StrategyWiki talk:Community Portal

This talk page is for discussion of general community issues. To start a new thread, insert a new subheading above the rest. Resolved threads removed one day thereafter. You can find them in the history.

Discussion archives:

• Issue 1 - Early SW issues.
• Issue 2 - Wikibooks, Google Adsense
• Issue 3 - Discussions from Feb/Mar. Read if you're new! Good stuff!

Spoilers?

How far are we going to go to protect people from spoilers? I'm asking because of the confusing vagueness that's been injected into the Resident Evil 4 Chapter 2-1 boss fight - it reads badly, in my opinion, to be that deliberately vague to protect someone from discovering something they've already encountered in-game.
As I mentioned on that article's Talk page, I think that when you're reading a walkthrough it's reasonable to expect some of the events to be given away - that's part of the reason you're reading it after all. Otherwise, we might as well totally remove every in-game event from context with a bullet-point list of "go here; rotate this; go here; shoot" and so forth, to prevent anyone from learning anything about the plot before they play it.
The reason we've resorted to multi-page guides, apart from the better formatting and loading times it offers, is that people can read only the bit the're interested in, without going too far ahead in the plot. Why should we sanitize the actual walkthrough itself beyond that division? --aniki21 08:07, 24 January 2006 (PST)

I'm a bit confused, as I haven't played this game before. Does it reveal information that would be a spoiler? As you can see in the Zelda: Ocarina of Time guide that I'm working on, there are quite a few "spoilers"--see this for an example. I believe if someone reads through the guide with as they would a strategy guide that they buy in stores, that they won't have a problem with spoilers. Sure, our guides will reveal things, but only after they have occurred in the game. Sometimes it is not required for us to do so, but often it is necessary. That's my opinion, anyway. We can always judge on a per-game basis. Should we make policy concerning this? --Echelon 19:24, 27 January 2006 (PST)

I love the format that theforce.net took with spoilers for the Star Wars movies. You would need to highlight sections of the text to have it appear. Just looking at the page which had a white background would have the "bad stuff" contained in white characters. Highlighting it would make the text appear. A great effective way of hiding information but having it still be accessible without needing to go to a different page. --Mpython 5:36, April 21, 2006

While that works, I don't know that it is ideal, it needs to be really obvious to the reader that something is hidden. Also, those replaying the game don't likely care about spoilers so it's maybe not the best idea to force spoiler selection every single time. I like the idea behind Wikipedia's Dynamic navigation box template], with that it's obvious that something is hidden. Garrett^Talk 15:23, 21 April 2006 (PDT)

Would it be beyond a possibility to create a new sort of tag, like one you could put around sections of a guide with spoilers? It could be as simple as "<Spoiler></Spoiler>" really, and basically what I think it would do is hide sections of guides with maybe a grayish box, which reads "spoilers contained inside" in the center. You can click the box to make it go away. The default setting for this feature would be on, of course, so random websurfers don't get anything spoiled, and users would have the option of turning it off if they don't care about spoilers. I can't code though, and don't know how I would go about this - meaning someone else would have to do it. Thoughts? Cosmo 12:15, 27 April 2006 (PDT)

That would be cool! Then again, it would be possible to do that now using a modification of the show-hide template. Basically you'd have a word (spoilers) that you'd click to reveal the line beside it. I might look into putting something together sometime. Garrett^Talk 14:20, 27 April 2006 (PDT)

Weekly/Monthly SQL dumps

I'd like to do SQL dumps of StrategyWiki every so often so that we ensure that the content of this wiki lives on regardless of anything that happens. With anyone able to freely download the wiki's database, I feel that we would be fully living up to the GFDL. Do you guys agree with this?

Secondly, if we do plan to offer downloads of the database we'll have to figure out the logistics of how to do so. For security reasons, we'll need to make sure tables such as the ones for users and sessions are not included--we don't want password hashes falling into the wrong hands. In addition, offering the downloads may prove to be a large bandwidth problem if many people decide to download it--this may be a false dilemma, but I'd prefer to plan for that scenario now rather than later. What if we only offered the database downloads to the top contributors of this site to oversee and do it in a rotating manner?

In addition to the database, we'll have to do the same for images.

What are your thoughts to all of this? Is it even necessary? --Echelon 21:06, 20 January 2006 (PST)

I'd love to see this.

Brainscatter 15:30, 9 February 2006 (PST)

Sounds like a good idea, and that top contributors part is definitely good. <("<) Alex (>")>

I would also love to see this, I would download the database when i could. Woofcat

I'm going to start providing these now that StrategyWiki has gotten some press. If you have any suggestions on how I should do that, leave me a note. --echelon ^talk 17:39, 21 April 2006 (PDT)

Why not offer it in a bit-torrent to save on bandwith costs? --Naz Drala ^talk 06:14, 26 April 2006 (EST)

That's definitely the most cost-effective method. However whoever's got the original will need to have theirs sharing nearly 24/7 to ensure it's always available. Garrett^Talk 16:47, 26 April 2006 (PDT)

I'll make one available tomorrow. I need to make sure I understand correctly--in Wikipedia's dumps, they do not include the user table (since it contains user account information such as email and passhash). I assume that I won't include it either. Garrett, I'll let you know when I have it. I don't do a lot of torrenting myself, so maybe we can discuss the logistics of this and figure out who does what. --echelon ^talk 01:22, 28 April 2006 (PDT)

Art/Screenshot of the Week

Feel free to suggest. Upload all of your candidates and post them on the talk page for Main_Page. --Echelon 02:47, 8 January 2006 (PST)

---

Is there an easy way of taking screenshots of games on a gamecube? If so, how?

Well, either a TV capture card or a GameCube emulator. The one costs money and the other's buggy, so take your pick. Garrett^Talk 14:30, 22 April 2006 (PDT)

Licencing: CC-BY-SA instead of GFDL?

Hi,

May I inquire what was the reason to go with the GFDL as a licence instead of a Creative Commons licence such as cc-by-sa?

Thanks, Nyenyec 15:17, 21 April 2006 (PDT)

Well the biggest advantage is that content from other wiki sites (Wikibooks, [Gameinfo], etc.) can be copied here because we all share the same license. However I wasn't here at the time of the decision so the reasoning may be more complex for all I know. Garrett^Talk 17:11, 21 April 2006 (PDT)

GFDL is Wikipedia-compatible, and that was a huge factor. We wanted to remain compatible with the largest collection of open content game information, guides, etc. We want to promote a working relationship between the projects.

Initially I almost considered something of a proprietary dual license that I termed a "community license"--we would place the content under the GFDL and also give the StrategyWiki organization--which isn't even an entity yet--full rights to all submissions. That was intended so that we would have the option of changing to any new or better open media license of the community's choosing in the future without being locked into GFDL exclusively. Basically, all content would still be licensed under the GFDL, but there would also be the option of choosing another license later by community vote. I scrapped that idea because it was too complicated, and I feared it would make users apprehensive.

If and when we gain traction, however, we may be able to ask the community what they think of a relicense or dual license, or even this "community license" that I just talked about. Of course if we decide to do this, the application of it would NOT be retroactive unless we can find the permission of those authors who have submitted work. I would be fine with having all of my work relicensed, and several other StrategyWikians might as well. Others may not, however. Or we may not be able to find them all. Anything we couldn't relicense could be either tagged or rewritten.

We are in an early enough stage to shake things up, but we'd have to have a community consensus. After this Digg thing, I'd like to see what happens to the community. Will it grow stronger? Will we gain more help? Once I have a fuller view of this, we'll probably put this and other issues up for debate. --echelon ^talk 17:27, 21 April 2006 (PDT)

Sidebars

I think that a prudently limited variety of sidebars could be useful in adding to the readability of StrategyWiki. I've added a trial page to display and discuss them. Template::Sidebar2 is based on a design by Mr Wallet, and I thought that it looked pretty cool. --echelon ^talk 19:44, 21 April 2006 (PDT)

What you have there looks really good, and I agree that we need to fix the readability of SW insome articles. Both designs look very nice and pretty much do exactly what the descriptions say. Cosmo 08:54, 27 April 2006 (PDT)

Wikibooks bans game guides!

Check out this Staff Lounge posting. After much debate and indecision, the final decision has been made. I've put us forward as a potential new host (and, really, it's only between us or the less-shiny Gameinfo). This may be just the kick-start StrategyWiki needs, but it is a LOT of content to suddenly acquire. Thoughts? Garrett^Talk 03:53, 22 April 2006 (PDT)

Wow! Seriously wow! This is probably the best shot we've gotten so far in gaining support. We really absolutely need to use this to our advantage. It must be stressed that our wiki is already geared towards game guides and that would be a more natural home for Wikibook's guides than Wikia's Gameinfo. We have a much more polished presentation and are 100% tailored to guides. Not only do we stand the chance to gain a lot of new content in this, but we also stand the chance to gain a lot of new supporters! This is so excellent! --echelon ^talk 04:22, 22 April 2006 (PDT)

Thanks to this move, I showed up :). I'm hoping to help in that transition (I did quite a bit to SM64 and Super Mario world as well as the FFVII guides there :). Mason11987 17:46, 24 April 2006 (PDT)

After checking this out, I wonder what would be the best way to handle this. We could simply copy and paste the pages over, but then we lose the page histories. It was also suggested to do a database dump then combine it with the StrategyWiki database. That wouldn't break anything, would it? Are there tools to do that elegantly? What other pros and cons can you think of, and which would be the best route in your opinion? --echelon ^talk 04:35, 22 April 2006 (PDT)

(this problem has been resolved, see StrategyWiki:Wikibooks Import List)

I'm a wikibooks user (from the MapleStory book) and I've been looking around this site a bit considering that it is one of the main choices of where to move that book. It looks like it could become very popular. I was looking at that page you moved over as a test and I'm slightly confused as to what to look for. It was also mentioned that images had to be moved manually (discussed lower down). What about templates and talk pages? About the wikibooks tech guys not wanting to enable history exporting, perhaps they would be willing to take a list of pages that need to be dumped and send the file(s) directly. I have put up a note on the wikibooks MapleStory talk page about moving the book here. If it is decided to move the book here, what would need to be done to make the transfer as quick and easy as possible? Sorry about this post being essentially a bunch of random disorganized thoughts, but I hope it makes sense. -- Prod 22:29, 2 May 2006 (PDT)

The above discussion was rather out of date. Since that time I found a solution. I just take the latest dump, run it against a list using MWDumper, and then upload the result via Special:Import. It's only images that have to be done manually, everything else (even the image description pages) is included in the dump. All I'll need is a list of all the pages, templates, and image description pages you want imported. MWDumper automatically extracts matching talk pages, so you don't need to worry about listing those. Garrett^Talk 00:28, 3 May 2006 (PDT)

OK. At the moment, there is still a bit of discussion about where to move the MapleStory book. If it does move here, where would you like the list of pages that need to be moved? -- Prod 11:07, 4 May 2006 (PDT)

StrategyWiki:Wikibooks Import List/MapleStory would do nicely. You can easily get a list of pages from Special:Allpages over there, it's only the templates and images I can't easily track down using that method. Garrett^Talk 13:46, 4 May 2006 (PDT)

How to transfer

Well, as I've said on IRC the Wikibooks tech guys have refused to re-enable history exporting. However today I found MWDumper, a simple command-line tool that (among other functions) can extract pages from an XML dump based on a filter list. It should be easy to make a full list of pages and then let it crawl through the database dump over lunch or something. After some tinkering it works perfectly. The only slight shortcoming is that the filter file is case sensitive, so it skips anything that has an incorrect capital. Garrett^Talk 04:09, 23 April 2006 (PDT)

OK, check out StrategyWiki:Wikibooks Import List. This is a list I'm gradually compiling in a format MWDumper can understand. Images will have to be handled manually. Garrett^Talk 04:49, 23 April 2006 (PDT)

I see that you are importing the San Andreas Wikibook here. So far I think I have moved about 70% of the material to Strategy Wiki. I know that it's quite important to have the histories of each page but I have edited each page as I moved it (added the bottom navigation, editing spelling/typos and sometimes changed formatting). This would take a long time to get all the pages back to the standard they are now. Is there anyway to just move the history of each page and keep the edited page intact?

I also see that you have copied the first page of the San Andreas guide from Wikibooks and inserted it instead of the previous front page with the reason "moving related sites down, our own content takes priority". Just wondering what that meant because the first page was only our content and had an info box and proper naivgation? Jackhynes 13:48, 23 April 2006 (PDT)

That message was because I imported the San Andreas page as a test, forgetting we already had it! Because my edit over there was slightly newer it took precedence. Importing doesn't overwrite anything though. Any time a Wikibooks edit is newer it's easy to open the history and revert to a revision there (as I've just done, now you've pointed that out). Garrett^Talk 14:15, 23 April 2006 (PDT)

Cheers Garett, that was just what I wanted to here - now I hope all the pages are older! Else I'm gonna have a lot of checking the newer edits then reverting! Jackhynes 14:29, 23 April 2006 (PDT)

Merge system pages?

Right now we've got, for instance, Xbox 360 and Category:Xbox 360. If they were merged it would make a lot more sense, as you wouldn't be going back and forth between the two, and it would also promote the page being less like a Wikipedia article and more like an intro into that system's guides. Thoughts? Garrett^Talk 23:54, 23 April 2006 (PDT)

Now that MediaWiki:BlueCloud.css is enabled, we can make the expanding category we discussed in IRC a possibility. Would that require any additional modifications to the hard copy of the theme's css, though? --echelon ^talk 23:41, 24 April 2006 (PDT)

Screenshots

What is the situation on screenshots. For one reason or another I know wikipedia doesn't like having a lot of screens in a page, but I think having plenty (although not a huge amount) of images in a guide is extremly useful. Is there some legal restriction which caused wikipedia's stance which is related to the GNU FDL license that you share with them? Or is it a site-specific decision?

I'm just wondering because I recently saw about a dozen (small) GTA images uploaded which will be used on a guide I presume, and I was thinking that I might want to break out my Super Mario World and throw in screenshots for the tricky parts of the game, and that's just one example. Since FFVII will probably be imported I won't be able to do a lot with it (although I did have several edits to it at wikibooks :)), but there are a bunch of other games I already saw that I could add to. And maybe I can help you guys structure the site a little better? I've had experience on a SporeWiki.com where I am a Bureaucrat, and when I first arrived there I completly revamped the organization scheme, so I think I can helpful in that as well. But I'm particularly interested on your ideas on screenshots, so let me know. Mason11987 17:55, 24 April 2006 (PDT)

Wikipedia's screenshot restriction was centered around the very touchy concept of "fair" use for educational purposes. A strategy guide is generally considered stronger fair use than an encyclopedia as the whole work is basically showing how cool the game in question is. As long as the screenshots have a clear purpose and aren't just to look pretty it should be fine. Anyway it's good to have others with experience around. Besides, I don't see any company complaining against fansites hosting quadrillions of images... :) Garrett^Talk 19:53, 24 April 2006 (PDT)

Awesome, thanks for clearing that up :). Mason11987 12:27, 25 April 2006 (PDT)

I'd definitely think that as long as the screenshot is relevant, and you don't overdo it, it'll fall under Fair Use. Hell, people have even done video walkthroughs - those're what, 24 screenshots per second? --aniki21 03:14, 27 April 2006 (PDT)

Diff reader

I assume this is just for the default style (at least I hope so), but the "diff" reader is really hard to make out. Could there be some kind of highlighting scheme for that? Like wikipedia now has? It'd seem like something that was just missed by whoever made this style, and it would be extremly useful to have, thanks Mason11987 17:56, 24 April 2006 (PDT)

Yeah, that's a slight flaw in the skin. Until a MediaWiki: page is assigned to it it isn't easily fixed. I told echelon about that so I assume he's going to get that done at some point. And then it should be easy to work out how Wikipedia does it and just re-shade it blue or something. Garrett^Talk 20:00, 24 April 2006 (PDT)

MediaWiki:BlueCloud.css is now imported by the default theme. --echelon ^talk 23:38, 24 April 2006 (PDT)

Nice, thanks, different styles are cool, but I like having something I'm more used to as an option :). Mason11987 12:27, 25 April 2006 (PDT)

Fixed the diff viewer. It was missing from the css file completely--what a huge feature to go without! --echelon ^talk 23:47, 24 April 2006 (PDT)

Haha, Awesome, thanks again, much easier this way, that's being responsive.

Great. You should do the same for JS; that would allow easy addition of tweaks like that show-hide template. However the redlinks are now... red, rather than the previous purplish tone. Is this deliberate? Garrett^Talk 23:51, 24 April 2006 (PDT)

Those would be a huge plus to have for a strat guide. Mason11987 12:27, 25 April 2006 (PDT)

Is the javascript now working properly? I imagine we can introduce all kinds of useful scripts into the guides. We're not just limited to the show-hide template. The same now goes for CSS classes. --echelon ^talk 13:42, 25 April 2006 (PDT)

The Photoshop Wiki

haha, I love making new sections...

It appears that when I set my style to Monobook to try to get over that issue mentioned above I get an image that makes me believe I am on the photoshop wiki...this is quite ood.

http://strategywiki.net/w/skins/MonoBook/Header.jpg

That's what I see. Another thing to note. And if there is a more appropriate place for me to list things like this then Community issues, let me know. Mason11987 18:00, 24 April 2006 (PDT)

Heh, yeah, I already pointed that out on IRC. :) I think echelon uploaded it by accident, or something. Garrett^Talk 19:57, 24 April 2006 (PDT)

Total accident!! --echelon ^talk 23:18, 24 April 2006 (PDT)

Fixed. :) --echelon ^talk 23:41, 24 April 2006 (PDT)

Perfect, tsk tsk for style "borrowing" lol. Just playing. Thanks for the fix. Mason11987 12:27, 25 April 2006 (PDT)

Actually, the person who did both the designs is a good friend of mine. He just never got around to launching the other wiki, which was going to be his project. --echelon ^talk 13:38, 25 April 2006 (PDT)

Proposition

I propose that all of the Game System, Game Genre, and Game Company categories contain ONLY games that fall within those categories, but they may also contain subcategories, such as Companies withing console categories, although that may or may not be a good idea. that would basically mean that then Xbox Article would not be in Category:Xbox. Where would it be you ask? It should be the category itself, it should have some text about the console, but not a large amount (people don't come to a game guide wiki to hear about when a console was made after all. A "for more information" link could be in the category page itself that links to it's wikipedia page. This way we don't end up getting "Hardware", or "Specs" or "Xbox Live" articles within the Xbox categories (and similar analogies to other categories) when it really should just be a listing of game guides.

Furthur more, although this may be more extreme. I think that there should be no article in the main namespace that is not a game guide besides the Main Page. Everything about Strategywiki should be in the StrategyWiki namespace, and anything else should just be small amounts of text describing categories.

I think this would allow the wiki to even moreso focus on what it needs to do and I personally would have no problem doing a bunch of the manual moving (and redirecting of articles like Xbox to articles like Category:Xbox). It just seems odd that there is a list of 20 games for guides, then an "Xbox" article.

This may be not worth the effort, but I think it would really be beneficial for the site, but then again, I've only been here a very short time, so maybe this has been talked about and I have no idea. If so, let me know ;) -- Mason11987 ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 12:57, 25 April 2006 (PDT)

As an example, I turned articles like Microsoft, into Category:Microsoft System, and put all of M$ systems inside of that category, that way you can see info on microsoft, but the major purpose is to get you to the game you are looking for. It's not about M$, but about the fact that they make systems, that have games, that have guides, that peopel are looking for. If I went to far with this, let me know, I can undo it without too much effort. If you like the idea, then we can change things like Xbox into Category:Xbox the same way. -- Mason11987 ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 13:20, 25 April 2006 (PDT)

A good plan, but isn't the "System" part a little obselete (i.e. use simply Category:Microsoft)? Garrett^Talk 13:46, 25 April 2006 (PDT)

Actually, that is a much better idea, and I will change whatever hasn't been. -- Mason11987 ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 15:55, 25 April 2006 (PDT)

Comments from a Wikibooks User

Your flagship page, Zelda: Ocarina of Time, has a few formatting issues-I would make the introductory page the table of contents, or perhaps combine it with your little intro page, as it is you have to scroll back up to the top to navigate anywhere, same thing applies to the walkthrough, forcing them to navigate to a new page is kind of annoying.

I've worked on the FF6, Chrono Trigger, FF7, and Quest for Glory wikibooks, the first three are fairly complete content-wise but could use some more media and tables to flesh them out.

If the Wikibooks are going to be exiled here, we'll have to see what we can do. The advantage wikibooks had was that it's a sister project to wikipedia and a natural place to look for more detailed information or for people wanting to add to the general body of knowledge. At the moment, your website is the second google hit for strategy wiki, behind an encyclopedia entry for the site itself. If you want to attract people you'll need a lot more content, particularly on recent games, and attract people willing to contribute over the wiki format.

It'll probably take some advertisement and cross-polination across all the other sources for game guides to try to promote this format. The best thing you could do would be to tie it in to Wikipedia directly to redirect people looking for more info, but that may not be likely.--BigCow 13:53, 25 April 2006 (PDT)

So you're suggesting Template:All Game Nav be repeated at the bottom? That's a good idea (although it will need some formatting changes, or possibly even a separate closing template). As for advertisement, once the Wikibooks content is in full lockdown both its pages and Wikipedia's will be changed to link to mirror(s). Right now this is the only wiki I'm aware of that's intending to fork the content (barring complete forks like Wikibooks.net, which will likely purge their copies at some point anyway) which means we'll get all the incoming Wikipedia attention. The only downside is we don't get a pretty sidebox in the external links section. Garrett^Talk 16:38, 25 April 2006 (PDT)

Not only that, but the idea of an intro page to get to your content is an annoying one. The introduction pages for the guides themselves and the walkthrough pages don't really serve a purpose, and should just be merged with the table of contents so they can navigate whereever they want after clicking a guide.--BigCow 09:47, 26 April 2006 (PDT)

Less clicks are always better. -- Mason11987 ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 11:46, 26 April 2006 (PDT)

The idea of the cover page was that it was more like a print strategy guide, but yeah I guess it's mostly for looks and not usefulness... still, this is a major enough change it will need a vote or something, or at least some more feedback from others. Garrett^Talk 16:14, 26 April 2006 (PDT)

A page in a strategy guide is very different than a page on the web. A chapter in a strategy guide could be a single web page, since a web page can span multiple pages of text and images. Your walkthrough pages actually do a good job with this, but you don't need an intro page before you see the actual content, you should scroll down to see the table of contents rather than clicking through it.

I'd be up for putting it to a vote or getting some more feedback, particularly since you want to use this book as the standard.--BigCow 17:53, 26 April 2006 (PDT)

I have to agree with BigCow. So far, the intro pages only cause me trouble and discontent, and I agree they serve no purpose other than looking pretty. If we are going to become the standard, then we need to focus on getting results and looking pretty at the same time, whereas the intro pages only serve for the latter. I highly doubt that anyone is going to save the entire guide in .pdf format and print it, so cover pages are rather pointless. I agree that a vote should be made, sooner the better. Cosmo 12:09, 27 April 2006 (PDT)

Anyone with the authority or ability to do this? The longer we wait, the more has to be changed.--BigCow 12:06, 9 May 2006 (PDT)

Input needed

Input needed in three places: Category talk:Nintendo DS, Category talk:Game Boy Advance, and Category talk:Game Boy. -- Mason11987 ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 17:02, 25 April 2006 (PDT)

Categorization

As can be seen by anyone who is watching the RC, I am a fan of categorization. I think it would be best if we had 3 root categories for the actual content here which will be interconnected. Category:Game System, Category:Game Genre, and Category:Game Company. They'll be connected because some game companies will make game systems (and therefore the game system will also be a subcategory of the game company who makes it [NES is a subcat of nintendo for example]). Now, we also have a lot of uncategorized categories like VTech or Commodore (and yes, I do realize they will almost never be used) which are "console makers". I'd like to categorize them, as well as the nintendo, sega, sony, M$, and other console makers into some category which would encompass all game system makers. I don't know what to call it though, so I thought I'd throw it out there. Console makers isn't really applicable because I want people who only made handhelds to be on there too, maybe "system makers" but that sounds retarded. So what are your thoughts? -- Mason11987 ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 10:43, 27 April 2006 (PDT)

Sounds like a good plan. But again, why not just System, Genre and Company? Since most system makers produce games for their own platforms that could be all-encompassing... of course it could then have Game Company and Platform Company as subcategories, but then you're back to the retarded name problem. :) Garrett^Talk 14:26, 27 April 2006 (PDT)

Ah, that's a good idea...I think that would be better. Before I go changing everything again, do you think it'd be best to call the categories "Category:System" or "Category:Systems" and so on for the other two? -- Mason11987 ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 07:02, 28 April 2006 (PDT)

Hmm... so far we've got singular for genres (e.g. Category:FPS), but in this case I'd say it might as well be plural. Either way it's a very nitpicky thing. Garrett^Talk 19:10, 30 April 2006 (PDT)

True, just figured I'd throw it out there :). -- Mason11987 ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 08:16, 1 May 2006 (PDT)

Copying images from Wikibooks, Wikipedia

I recently used User:File Upload Bot (Kernigh) to copy 80 screenshots that I made for NetHack and originally submitted to Wikimedia Commons for use in Wikibooks. Currently I have both a download bot and upload bot for MediaWiki. Thus I simply give the list of files to the download bot and have it automatically download the images and their descriptions from Commons, then give the folder of images to the upload bot and have it automatically upload the images to StrategyWiki. (I also have the option of editing the image descriptions between the download and upload.) Earlier today, my bot took over both Special:Recentchanges and Special:Newimages.

I suppose that I could point my download bot at Wikibooks or Wikipedia, and use it if someone needs large numbers of game images moved from either wiki. (Most game images are fair use, so they are not on Commons.) I might also be able to make the perl scripts (my hacked version of Commons:File upload service/Script) available. --Kernigh 20:16, 30 April 2006 (PDT)

Actually, so far I've come across very few images. It seems NetHack is by far the most heavily illustrated. But thanks for the offer, and if I come across something major I may call on you then. :) Garrett^Talk 19:28, 1 May 2006 (PDT)

Have you looked at the MapleStory monsters list? I think that qualifies as major :P -- Prod 21:54, 2 May 2006 (PDT)

Whoah. Yeah. I was intending to do the MMOs last for exactly this reason. Garrett^Talk 00:44, 3 May 2006 (PDT)

Transwikification EQ from wikibooks

Greetings :) here a repost from what I just put on the EQ discussion page

"looks like the transition from wikibooks went smooth (granted, some pics didn't come across yet, but we'll get that sorted some stage). what surprised me though was, that I wasn't aware of the change (did I miss something here?). was there an announcement? I always though that things like that should at least be announced on the discussion page i.e. (no vote necessary really from my PoV, but not even an annnouncement?). also, what I hate now is, to get all those pages watched again, which is a pita somehow...but hey..:-( --Kajolus 05:07, 11 May 2006 (PDT)"

in addition: Now I learned, that some other person (User Tendiin, wikibooks) is not able to contribute to the EQ wiki anymore (firewall access issues)...even worse, as he was picking up speed...is there anything we can do?--Kajolus 05:36, 11 May 2006 (PDT)

Bah, I knew I'd slip up eventually! :( Anyway, the official policy change has been being discussed for close to a month now at the Staff Lounge, although the issue had been brought up on and off for a good year beforehand. I decided to start moving the stagnant guides and worry about the active ones later, so that as much was dealt with as possible before any deadlines arose to complicate matters further. Yesterday I made another big effort, and it seems in all that busyness I forgot which ones I'd identified as still active! So, er, sorry! :(

As for re-watchlisting this list will help. You'll also find some pages on that list that seem to have become orphaned from the rest of the guide. You may also like to turn on "Add pages you edit to your watchlist" (under Editing in Special:Preferences).

As for the firewall, hm... echelon might have some ideas. It seems strange that Wikibooks can get through, although it could be that the firewall specifically allows Wikipedia, and thus anything else Wikimedia is hosting works too.

So, anyway, I hope that explains everything. Garrett^Talk 21:08, 11 May 2006 (PDT)

Template:Title

This might be useful to some people...

If you need an explanation, let me know :). Hope you like it.

stolen from [1] :). -- Mason11987 ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 15:18, 9 May 2006 (PDT)

Auto-linking large pages, and Intro Pages

Two things, judging by the recently trans-wiki'd Chrono Trigger guide it looks like strategy wikis doesn't automatically link pages over the 32kb limit, setting them as edit links instead. Any way to fix this? Also, getting a decision on having intro pages that force the user to click through them to get any content would be helpful. --BigCow 10:53, 11 May 2006 (PDT)

No, that's because I checked it over while importing other pages. Doing so cached the redlinked copy. It's just how things have been configured. Garrett^Talk 23:35, 11 May 2006 (PDT)

In Favor of eliminating intro pages/merging them with the table of contents

• For - The intro pages, while they look nice, serve no immediate benefit to the reader. They do not improve organization (as having multiple pages does) and they do not make it easier to find information. Everything in a wiki designed for strategy guides should revolve around the easiest and most complete way of guiding the users of the wiki. In that sense if a piece of the wiki would better benefit the user if it were changed, then it should be so, especially if it is no great burden to the editors (in this sense, it would take LESS work to make intro-less guides). So I see no reason for intro pages to exist and I think the first page of a guide should have a brief intro of the game, and a set of as many other useful links as possible, organized as well as possible. -- Mason11987 ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 13:14, 11 May 2006 (PDT)

• For - Mason said it well. Having to click through intro screens is poor web design. You should scroll down to see more content, not have to navigate to another site which has the content you actually want to see. The first page of a guide should be like a portal, linking you to all the places you might want to visit, and providing some information to make that process easier.--BigCow 15:29, 11 May 2006 (PDT)

• For - yeah, pretty but pointless. {{All Game Nav}} may become a little empty though... unless the game name and Table of Contents both link to the guide's main page. Garrett^Talk 23:35, 11 May 2006 (PDT)

• For - I never actually saw the point in them, honestly. Cosmo 07:29, 12 May 2006 (PDT)

Undecided

• As of right now, I must say that I am wholly undecided on this issue. I am awaiting arguments from both sides. --echelon ^talk 12:16, 11 May 2006 (PDT)