 * Story
 * Other Info
 * Table of Contents
 * Option 3
 * AGN
 * Infobox/Intro
 * Story
 * Table of Contents
 * Other Info
 * Continue Nav (Footer Nav styled)
 * Option 4
 * AGN
 * Infobox/Intro
 * Table of Contents
 * Story
 * Other Info
 * Continue Nav (Footer Nav styled)
 * Option 5
 * AGN
 * Infobox/Intro
 * Story
 * Table of Contents
 * Other Info
 * Continue Nav (Normally styled)
 * Option 6
 * AGN
 * Infobox/Intro
 * Table of Contents
 * Story
 * Other Info
 * Continue Nav (Normally styled)


 * Option 7
 * Tags
 * AGN
 * Infobox/Intro
 * Story
 * Continue Nav
 * Table of Contents
 * Other Info
 * Footer Nav (no backpage)
 * Categories
 * Option 8
 * Tags
 * AGN
 * Infobox/Intro
 * Continue Nav
 * Story
 * Table of Contents
 * Other Info
 * Footer Nav (no backpage)
 * Categories
 * Option 9
 * Tags
 * AGN
 * Infobox/Intro
 * Continue Nav
 * Table of Contents
 * Story
 * Other Info
 * Footer Nav (no backpage)
 * Categories

Also, I've put in the class data for nonumtoc and toclimit (as well as topicon, see it in action here). Those were only a few of the possible options, so which one do you think would work the best? --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 17:48, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I am strongly for having the continue nav right near the top, before the ToC for sure, but before or after the Story doesn't matter to me. I'm supportive of the modified Footer Nav, depending on whether or not we have the ToC at the bottom.  References and External links should go below the ToC since they aren't really "content".  I'm supporting option 7/8/9 (though I think I might not like 9 :/) >_>. -- Prod (Talk) 18:13, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
 * lol, I thought you would hate option 7. Naturally, my vote is for 4, but I could live with 8, which isn't far from how many of my guides are now.  Realize, of course, not all games (like racing and sports games) have a story.  So...  If at least Ryan and NMH vote, we could narrow down the options a little.  Prod, simply out of curiosity, what are you arguments for having the Continue Nav instead of the TOC up at the top?  What are you arguments against using the TOC instead of the CN?  Thanks!  Procyon (Talk) 18:22, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
 * One major reason is simplicity (where to go next), but also because there tends to be a lot of white space beside the really long infoboxes, and it helps to fill that in (if we could get it to centre properly...). The ToC is also already right at the top (AGN) so it is "technically" already accessible (yea...that's a stretch :P). -- Prod (Talk) 18:45, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
 * My only counter-argument to yours is that in a multiple page guide, one author has to make the choice of which links to use in the Continue Nav. Naturally, we tend to choose the most obvious choices (How to play and Walkthrough for example) and I think that's sufficient 90% of the time.  However, if this is not where the reader wants to go, s/he has to find the TOC (which I agree is easy enough to find, especially if you are familiar with the site) and choose a link that s/he prefers.  This may be a bold assertion on my part, but I think it's the reader who navigates all the way down to the bottom of a front page that will want his/her hand held a little bit more.  I admit that I'm hypothesizing and splitting hairs here.  Ultimately, I'm happy to go along with the consensus (once we reach one.) Procyon (Talk) 19:10, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
 * One solution would be to put a "jump to Table of Contents" link at the bottom of the Continue Nav (still within the box) that would take the reader to the ToC at the bottom of the page. This is a simple fix, and it means we can continue leaving the ToC to last. GarrettTalk 02:32, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

I'm fine with the ToC being as high as it can be without causing visual problems. Which means it should be limited to just below the Infobox. Additionally, I choose layout 8, that's always been how I make pages, except we'd add the footer nav thing. I'm wondering how it looks with the cats there... Maybe footer nav below cats? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 02:06, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Oh crap I don't know why I hadn't brought this up earlier. We should just make the ToC as high as possible, (like I just said) but then make the page ToC mandatory to show the other sections.  That way we have both guide navigation and page navigation easily accessible to nublets.  I'm a genius aren't I?  But yeah, Proc you need to remember to make all your really long guides have the ToC.  Once this is all settled, I'll help relieve you of the monotony =) --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 02:09, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Er... the page ToC doesn't necessarily solve the problem. I explained this to Dan last night.  Say you have two different users.  One user has visited a guide many times and knows what information he's looking for.  Another user has never visited that same guide before.  The user who's been there before is not going to peruse the whole page, and if the link that he wants isn't in the continue nav, he will either a) have to click [show] on the AGN to see the TOC, or scroll to the bottom (or maybe hit Page Down a couple of times).  The user who's never seen this guide before is more likely to explore the whole page, all the way down to the bottom.  Once this user reaches the bottom, he will probably not know where to go next, which is why I propose we put the CN or an altered FN at the bottom of the front page.  That's my logic.  But I understand Prod's points as well. Procyon (Talk) 09:00, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Votes
Ok, so let's try and get rid of some of the excess options. Vote for which one you think is the best (or more than one), and which ones you think are completely bad (ie. redundant, never going to happen, etc).
 * I'm Against 3->6, cause I think the Continue Nav should go above the Toc. I'm For 7->9, and 1/2 seem to be covered within those as well. -- Prod (Talk) 09:39, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm Against {1, 3, 5, 7} since I think that we all agree that the Story should not immediate follow the Intro. I honestly think you can remove them.  I'm For 4 or 6 for all of the reasons that I stated.  I can live with {2, 8, 9}.
 * I'm For 8 mainly because I think it is entirely pointless to even HAVE a continue nav if it is located immediately above or below the ToC. However, instead of a footer nav with no backpage, it would be better to have the footer-nav styled continue nav, as the footer nav just includes the game name if no backpage is specified, and the modified continue nav still has the words Continue To: but just inline with everything else (see sandbox). --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 15:16, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * For 8. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 02:06, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

It looks like 8 has it. It was one of Prod's fors, I was OK with it, and Ryan and NMH chose it. So unless anyone else strongly objects to 8 (and has a good reason to back that objection up) we may have our standard. Procyon (Talk) 10:00, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm fine with 8 but I'm a bit worried about putting things under the TOC for big guides, something like Pokémon Ruby/Sapphire or silver/Gold/Crystal, I think that a footer would be a bit of a waste because IMO people wouldn't really scroll to the bottom--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 10:20, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

ToC link in Continue Nav
Suggested by Garrett just above, adding a Jump to ToC local link to the Continue Nav. Yes or no?
 * Support - Assuming we can get the link to be fairly non-intrusive to the rest of the content, this would be very helpful. -- Prod (Talk) 09:35, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Support - This would be useful for navigation, and no objections come to mind.  ech elon  09:38, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Support - I'm thinking the best spot would be a link under where the customs would go, separated by a horizontal rule. As for the Footer Nav-styled one, we could just make a show/hide ToC just like the normal footer nav. --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 15:09, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Support - I don't see why not, but then again, I'm also in support of completely redesigning the Continue Nav since I don't think it serves its function as well as it could.
 * Can you elaborate on what you think needs to be changed? -- Prod (Talk) 10:04, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Specifically, it was what I was talking about earlier. What if the link that I want to go to isn't in the CN?  Which is why we started discussing if the TOC should be linked to the CN in the first place.  This conversation is what's known as an overweight balancing act.  If a problem has too much weight on one side and not enough on the other, people tend to gravitate to the solution where you add more weight to the other side to balance the problem out (which usually makes things more complex), instead of removing the original weight and redesigning the solution (which usually makes things more simple).  If you're going to go through the trouble of linking the TOC from the CN, why not just replace the CN with the TOC to begin with, and go with the Footer Nav that I proposed above.  I just want to make it clear that I'm not adamant about any of this, nor do I wish to force my views about this on to anyone.  I hope that I'm not giving anyone the impression that I'm pounding my fist on the table as I write this.  I'm just using this opportunity to give my honest opinion about the problem.  I will truly be happy with whatever the consensus is. ^_^ Procyon (Talk) 10:51, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * The problem is, some games have fairly formidable ToCs (e.g. this or even this). While the latter could be compacted using divs the vast scope of the game means it's going to take up most or all of the average screen resolution no matter what. When presented with a ToC this large many people might not go below it to the story and whatever other sections got shoved down there. Additionally, many guides don't have a long enough intro to extend beyond the infobox, meaning the ToC has to either float messily around it or else be forced below it with -, which results in a big gap of whitespace. And not every game has a deep enough story or enough gameplay tips to split these lower sections onto separate pages. For games with as few pages as Pac-Man I can see it being higher up, but for the more complex ones it might just be in the way there. GarrettTalk 17:08, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Ironically, Prod and I were discussing that very same thing today, and we started to wonder if it might not be a bad idea to have two different rules for small TOCs and large TOCs. Might be worth looking into.  For the record I considered having TOCs with 1 or 2 columns remain high, and TOCs with 3 or 4 columns put lower down.  Just thought it was interesting that we all had a similar thought.  Procyon (Talk) 17:25, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Rename All Game Nav
What does All Game Nav mean? It's somewhat minor, and a change can be handled with a simple redirect (and a bot to slowly change the links). Perhaps something like Header Nav (match with Footer Nav) or Top Nav (I like this one, nice and short). -- Prod (Talk) 09:48, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I like Header Nav personally. If we have Footer Nav, the top should be Header Nav.  I hate the fact that we use nextpage and backpage.  It should have been nextpage and prevpage.  But it's probably too late to change that now unless we sic a bot on the problem.  As a programmer, using different antonyms is confusing to me.  Words come in pairs, {Header-Footer}, {previous-next}, {forward-back}, and we break those pairs sometimes. Procyon (Talk) 10:01, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Getting a bot to do this would be relatively easy... getting people to change what they're used to may be a bit harder :P. -- Prod (Talk) 10:15, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Actually, we don't really need a bot, but it would help, we could move the AGN then have a bot do what links here to another place and add prevpage as well as having backpage to the footer but when backpage is used, add the page into a category. Just my ideas.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 10:18, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * *Scratches head...* I'm thoroughly confused by your response Rocky o_O; Procyon (Talk) 10:55, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * It's actually what I was suggesting as well....just that Rocky wants to change all the backpage to prevpage manually :P. If it gets to this, I'll have one of my bots take care of it, so don't worry too much (might have to leave it running overnight or something...) -- Prod (Talk) 11:01, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm all for the rename. I like Header Nav and prevpage as the name/link. Unfortunately, this will more than likely confuse active contributors that don't look at this page. New contributors should be fine, as should we (since we're voting on this, after all). That's just what I think. --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 15:06, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Actually, I was suggesting that we keep backpage and customback until a bot can change them then have those (customback and backpage) present a warning to change to prevpage and customprev. This will give old contributors (and the ones that haven't seen this) to change.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 16:30, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Originally we had guide-specific navs in the form Game Name Nav. All Game Nav, therefore, was to replace these with a unified system. Yeah, renaming it and backpage sounds sensible. A legacy cat would be a good interim fix until we have a bot that can do it. GarrettTalk 15:53, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * That explains a few things ^_^. To be clear, this covers two changes:

Lets say we leave this discussion up for few days (until May 29th) and if we don't have any objections we can perform the changes. -- Prod (Talk) 16:22, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * 1) Move All Game Nav to Header Nav (matches with Footer Nav, still open for alternate suggestions)
 * 2) Change usage in Footer Nav from backpage/backname/customback to prevpage/prevname/customprev
 * I agree with the proposed rename. All Game Nav was a very confusing name to implement, and it certainly looks out of place now that we have formalized standards. A bot should do this.  ech elon  00:40, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Definitely rename it... It'll take some time to adjust from saying AGN to HN though!-- Duke  Ruckley  08:35, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Well, the AGN has been moved to HN, prevpage/prevname/customprev has been incorporated, it's just a matter of sending my bot to clean up the old stuff (already prepared to go...I think :P). If there are no complaints, I'll start on Monday night (around 7 or 8 I hope...). -- Prod (Talk) 18:21, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
 * One final change I though of, customprev -> prevcustom (to match with prevpage and prevname). -- Prod (Talk) 10:51, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Not too sure about that one. customprev is much easier to say than prevcustom, and you'll have to change customnext to nextcustom as well (which, again, is not very easy to say). Plus, at least for me, prevcustom and nextcustom make me think that there is a custom parameter in there somewhere. --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 11:14, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Well, as there doesn't seem to be any problems, I'm gonna start on changing the AGN's and backpage/backname. The custom ones are used so rarely they can be done later without causing too many edits. And Ryan, I don't have a voice recognition for me wiki edits :-P. -- Prod (Talk) 15:04, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
 * 318 down, 7150 to go. I've been doing a basic spell check and a few cleanup things as I've been going, which has made it a manual process. This is probably going to take a few days to make sure I don't overload the server (and while I'm awake).  As the new stuff is already in place, everyone should just start using the new things immediately as I work through the backlog. -- Prod (Talk) 17:36, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Other aspects of games
I've started wondering while working on the StarCraft guide... Are we a strictly walkthrough-type site? Could we be including things like plots and characters of games, or are those out of our focus and should be left to other wikis and sites? Baejung92 17:30, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
 * The short answer to your question is, please feel free to include plots and characters. The longer answer is: any information that you might find in an instruction manual, or could be considered useful to a player may be included.  Basically, anything that you might just as easily find in a printed strategy guide at a book store.  That includes story lines, characters, item/enemy/level descriptions, and of course the walkthrough.  Things that should be left out of guides are more supplemental information such as public response to a game, professional reviews, cultural references, that sort of thing.  Procyon (Talk) 17:35, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Promising Guide
We kinda need a few more candidates for this, we've got a few days to go and there's only 2 candidates.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 10:25, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Some questions
Why exactly is there no March 2006 section under the Community Issues archives? and I am stumped as to the point of the depreciated templates category, and why they are on most of the pages I have viewed. Lunar Knight (Talk to me + Contribs) 11:18, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
 * The Deprecated templates thing is due to this, AGN and backpage/backname are now deprecated. -- Prod (Talk) 11:22, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Anyone also interested in adding Tekken 3 and Tekken 5 movelists?
If you are interested in assisting with the addition of Tekken 3 and Tekken 5 move lists you're help will be extremely appreciated as StrategyWiki needs it and I have limited access to a computer with internet as I don't own one yet. As of now, I am beginning with the character "King" as I am most familiar with him. Please, if you do help, I will humbly ask if you can leave King's moves for me to deal with due to my reasons above.

"Getting started" vs. "How to play"
I've initiated an effort to standardize the guides that I started with some non-SW-conventional page names to bring them more in line with SW's standards. In summary, I'm changing every page that was once called "Elements" to "How to play", and any page that was once called "Strategy" (which was redirected from "Walkthrough") to "Walkthrough." I felt that these changes would help bring more consistency with the rest of the site to the guides that I started. As a result of my changes, I have been making every Continue Nav point to "How to play" and "Walkthrough" and I began to think that just as "Walkthrough" is a default parameter for nextpage2, I thought "How to play" should be the default parameter for nextpage. That is, until I examined the template and realized that there already was a default parameter for nextpage, and it was "Getting started."

I began to think about the term "Getting started" and it always felt to me like the very first part of a Walkthrough, which is where I thought the "Walkthrough" link of the CN should be pointing to anyway. So I looked at all of the pages that we have that are labeled "Getting started" and there are 45 of them (compared to the thousands of guides that we have, so it's obviously not in frequent use) and many of them serve different purposes from one another. Many are, as I expected, the beginnings of walkthroughs (go here, buy this, talk to that guy, start your adventure) while others are used in much the same fashion that I use "How to play" (controls, items, other game elements).

Therefore, I would like to propose that we officially adopt "How to play" over "Getting started" and simply tidy up the 45 guides that use "Getting started" (i.e. either leave it as "Getting started" if it's the beginning of a Walkthrough or change it to "How to play" if it discusses controls and rules), and set the default parameter of the Continue Nav nextpage to "How to play." How does everyone feel about this? Procyon (Talk) 09:38, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm a bit worried really, we will have a lot of pages using it because it's in the preload template New_toc_preload. P.S I keep getting database errors when I search for getting started and press any of the next page buttons (next page and all the numbers), does anyone else have this problem?--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 09:43, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Sorry, I misread the entire thing, I barely ever use the getting started and how to play would be much better.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 09:56, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
 * The thing is, "Getting Started" is a section header in the Table of Contents that contains all of the controls and general information. "How to Play" is really a broad term that spans all of the pages under that section. I think for smaller guides, "How to Play" would be perfectly fine. However, most of the new games are larger and deserve the separate sections under "Getting Started" (which is now a linked header in the toc preload instead of just a plain header). Another thing is, the default for nextpage in the continue nav is already pretty complicated. Pretty much, it links to Getting Started if Getting Started exists. If it does not, it goes to Controls if that exists. If neither Getting Started nor Controls exists, then it goes to Getting Started. I'll try to work on getting How to Play in there (simply because most if not all of the retro games will probably have that as opposed to a Getting Started section), but I don't know if I can nest another parser in there. --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 10:01, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
 * My point is that "Getting Started" probably shouldn't be a section heading in the TOC. If it's used in different ways by different authors, then its intentions are either unclear, or unintuitive.  "How to play" to me means how exactly you control and interact with the various elements of the game, and has nothing to do with how to win, which is what the Walkthrough is for.  Personally, they are distinct concepts in my mind.  Whereas "Getting Started" to me really feels like a guide that goes at the very beginning of a Walkthrough.  As in, "these are the things that happen right at the very beginning of a new game."  Controls and such, theoretically, should be discussed and understood before you even begin, sort of like a "Before you get started," which sounds lame and is why I suggest "How to play" instead.  Anyway, if anyone agrees with me, let me know, and if not, no big deal.  I'll just continue link "How to play" manually in the Continue Navs that I write. Procyon (Talk) 13:23, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I see what you mean, and it makes sense. "Getting Started" IS a bit broad. At the beginning, it was meant to prepare you for playing the game if you have not yet done so by introducing you to the controls and major characters and such (hence, it got you to a basis where you could start the game itself). I do agree maybe "Getting Started" is not the best name for that, and it should be relatively easy to get a bot to change all instances of "Getting Started" in ToC's to "How to Play" (or some other heading). Of course, we'll have to manually move all of the 45 actual pages into the correct ones and change the Footer Navs, but a bot should be able to take care of most of it. However, while I am in support of renaming "Getting Started" to something else, "How to Play" isn't it. For me, "How to Play" tells of the game interface (controls) and possibly some basic info/strategies that could be used throughout the game. A list of characters or other story elements, therefore, does not really fit under this, but is still worth mentioning before the walkthrough itself. --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 15:08, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
 * For the guide I'm working on, "How to play" or even "Instructions" would be better, since that section will only have information about controls, gameplay, menus, and so on, without anything about story or characters (since there really isn't any in the game). Perhaps something similar to "Preamble" or "Prelude"? --Deasean 15:48, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Yes, but this is the discussion to change the entirety of StrategyWiki, not just one guide. If you feel that something other than "Getting Started" fits your guide, use it, be bold! "Instructions" probably wouldn't work that well, as we're just presenting the info, not teaching it to them. "Preamble" sounds too formal, and then we'd have to make "Walkthrough" into "Body" or something (well, not really, but it emphasizes the point). Finally, "Prelude" is more of what happened before the game, not really how to play it. --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 16:01, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
 * That's so funny because Prod was trying to come up with one word equivalent for "How to play" or "Getting started" and "Instructions" fits that perfectly. Personally, I always equated "Getting started" with "Prelude" as Ryan described it above.  Personally, I still prefer "How to play" over "Instructions" but only because "Instructions" feels kind of dry.  For the purpose however, I prefer "Instructions" over "Getting Started".  Procyon (Talk) 16:10, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
 * How about "Introduction"? I know it really don't describe it all that well, but it is a bit more interesting (and wiki-like) than "Instructions" (plus it fits with "Appendices"). --SkizzerzTalk - Contribs 16:28, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Argh, I'm gonna sound like such a jerk, but exactly when did "Appendices" begin? Who's using Appendices?  And using the term "Introduction" sort of conflicts with the usage of the front page.  Introductions usually don't go in to a lot of detail, which is what you would expect to find in Instructions/Getting Started/How to play.  How did this get so complicated?  Procyon (Talk) 16:48, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
 * No idea when it began. It is used as a header in a lot of games, especially in the Grand Theft Auto series (where there are even pages sub-paged under it). As for "Introduction," it was kinda a bad idea, but I was wracking my mind for some one-worders and that is the first one I came up with. I guess "How to Play" is fine, but I prefer the P in Play capital rather than lowercase. I believe this got complicated the moment you've started the section on it here ;) --SkizzerzTalk - Contribs 16:57, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I don't know where the use of Appendices began, but I saw it once and started using it all the time, it makes sense for "miscellaneous information" stuff. I say How to Play should override Getting Started, it makes more sense as to what's in it and it also helps define the ToC section heading.  Instructions is, well, bland.  --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 18:04, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

You know...where did this Walkthrough term come from? :P. For some minor history, Getting Started came into widespread usage with the Continue Nav, Appendices came into widespread usage when added to the ToC preload. As Procyon stated above, I'd prefer a 1 word replacement if we change it. Some suggestions: Introduction, Basics, Preface, Background (and many of their synonyms). -- Prod (Talk) 21:20, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Basics is the best choice because... It states that there is more than just mere instructions. This allows us to put sections like character information under it while still being able to contain instructions.  You see, instructions = instructions, background/preface = background/preface, but basics = instructions/background/preface.  --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 22:26, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Here's a list of what I think of (connotations) when I see these names:
 * Getting Started: I think of everything from menus to controls to battle mechanics to background story.  This is not the best choice if we want something concise.
 * How to Play: Pretty much the same as "getting started", except without the background story.  Its okay, except I would prefer a single word over three.
 * Instructions: Sounds to me like a page for just controls.
 * Introduction: A page for just background story or perhaps a "how to use this guide" page.
 * Basics: Very basic information.  This would be basic controls, basic fighting, etc.  Nothing "advanced."
 * Background: Only for story.
 * Preface/Preamble: Both of these make me think of the first chapter in a book.  These should be left for pages in the actual walkthrough.

I think what we need to figure out is what exactly this link is going to be for. Is it supposed to be the booklet for the game, essentially? If so, there is typically a lot involved in that and it should be a link to the "Introduction" for that booklet (I don't particularly like that name for it because it can be confusing). Is it supposed to be specifically for controls (then we can name it controls)? I like the name "Basics" but what exactly does that mean?

If we are going to standardize something, we need to be very specific about it.-- Duke Ruckley  12:58, 30 May 2007 (CDT)


 * Dukeruckley's comments helped to solidify the problem with this conversation for me. I think that we may be trying too hard to apply one standard to a variety of guide styles.  I'm going to desribe four guide types that I have come across here on this site:


 * 1) The "Tip sheet."  Examples include Combat, Rally-X, Binary Land.  One page guides for games that are very simple, and don't necessarily contain a back-story.  Roughly everything that can be said about the game can be contained in about two pages of text and so doesn't need to be split up.
 * 2) The "Game Manual."  Examples include Defender, Karateka, Street Fighter II.  Games that are not so complicated that they require an intricate Walkthrough (or where no walkthrough is possible), but still have a level of depth that requires three or four pages to adequately describe all of the features of the game.  (The majority of the guides that I have written are like this.)
 * 3) The "Tip Book."  Examples include Super Mario Bros., The Legend of Zelda, M.U.L.E..  Games where the walkthroughs are easy enough to figure out (or are fairly linear) but are worth spelling out so that subtle details and hidden items can be pointed out for those who don't know where to look, or want to become expert players.  These guides will require between 5 and 15 pages.
 * 4) The "Strategy Guide."  Examples include The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Pokémon Red and Blue, World of Warcraft.  Games that are so expansive that the walkthrough needs to be broken up in several parts.  Candidates for these guides are fairly obvious, expansive RPGs, Strategy games, MMOs, etc.  These guides easily need over 15 pages.


 * Sometimes an author knows in advance which type of guide he intends to write, and sometimes it starts out one way, and evolves into another (hopefully they never devolve.) The fact is, the same standards can't always be applied across every style of guide.  City Connection will never require a stage by stage walkthrough since the stages are identical in every way except for the layout of the platforms.  Final Fantasy XI can never be described in one page, it's impossible.  So ultimately, we can try to establish standards for these four different types of guides, or sort of trust each other enough to know what's best for the guides that we write.  What do you all think of this?  Procyon (Talk) 14:10, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Procyon brings up a good point. I think instead of having one single standard, we should have standards for the different types of guides. Here are a few of my suggestions:
 * {| class="wikitable"

!Type of Guide!!Heading
 * Tip Sheet||None (Subdivide into different H2's as needed)
 * Game Manual||How to Play
 * Tip Book||How to Play
 * Strategy Guide||Getting Started
 * }
 * I felt that the "Strategy Guide" class deserves the "Getting Started" simply because it is probably the only type where mentioning story and more intricate points before the walkthrough starts would be beneficial. Of course, these are only suggestions and guidelines, what they are actually called should be up to personal discretion (within reason). Of course, this would probably require a bit more than a simple preload to implement, like a js wizard describing the four types w/ radio buttons whenever the "new toc" is clicked. Unfortunately, I suck at javascript... --SkizzerzTalk - Contribs 15:25, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I don't think that's a good idea at all. The getting started section is already stardardized to contain information pertaining to starting the game.  I.e., we talk about what various modes are available off the bat, what things mean (statistics, titles, sub classes, etc.) and various things that aren't really important to anyone who already knows how to play.  It's like a game manual in that it contains the little tidbits you might miss elsewhere, but aren't part of anything definitive like "controls."
 * Strategy Guide||Getting Started
 * }
 * I felt that the "Strategy Guide" class deserves the "Getting Started" simply because it is probably the only type where mentioning story and more intricate points before the walkthrough starts would be beneficial. Of course, these are only suggestions and guidelines, what they are actually called should be up to personal discretion (within reason). Of course, this would probably require a bit more than a simple preload to implement, like a js wizard describing the four types w/ radio buttons whenever the "new toc" is clicked. Unfortunately, I suck at javascript... --SkizzerzTalk - Contribs 15:25, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I don't think that's a good idea at all. The getting started section is already stardardized to contain information pertaining to starting the game.  I.e., we talk about what various modes are available off the bat, what things mean (statistics, titles, sub classes, etc.) and various things that aren't really important to anyone who already knows how to play.  It's like a game manual in that it contains the little tidbits you might miss elsewhere, but aren't part of anything definitive like "controls."


 * So what I'm saying is that we shouldn't split the standardization of the Getting Started section based on how complex a game is; it still contains what it contains, and they should all be named the same for ease of use. If we break them up, then we're also going to have to require guides/sub pages to have "type" labels clearly visible.  It's like, as programmers say, keep it simple stupid!  Do we really need to break things up?  I think all we need is to define what we want in each section, and then name them accordingly.


 * We want a walkthrough, we want basics of a game, and we want a place for miscellaneus information. Walkthrough makes sense.  Appendices is my choice for misc info, and Basics, Starting, or Beginning is my choice for the basics.  --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 18:36, 30 May 2007 (CDT)


 * I don't have much knowledge of wikis beyond the basics, but is it possible to allow the user to input into the HN what s/he wants? I know there is "custom", but I mean beyond that...  For example, the user types in  and that'll display the Nav with a level 3 completion and those three pages.  This way, it'll allow the user to decide what the nav should include.  If "Basics" seems more appropriate than "How to Play" that option is there.  The biggest problem I see now is implementing "parent" into it.
 * I know this still doesn't solve the problem of standardizing what each page would mean, but it might be an easy, quick fix to the problem we have.-- Duke Ruckley  18:53, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
 * That would make things majorly complicated. The HN currently just copies the Table of Contents, so any changes should be made there and not on each HN. How about including a note in the preload documentation that says "click here to see the guidelines of laying out a table of contents" (preferably opens in a new tab/window)? It would allow us to express the different types of ToCs on a separate page without forcing the reader to pick-and-choose what type. They would be able to read much more in-depth info about the different types than they normally would be able to, and can make an informed decision as to what type their guide should be because of it. Plus, then we really don't have to change the preload itself. --SkizzerzTalk - Contribs 18:58, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

.
Whoever suggests we have more than just the onepage/multipage standard is gonna have me come over to their house and kick their dog... As said above, it's simply too complicated to implement. Also, let's not get too far off topic here. We can make templates do what we want them to do, we just have to pick the right term. I don't really have a problem with Getting Started. Basics and Background are my other two preferences (mainly because they're only one word). -- Prod (Talk) 19:44, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Procyon hides his dog... So where were we? lol... I've been thinking about why I might differ so much in opinion from some of you, and I've thought about what my inspiration for the content that I contribute.  Three things come to mind.  First, Instruction Manuals (like this one for Atari 5200 Defender), Joystik magazine (great scans on that link), and the original "Official Nintendo Player's Guide" (couldn't find a good enough link to that... I think a lot of you may be too young to remember it.)  Anyway, what I'm really going after with the layouts that I choose is something that I would expect to find in a printed strategy guide.  I think we're all going for that, we just have different conceptions of what that contains. Procyon (Talk) 20:04, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Looking at the printed guides, and having read many (20+) gaming magazines, I think we already have those elements covered (sections like controls, differences in versions like difficulty things, etc.). Anyways, we're talking about the "Getting Started" section here, remember that.  This section is the basics, which is why I supported "Basics" as its titled.  Check out Chrono Trigger/Getting Started, I think I did a decent job at listing elements that need explaining but are still basics (if you have suggestions, discuss on that talk page). --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 20:37, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Damn it NMH }=^( I don't need to be reminded about the topic of the discussion that I started. I'm old, but I'm not senile.  If I want to go narrowly off-topic and discuss my inspirations (which is what lead me to initiate this discussion in the first place), I prefer not to be chastised for it.  Procyon (Talk) 22:08, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Wow, I feel stupid... For some odd reason I was thinking that the HN included a link to Getting Started as well as Walkthrough and Table of Contents.  So pretty much everything I said in my previous edit can be disregarded.  As for the actual problem, won't it just be simpler to allow whomever is editing the page to just decide for themselves what the name should be?  I can understand standardizing, but for now it seems to make more sense just to let it go as it is and allow the problems to work itself out wiki-style.  Then if things get heated and an agreement can't be made, the admins/sysops can enter the debate and vote, or something.-- Duke  Ruckley  08:34, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Sounds good to me, it requires no action whatsoever (which is good). --SkizzerzTalk - Contribs 15:10, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I guess no change is fine for now. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 18:27, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

Games that begin with "The"
Something I've been thinking about is, on most gaming sites when you want to look for a game by A-Z they usually alphabetize games that start with "The" by the next word in the title.

Is there a way we can make a category for games that start with "The" like Category:THE or something? And list those games alphabetically?

--Rikimaru 15:01, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
 * You can categorize them alphabetically by whatever you want by having instead of just the plain  . Therefore, a new category for games that start with "The" should be unnecessary. But before we go and change everything, does anyone else have any input? --SkizzerzTalk - Contribs 15:08, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Also, if it has loads of cats then you can put, this will do what Ryan says but with every category on the page.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 15:17, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
 * What about main pages? They get placed under the completion categories which are configured with the Header Nav; should all main pages thus be required to use  for games starting with "The"?  --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 20:36, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
 * The defaultsort should affect the header nav cats as well, so you shouldn't need to change the template. We could easily(?) get either Auto Prod Bot or Boothby (bot) to take care of adding it to every page starting with "The." --SkizzerzTalk - Contribs 20:58, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I can easily do this (I think), just need consensus (just another thing to do along with the AGN -> HN stuff, fortunately I'm not at T yet :P). -- Prod (Talk) 21:34, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
 * What if we put the defaultsort on the TOC, would that work as it is transcluded onto all pages with the HN--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 02:57, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
 * It's funny because I was thinking about this the other day when updating the Wii Virtual Console page... I need to go through and really clean that up, come to think of it.  In any case, I agree with previous statements.-- Duke  Ruckley  09:21, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

DynamicPageList
How would you feel about installing this extension. It lists pages that are in specific categories and is very versatile in doing so. Linky. --SkizzerzTalk - Contribs 15:50, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Looks interesting. How (specifically) do you want to use it? -- Prod (Talk) 21:35, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

"Auto Bot Shutoff Button"
I got this idea from Wikipedia. Since it appears that the bots are starting to step into the forefront as we're changing (or trying to change) every little thing that doesn't make sense, we should have an "Auto Bot Shutoff Button." Click here to see what one looks like. The only downside is that only sysops can use it, however. An alternative would be to have it shut itself off when a message is left on its talk page (have the button lead there instead of Special:Blockip). --SkizzerzTalk - Contribs 21:06, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Well, sysops can do it regardless. DrBob has set his up so it'll stop if someone leaves a message on his talk page.  Apart from that, I don't think we have many bots around so we don't need it yet.  If we start getting a few more bot requests, then we can worry about this. -- Prod (Talk) 21:43, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

Suggestion - Reference
To keep articles as accurate and authentic as possible, I suggest that we should follow Wikipedia's practice to include references on the bottom of the article. OhanaUnited 06:08, 1 June 2007 (CDT)


 * That's all very well and good, but it could prove problematic when the only external resources used are in the game itself or in the instructions booklet. For example, the Dirge of Cerberus: Final Fantasy VII walkthrough that I wrote (and I have every intention of completing when I get more time), all the tactics and maps were taken from the game itself, which I painstakingly wrote through trial and error, there was very little, if any, help from other sources.  Citing references is good and all, but often there just aren't any.--Froglet 06:30, 1 June 2007 (CDT)


 * Hmm, I think in-game guide/walkthrough can be exempted from referencing but the main article should be referenced. Nevertheless referencing is always encouraged and should be done whenever possible.  OhanaUnited  08:34, 1 June 2007 (CDT)


 * If references can be added, then by all means do so, but this will never be an official policy at StrategyWiki. For one thing, there simply are not enough official texts and sources on video games to provide a thorough foundation of information. Most of the content on this site comes from author experience. I can't "reference" a conversation that I've had with other game developers, but it doesn't make the information the I contribute any less accurate. References do not make articles authentic, conscientious editors do. IMO, Wikipedia's efforts to become "authentic" are misguided, and I don't wish to see SW emulate them on that point. Procyon (Talk) 09:27, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
 * References are needed on wikipedia because they are trying to be an encyclopedia. We have all the extensions needed to include references, we just don't require them (though they are nice to have).  For us, our "external links" are really our references. -- Prod (Talk) 10:32, 1 June 2007 (CDT)


 * I think features or games that aren't released yet requires references, otherwise anyone can say anything about it. OhanaUnited  10:54, 1 June 2007 (CDT)


 * a) Why would someone bother to just make something up? And b) if you saw something that you knew to be incorrect, wouldn't you just fix it? If I can make up facts, I can make up references too. Procyon (Talk) 11:44, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
 * It's not necessarily on purpose. We had lots of rumors show up in the SSBB pages.  However, this kind of stuff should be solved on the talk page.  I do agree, that only unreleased games really need references to websites stating what's in them. -- Prod (Talk) 11:56, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

Banner
Doesa anyone have a problem with the banner at the top of the page?--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 09:37, 1 June 2007 (CDT)


 * No problem, but shall it be a shortcut to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortcut below it? I could have swore that the banner took me to Staff lounge a moment ago. Foppe 09:59, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm used to the lack of banner, so I can't really say. It looks interesting, but it may need a bit of touchup.  I'd say get rid of the imagemap though, since it's not "expected". The shortcut template doesn't flow properly with it either. I don't really have an opinion as to whether to keep it or not.  -- Prod (Talk) 10:34, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
 * I've got rid of the link in the imagemap but I can't really see anything wrong with the shortcut template except it needs to be raised by a few pixels.--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 10:44, 1 June 2007 (CDT)


 * It's hard to get used to the fact that the discussion page button is on the right in here as to the top in Wikipedia. I also find that the buttons on the top are sometimes too small to click. Right now, I have to click on the word to go to another page. I hope that we can click on the whole tab. OhanaUnited  10:58, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

Category:XBOX Live Achievements
Can someone knowledgeable of XBOX Live Achievements please write up a simple description of achievements on the above category page? It's supposed to be a part of the collab of the month, but the page doesn't exist yet.--Dan 12:35, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
 * We have got Cateogry:Achievements with a rename but we need consensus on what to rename it to--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 12:41, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Achievements or Xbox 360 Achievements sounds so much better than Xbox Live Achievements. At least for me. Foppe 12:46, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
 * The category that Rocky mentioned is an image category, not a title category. The truth is though, every single Xbox 360 game is a candidate for the Achievement category, so having an Achievement category would be redundant to the Xbox 360 category. Procyon (Talk) 12:51, 1 June 2007 (CDT)