StrategyWiki talk:Community Portal

http://media.strategywiki.org/images/4/49/SW_CP_Banner.png

Archives

---

2006	2007	2008
January	January	January
February	February	February
March	March	March
April	April	April
May	May	May
June	June	June
July	July	July
August	August	August
September	September	September
October	October	October
November	November	November
December	December	December

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

Desperate times call for desperate measures

StrategyWiki has enjoyed a steady increase in popularity and traffic, and we are grateful for every user's support. However, the little server which once adequately met our meager needs is now hobbling along on its knees, trying to keep up with the demand. As this site is run out-of-pocket by essentially one man, the site owner, the time has come to do whatever is necessary to improve the situation and make ends meet. The site administrators (non-contributing staff) have agreed that by hosting pop-up ads for a limited amount of time, it may be possible to drum up the money for new server in a matter of weeks, at which time the ads would immediately cease. As this is a somewhat dire situation, the decision to run these ads will not be put to a discussion so as not to divide the staff in any way, and will only take effect for as long as necessary and not a day longer. The administrators wish to apologize to any users that they will potentially offend or annoy and wish to assure everyone that this would not be taking place unless it was absolutely necessary. With a new server, we will be capable of supporting a larger community, and provide our viewers with enough speed and bandwidth for the foreseeable future. Having said all of this, and with no desire to guilt anyone into using it, I'd like to point out the PayPal donation button to the left. As you may know, StrategyWiki has made it possible for fans of our site to financially support the site on a strictly voluntary basis. Your personal support of StrategyWiki can help lessen the time that we need to run the ads for, but it is in no way necessary for you to contribute unless you absolutely would like to and are able to at this time. The administrators of this site thank you whole-heartedly for your continued support during this period, and anxiously await the day when we can provide you with higher quality performance than you are currently experiencing. Procyon (Talk) 06:11, 14 October 2007 (CDT)

Ok, to me, there are three types of "popup" ads, so could you please clarify which one(s) we would be implementing? The three types (in my perspective) are:

1. The new window type (a la Tribalfusion). I generally find these to be the least effective, as most people I know just close said window without actually looking at the ad/clicking on it, and you can set them to pop up in the background, under the active window.
2. The in-your-face type. These (may) temporarily deactivate the rest of the page unless you click on the close thingy on them. They generally appear right in the middle of the page, hence the in-your-face. I'd judge these to be the most effective of the three, and second-most annoying.
3. The redirect type. These use javascript to redirect the page you are currently visiting to another site. These are by far the most annoying, as hitting back will just load the same javascript again. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do not implement this type.

Procyon, as for your comment about visibility, I'm thinking of making another box high-ish up on the main page explaining the situation and the cause, and telling people that by donating, the ads will get removed sooner once we actually implement these ads. --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 10:55, 14 October 2007 (CDT)

Actually, a better idea just came to me. What about MediaWiki:Sitenotice? That's the message that appears on the top of every page, with a [dismiss] link for logged in users. Here's the notice I was thinking of:

Due to increased amount of popularity and traffic, StrategyWiki needs a new server. Therefore, we have implemented pop up ads for a short period of time until enough money for a new server has been raised. If you wish to get rid of the ads quicker, please donate so that funds may be raised even faster! [read more]

Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 11:19, 14 October 2007 (CDT)

When Nick ran this idea by me I told him hell no. What do you think popup ads will do for the public perception of StrategyWiki? Granted, while we *need* a new server, this can't be the only way to raise approximately $1,500 - $2,500. :( echelon_talk 14:26, 14 October 2007 (CDT)

Perhaps a better option is AuctionAds (Nick also introduced me to this). We could dynamically control the keywords, instead of some lame Google algorithm that gets stuff wrong 75% of the time. example echelon_talk 15:09, 14 October 2007 (CDT)

Wow... I thought that when Procyon wrote this, it was already in agreement with everyone in the higher-upness, guess not :P. Anyway, I still think it would be a good idea to make use of MediaWiki:Sitenotice, with a donate link and one of those progress bars like the WikiMedia foundation has, it might get some more people to donate. As for Auction Ads, it looks good, but we really have three options to consider if we go that route, outlined below

• Use AuctionAds
• Stick with AdSense
• Try out the Amazon referrals

Since we have limited sidebar space, we really can only go with one of the three (unless we make use of the left sidebar as well), so we'll need to decide which one would be best for us. --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 20:51, 14 October 2007 (CDT)

I think we can support all three, to an extent. ActionAds at the bottom of each page, Adsense where it currently is, and Amazon links in the infoboxes/HNs. Popup blockers would probably render those mostly useless, those flash ones which cover your screen are extremely annoying, and the redirect ones just take people away from our content. Also, would it be possible to move that PayPal button down a bit, so that it doesn't overlap that line? Seems somewhat out of place to me. -- Prod (Talk) 21:13, 14 October 2007 (CDT)

Yeah I agree with site notice, and was going to suggest it earlier (but I had to work). The potential drawback to ads are the hardasses (most of us) that will be repelled from the site (Ech's concern). From my standpoint, I like ads because I know what they do and good ads are actually beneficial to me (for instance an ad about five years ago helped my love of metal grow even more). Therefore, I'm definitely for this (I know this topic isn't about this) and I believe it won't be detrimental in the long run (especially after getting a new server). I don't know about BlueCloud, but I assume for CrimsonNight the paypal button is located just below the line underneath Help in the left nav. From the looks of it, the button should fit between that line and the image below it... --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 21:16, 14 October 2007 (CDT)

Sorry about the confusion guys. When Nick ran it past me, he made it seem that either a) echelon had signed off on the idea or b) he had echelon's approval to implement any idea with full support. So my impression was the same as Skizzerz's (Skizzerz'z?) I asked what could I do, should I make an announcement? He said go for it, so I did. Apologies all around. Procyon (Talk) 21:26, 14 October 2007 (CDT)

Oh good lord... possessive + my nick = downright impossible >_< (to pronounce, spell it Skizzerz's I guess, so just stick w/ Ryan's or something). Anyway, I totally forgot about the donate button since I have css that hides it, but IIRC it could stand to be moved from its current position. And Procyon, don't worry about it. Tricksey little Nickses can be deceptive sometimes ;). --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 22:18, 14 October 2007 (CDT)

When this goes into effect, I think we should throw this up on the PayPal page so that people can see how far along we are and be more interested in how their money is contributing to the goal:

$0
$0.00	Fundraiser 2007 http://media.strategywiki.org/images/2/2e/Paypal_Donate_button.gif	$5,000

--Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 18:58, 15 October 2007 (CDT)

I am objected to the usage of any sort of pop-up advertisement. That would quickly get on my nerves (And I'm sure everyone else's.) As for any of the other ad options, where exactly would they go? Lunar Knight ^{(Talk to me + Contribs)} 19:12, 15 October 2007 (CDT)

Maybe we could sacrifice the content in one of the four cells on the main page (such as "most promising guide") in order to stick a non-popup ad on the main page. Then once we get the new server we can put it back. - Koweja 22:46, 15 October 2007 (CDT)

I never see ads/pop-ups 'cause I have Firefox...so I don't care :/. I do hope we can raise the money though. --Myth (talk) 23:12, 15 October 2007 (CDT)

Woah woah woahhh. I just saw/skimmed over this thread. Procy I told you that Brandon said no to the pop-up ads. I was joking about it too. I'm sorry about the confusion. When I talked to you I was talking in a more general "We need money, we need to test some things out" way. I don't know if you guys have discussed it but trying Auction Ads for a while to see how it would turn out or at least adjusting the Google Ads to a better placement. I'd be against Amazon stuff because it pays out so very little and they only pay out ever quarter which is ungodly slow. The fact of the matter is A. Google Ads aren't going to get clicks because they aren't targetted at all (why would I buy *gamename* walkthrough when I'm at this site?) and it's so far to the side. B. They pay out VERY little (see .01-.05) a click since the ads are so random and gaming isn't a high paying niche.

We should test by putting an adsense square or maybe a leaderboard up someplaces instead of on the side. If only for a little bit to see how it does. We should also test Auction Ads. I'm very confused as to why we aren't testing right now. It just seems like a bunch of procrastination when this could be the thing that saves this site. Otherwise it's going to keep going slow until eventually it can't handle the traffic and it will get shut down. I think the site randomly being DOWN for hours and days is a lot worse of an image than some ads that are more towards the middle of the screen. --ConfusedSoul 14:53, 16 October 2007 (CDT)

It says 10% and paid monthly. I dunno about you, but games are NOT a niche market. Ads aren't what make money, sales are (same with AuctionAds I'd assume, their site is info-lite). -- Prod (Talk) 15:45, 16 October 2007 (CDT)

The profit margin definitely sounds good. With a bit of prettying, my Amazon template is probably good to go. Many games are multi-platform, so Amazon's automated equivalent might take up too much space. Garrett^Talk 16:48, 16 October 2007 (CDT)

The KEY word there is UP to 10%. A more realistic estimate is 5%. So then someone would have to come to strategywiki. Look up a guide for a game. REALIZE they don't have that game. Click the amazon link. Have an amazon account or get one. Buy game. After all that we make $1-2. We can test it, it just doesn't seem like a realistic income stream to me. But again we need to be testing this stuff to see how well it works. We can talk and talk and talk about what will or won't work, but we have NO idea until we try it. And I'm kind of getting disenchanted by how we aren't doing anything. --ConfusedSoul 23:22, 16 October 2007 (CDT)

Complaining doesn't solve anything. Until echelon registers and sets up the accounts, there nothing we can do. After that, anyone with server access can set up the page to display the ads. What we need to decide on is layout, so do you agree with my suggestions above, or have a better idea? -- Prod (Talk) 23:42, 16 October 2007 (CDT)

I think it'd make more sense for the actual game or any game related paraphenelia to show up instead of a generic banner on the side. I don't know the way Amazon has its system setup but I know there's a relatively easy way to set that up. --ConfusedSoul 01:47, 17 October 2007 (CDT)

The best part about those amazon links (I want them permanant now) is that I can shop on amazon and give SW money at the same time xD --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 02:36, 17 October 2007 (CDT)

Here's the nice thing about Amazon... It doesn't hurt us to have it. In fact, the template that Garrett created looked pretty good and wasn't obtrusive or anything. While it would probably not bring enough money to buy a new server, it might be worth it to try out anyway. Plus, does it have to be games they buy? Why not books and stuff... There are a few books out there for Starcraft, Diablo, Warcraft, Halo, etc. Maybe we can say, "Hey, if you are looking at buying a book (any book) from Amazon, do it through us! You'll be supporting your favorite place for guides!"--DukeRuckley^{Talk | Contribs} 07:50, 17 October 2007 (CDT)

If they click on it they'll get our cookie and so whatever they buy within some time (or unless they get someone else's cookie which overdubs ours) will give SW some commission. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ConfusedSoul (talk • contribs) .

So it sounds like a good idea, but is it legal? Are we "taking advantage" of it? Otherwise, when can we get started? Ech? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 01:31, 18 October 2007 (CDT)

Um...yes. There's no reason why it wouldn't be legal. Echelon doesn't care he's too busy learning how to manipulate images with programming words. --ConfusedSoul 21:57, 21 October 2007 (CDT)

That was completely unnecessary CS. Echelon does care. Unfortunately he, like many of us, have more pressing problems to deal with in real life. Procyon (Talk) 09:18, 22 October 2007 (CDT)

Cut the bickering before it begins. Anyways, if you haven't read the agreement that we would be making with Amazon, then you have no certainty that they are making any rules that would affect how we deal with the links and such. I should go find that document... --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 13:04, 22 October 2007 (CDT)

Ads - Section 1

I just added AuctionAds and WidgetBucks per the suggestion of Nick. THIS IS A TEST ONLY. IT WILL BE TEMPORARY. Nick says WidgetBucks will net us 10 - 30x what AdSense does, and he also suggested testing AuctionAds. We'll see how this goes for a day. Also, let me know your thoughts about how intrusive you think these are... echelon_talk 23:52, 23 October 2007 (CDT)

I don't like the way auctionads looks and they don't really preform well based on my personal tests. They may fare better on here. I KNOW widgetbucks will do better than adsense. We'll have to see. There's no reason to not test. If these work anywhere close to what I've gotten on my sites then we could put SW on a top of the line server that would last us a VERY long time. --ConfusedSoul 00:37, 24 October 2007 (CDT)

The AuctionAds box is ugly and doesn't have anything relevant to the page being looked at; Google AdSense targeting improves once the pages have been indexed by the GoogleBot, but from what I've seen of AuctionAds in the past I'm not too convinced that they have a comparable system. WidgetBucks, however, is very nice. It's nicely presented, only subtly animated, and has a nice selection of (predetermined?) deals rather than the random tripe that AuctionAds throws at visitors. $3-$6 CPM is a very good rate, too. Garrett^Talk 01:39, 24 October 2007 (CDT)

Wow I didn't even notice AuctionAds until I was looking for it. I probably looked at three or four pages without even noticing it; however the right nav is like BAM. I suggested to Garrett that we move it down by like 20-50px because on pages like the watchlist, there's no toolbox items yet the toolbox header is still there; thus I thought that the ads were part of the toolbox and it just kind of confused me (considering it says stuff like Nintendo 64, etc.). --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 02:04, 24 October 2007 (CDT)

I'm not certain I understand the point of having WidgetBucks advertise gaming systems to visitors to this site who, quite presumably, already have consoles and aren't on the market for one. Are we really going to end up selling an Xbox 360 to a visitor? Or a Dreamcast, N64, or GBA for that matter? Isn't there a way to make it more software oriented? Procyon (Talk) 09:23, 24 October 2007 (CDT)

I agree with the above people, I like the Widget one better (although I don't think the AuctionAds is that ugly). By the way, I don't know if this was just me, but for some reason when I first saw the main page I didn't see the AuctionAds box, just a white space at the top. I can see it fine now that I've went to a different page and came back. Baejung92 13:49, 24 October 2007 (CDT)

I like the Widgetbucks one better than auctionads. Not only does it present itself better with basic animation and nice, rounded corners, but the auctionads one messes up the top on top of looking absolutely ugly. --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 15:52, 24 October 2007 (CDT)

I'm cool with the Widgetbucks, but can't stand the auctionads. Either remove the auction ads from the top, or remove them altogether because, for some reason, they are so ugly up there they piss me off. Lunar Knight ^{(Talk to me + Contribs)} 16:04, 24 October 2007 (CDT)

I think the auctionads one looks pretty awful but the one on the right seems fine - you don't really notice it tucked away over there. --RamonSalazar 18:44, 24 October 2007 (CDT)

Um, is the right end of the AuctionAds thing supposed to be cut off by the toolbox, or is it just me again? Baejung92 21:34, 24 October 2007 (CDT)

The results are in! After one day of running both AuctionAds and WidgetBucks, we have a clear winner. WidgetBucks estimates that we made $18.00 in ONE DAY. This is over three times what we make with AdSense. AuctionAds, on the other hand, requires someone actually make a purchase to earn any money--not surprisingly, we made $0.00. I think we'll put AdSense in place of AuctionAds and see how much we make with AdSense and WidgetBucks together. (Perhaps $25.00/day?) This is certainly positive... echelon_talk 00:01, 25 October 2007 (CDT)

I'm on IE right now and the adsense is too big and it's making a scrollbar on the bottom appear. Also it'd look a lot better without a border. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ConfusedSoul (talk • contribs) .

Ok, the AdSense either needs to be shrunk down a bit, or moved elsewhere other than the top. Even though it looks better than the auctionads box, it's still taking up too much horizontal space (thus overflowing into the toolbox). --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 10:02, 25 October 2007 (CDT)

Well, by the time I finally turned off my Adblock Plus ad-on and saw what the ads looked like, I've gotta say the one on the right looks really good. --Myth (talk) 13:45, 5 November 2007 (CST)

Signatures

I think we should follow wikipedia's example with this policy, especially signature templates. -- Prod (Talk) 21:46, 19 October 2007 (CDT)

And I don't. I don't see any valid points in there that really refer to us. Granted, some people are worried about the influx of images, but it doesn't cause all that much of a drain on resources for the few people that actually have them. As for templating, I'm actually more for it than making sigs take up tons of wiki code. Yes, you could say "just reduce your sig's size", but I represent my sig however I want to. As for vandalism attacks, that's why every aspect of my signature is protected (the image, the templates it uses, etc.). If any of these things become a major problem, then I'll consider placing restrictions on signatures, but it so far has not been a problem. --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 16:28, 21 October 2007 (CDT)

This was one of the things the devs stepped in to say that it could affect performance, so I think it was a significant drain. You can do whatever you want, but that's what rules are for, otherwise this site would be full of vandals. Not everyone has the benefit of protecting all the required pages. Sigs don't need images anywayz, they're just there to show who you are and give access to your page. -- Prod (Talk) 16:45, 21 October 2007 (CDT)

Well, currently we don't have any guidelines/policies on signatures, so based off this debate, it might be a good time to make one. Here are the following points that I believe should be illustrated in such a policy:

• Use of Images:
  • No more than 2 per signature
  • No animated gifs
  • No overly distracting/offensive images
  • Should have transparency
  • As an added nicety, images should be wrapped in a span class of "sigimage" so people can disable signature images in their personal CSS if they wish not to see them.
  • If they are linked (elsewhere then the image page), the link targets should be appropriate as well, and should be wrapped in a class of "plainlinks".
  • If you wish to protect images in your sig from a vandal attack, notify an admin so they may be protected.
• Use of Templating:
  • Long signatures should be in template format or, if not possible, shortened.
  • Templates used in signatures may be reported to an admin so they may be protected from vandal attacks.
• Other conditions:
  • Must contain a non-image link to user page
  • May contain a link to user talk page
  • All links (external and internal) must be appropriate
  • Only sign on talk pages at the end of the comment
  • Cannot contain line breaks, large images, etc. that interrupt the flow of text and indenting.

Of course, this needs polishing and input from other people, but how's that? --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 17:10, 21 October 2007 (CDT)

I'd propose the following two changes:

• Use of images: not allowed
• Use of Templating: not allowed

-- Prod (Talk) 17:19, 21 October 2007 (CDT)

I can see where you're going with that, and I'm just against changing so many signatures so drastically without having hard statistical evidence to back up my claims (about server stress and distractions, etc.). If echelon or Dan would be so kind as to perhaps discover how much stress these templates are causing, I'll consider removal of them (if it's a problem). As for images, I've added in a "sigimage" class to mine, so you can just put .sigimage { display: none; } in your personal css to hide it. If images start to become a problem, however, I'll support you in disallowing them. Also, if vandalising signature templates becomes a problem, I'll support disallowing those as well. --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 17:35, 21 October 2007 (CDT)

As far as I can tell, Skizzerz and I are the only people who template signatures, and I think it's fine. For one thing, templating helps to keep signatures constant even as users change them--for example, if I were to change my sig to Towers (talk) in the template, every instance of my green font and t-rex head would go away and be replaced, keeping everything consistent so people aren't confused when someone switches sigs.

And as far as images go--they seem fine to me! Again, as far as I can tell, only Skizzerz and I use them at all, and they are small, classed properly (as per his guideline anyways), etc. While I concede extravagant signatures belong more on the abxy forums, I hardly think being noticeable in a cloud of blue and white is a bad thing. -- towers http://media.strategywiki.org/images/a/a8/Towers_trex.gif 16:11, 2 December 2007 (CST)

I'd really like us to disable the use of "external" images in sigs. It makes things difficult to track (what links here doesn't work) and it adds tons of markup. If you really want that image to link to your page, you can just put a #REDIRECT on the image page. However, I'd suggest checking the reasons against images. Some of those I don't really care about, but things like server performance and vandalism targets do concern me. And from what I'm looking at now, Towers, you aren't actually templating your signature (Skizzerz does). The problems with templating are similar to images and listed. Also, protecting all the images and pages is not practical (they can't change it either). -- Prod (Talk) 16:38, 2 December 2007 (CST)

Ok, fine... I made it a normal image and a new template, happy? As for protecting, they can just upload a new image if they want to change it and request the old one be deleted or something. And for protecting sig pages, just append .css to the end of the sub-page name (although I don't think it can go down more than one level, so User/sig.css would work but User/sigs/sig1.css won't, not sure about that though). Anyway, mediawiki then treats that as a user's skin css page, but it still gets parsed with normal wiki markup. Plus, strategywiki is not wikipedia. Things are overly retarded and bureaucratic over there. I'd rather not bring that here as well. -- Safety Skizzerz ^{{{ Talk | Contribs | Spel Chek™ | VFG | RTFM }}} 17:14, 2 December 2007 (CST)

Super Mario and Supreme Commander wikis

I've been meaning to suggest a partnership with Super Mario Wiki for a while. It's a good wiki, and has detailed information on quite a lot of Mario stuff, laid out in a nice way. Does anyone who knows more about Mario (etc.) want to approach them, or shall I?

Additionally, I stumbled across Supreme Commander Wiki the other day, and I think it's got just about the right amount of information to make a decent level 4 guide if we merged it in. They average about 3 edits a day, so I think we might have a chance of an agreed merger if we approached them. Any takers?

I realise by looking through Wikia's list of gaming wikis there's a lot of wikis to look at as regards merging, so we might also want to take a good look through it sometime and see if we can pick up the stragglers. --DrBob (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2007 (CST)

In regards to the Super Mario Wiki, go for it! I failed at offering mergers last time, so I probably won't do it (unless I really need to), but I do know quite a bit about Mario and friends, so if you need help with that sorta stuff, I'm on IRC fairly regularly :). As for the wikia wikis, I'd say go for those too. Of course, knowing Wikia, the "merger" would involve importing the content here, but leaving the content there as well (you might be able to get away with a text link to us on the sitenotice, but I know Wikia likes to try to keep everything there). However, if you can influence them that it's a good idea (more contributors, etc.), then go for it. --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 15:26, 17 November 2007 (CST)

I've already started using content from the Mythos Wiki but yeah a full "merger" would be nice. There's also http://www.mythoswiki.com but they aren't even licensed so I'll only be using that for raw data. The Wikia Mythos wiki is funny because rather than gathering their own screenshots (only possible by using third party software) they have used ones from the Mythos site and just used brushes in photoshop to make them ugly xD --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 20:29, 17 November 2007 (CST)

I've just e-mailed one of the Supreme Commander Wiki admins, and I'll see if he replies sometime tonight. --DrBob (talk) 01:26, 20 November 2007 (CST)

members have concerns about scope of proposed Lunar Boom Town guide

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Lunar_Boom_Town/stragywiki.org Mirwin 01:13, 27 November 2007 (CST)

Back in a bit with specific members proposing deletion. Mirwin 01:13, 27 November 2007 (CST)

Mirwin, I like your style. The only way this game is going to be accepted is if the mods vote for it (since all of the reasons you gave as arguments of our scope don't seem truly valid, even if they are logical). Is there a member list we can see? I mean, you say you have a player base, but how can it be proven? It looks like a guide would be useful, considering how confusing it is on that main page. I don't even understand where to start ahahaha. Good luck. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 05:16, 27 November 2007 (CST)

I can find no evidence that this game is a video game of any kind, be it PC, browser, flash, etc. If the game cannot meet even that single criteria, I would support the nomination of deletion unless Mirwin can prove otherwise by the end of the week. Procyon (Talk) 09:46, 27 November 2007 (CST)

Agreed with Procyon. --DrBob (talk) 11:22, 27 November 2007 (CST)

Agree with Procyon and DrBob. Also, try condensing your reasons to only a sentence or two each. Right now, after reading it over about 3 times, it seems like you're just dancing around each point in the scope instead of answering them directly (aka don't be a politician... I hate politicians for exactly that reason). Secondly, while we do somewhat support guides for games still under development (which is what yours sounds like), it is still a pretty unpopular point among us. Also, if you can make your guide actually look like a guide instead of a description of the game, it would be a big plus in my book. Also, speculative data is not considered, so saying "it should" or "by definition" really doesn't help you much. Just cold, hard, facts, mmk? --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 15:55, 27 November 2007 (CST)

Mass Effect spoilers

People need to be careful, there are some ENORMOUS plot spoilers appearing on various pages of the Mass Effect guide, such as the Characters section (wherein they should not exist). --LeftHandedGuitarist 15:09, 1 December 2007 (CST)

Be bold and

Spoiler

put them in the spoiler template

--Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 15:24, 1 December 2007 (CST)

Skizzerz, the {{spoiler}} template isn't working here because you've indented it. If you remove the indentation, it works fine. :-) (Goodness knows why.) --DrBob (talk) 12:33, 2 December 2007 (CST)

StrategyWiki:Promising Guide of the Month

None of the guides there are in the positive. Please nominate some promising guides (strong team of writers or nearing completion) and vote on them. Votes on the StrategyWiki:Collaboration of the Month would also be helpful. -- Prod (Talk) 11:29, 2 December 2007 (CST)

ABXY Forums

I've added a link to the abxy forums in the sidebar (replaced the donate link). Thoughts? -- Prod (Talk) 11:58, 2 December 2007 (CST)

Seems OK, but can we get rid of the donate button that's randomly under the help link.--The preceding signed comment was added by Rocky (talk • contribs). 12:23, 2 December 2007 (CST)

The donate button is there to stay, however we can discuss a better layout. -- Prod (Talk) 12:35, 2 December 2007 (CST)

Oh and to note, if you do sign up for abxy, please use the same username and email address as when you signed up here. -- Prod (Talk) 12:35, 2 December 2007 (CST)

Bit late for the username part, but I have the same email there, so it shouldn't be a problem, right? --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 14:51, 2 December 2007 (CST)

I think you'll be okay. From what we've talked about over at abxy, it seems that matching emails will be enough--though it will make it a tad harder if you have different names. Then again, maybe not--I'm just a moderator, not a developer. But I'm getting my name changed to match this one, so if it's any real problem I am sure you could get your name changed too. -- towers http://media.strategywiki.org/images/a/a8/Towers_trex.gif 15:59, 2 December 2007 (CST)

I don't think we should link to abxy's forums at the moment. There's no StrategyWiki-specific forums there yet (so it's a bit confusing to link to somewhere seemingly unrelated), and having people create duplicate accounts just further complicates matters. Also note that the URL should be http://forums.strategywiki.org because, in the future, this address will be used so that cookies can be shared between the forum and the wiki. Garrett^Talk 16:22, 2 December 2007 (CST)

I agree with it not being the time yet, however the infrastructure is in place once we need it. I've also changed the url, however it might be a bit weird to have the whole abxy theme for a site supposedly under strategywiki. -- Prod (Talk) 18:08, 2 December 2007 (CST)

Teddy is supposed to be making a skin for it (like how http://forums.dsmeet.com connects to abxy's forums using DSmeet's old skin). Garrett^Talk 19:12, 2 December 2007 (CST)

Cool! Will that cookie be able to carry over to http://abxy.org though (so that we can browse all three seamlessly)? Or is that impossible? -- Prod (Talk) 19:31, 2 December 2007 (CST)

It will, yes. Otherwise doing this whole "awesome skin thing" would be pointless and irritating to people switching between them. -- towers http://media.strategywiki.org/images/a/a8/Towers_trex.gif 11:59, 3 December 2007 (CST)

Main Page changes

The DPL stuff is killing the caching of the page and most likely causing some performance issues. It would be nice if we could add the StrategyWiki:Announcements page back to replace it. Another change that I've heard suggested was to replace the What is SW with something more dynamic and move that information off to StrategyWiki:About. The featured guide hasn't been updated in months, though we are (possibly) getting a new one soon. However, I don't expect it to change for another few months. Finally, the promising guide section looks good and keeps changing every month and I don't believe it needs to be changed. Any thoughts or suggestions? -- Prod (Talk) 01:50, 23 December 2007 (CST)

Agree with everything stated, except that it's StrategyWiki:Guide/About ;). As for VFG -- nominate and share your opinion on some :) -- Safety Skizzerz ^{{{ Talk | Contribs | Spel Chek™ | VFG | RTFM }}} 10:00, 23 December 2007 (CST)

Site news

You may have noticed the site go down Saturday afternoon, and then go really slow for the next few hours. The reason was that we upgraded from MediaWiki 1.9.3 to the latest stable build, 1.11. You can check the newest features from http://mediawiki.org (and there are quite a few). With the new upgrade, we have also been able to update all the extensions to the latest versionss. If there are any issues with pages not looking right, or strange behaviour, leave a message here and we'll try to fix the issue quickly. -- Prod (Talk) 01:59, 23 December 2007 (CST)

Requiring registration

As you can probably tell, anons now appear to be able to edit every page now, whereas before we required them to register before being able to edit with the exception of a few unlocked guides. Now, I'm bringing this up because I'm wondering whether we should go back to the way it was regarding registration or allow anons to edit as well. I'm actually for anons to be able to edit everything. Looking through the Recent Changes, it appears that anons that would've added tons of content may have been turned away by the requirement to edit. Of course, we'll get vandalism from the anons too, but we already got that through registered users. So, what do you all think? -- Safety Skizzerz ^{{{ Talk | Contribs | Spel Chek™ | VFG | RTFM }}} 10:08, 23 December 2007 (CST)

Seems great to me.--The preceding signed comment was added by Rocky (talk • contribs). 10:17, 23 December 2007 (CST)

I know that we're going to get a ton more edits by allowing it, and probably more active users too. Luckily we can toggle anonymous edits quite easily. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 17:15, 24 December 2007 (CST)

Also, I suggest we preemptively block IP's that have a history of vandalism on Wikipedia, such as various public schools in the US. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 17:27, 24 December 2007 (CST)

I'm against that. We should only block an IP when it actually does do something bad. Plus, how many of those vandals are going to come here anyway? -- Safety Skizzerz ^{{{ Talk | Contribs | Spel Chek™ | VFG | RTFM }}} 18:03, 24 December 2007 (CST)

+1 --DrBob (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2007 (CST)

So that's why I've been seeing IP addresses in recent changes. Sure, this all sounds good. Baejung92 12:32, 25 December 2007 (CST)

I am moved to weigh in on this discussion. I've been trying to stay out of it since I am generally not in favor of this idea, and I appear to be outvoted, so I didn't want to put a damper on the decision. But I've been looking at the quality of our anonymous edits, and they appear to range anywhere from moderately obvious at best, to ridiculously immature at worst, and the immature contributions are far more common. I'm against this for two reasons. One is the obvious issue that sysops are going to have patrolling all of these edits, but if that is something that some of you are prepared to deal with, then so be it, because I don't relish the idea. The other reason, however is with regards to a difference between SW and, say, WP. While WP has a well established community, community is not really WP's primary goal. It's not ours either, but it is a focus. Allowing anonymous edits sort of provides a method for people to bypass the community aspect of our site (in addition to providing unaccountability). Some of you may feel that the benefit of the additional edits outweighs the lack of growth to the community, but I would disagree. Anyway, I'm not suggesting that we change the policy (yet), I just wanted to throw my thoughts out there as food for thought. Procyon (Talk) 16:45, 25 December 2007 (CST)

While I do agree the quality of anonymous edits is not as good as those of our registered users, I do feel that giving them a taste of editing before we push them to create an account might be beneficial as well. Accountability-wise, I feel that anons actually have a tad more accountability than registered users, because they cannot evade bans as easily (of course, 99% of them don't realize that, which is where the vandalism issue comes in with anons). Patrolling-wise, I try to patrol edits as much as I can while I'm online, and I know a few other sysops are as well. Of course, this does divert attention from other necessary tasks as well... although I know of an extension that can automatically assign rights to users, so perhaps letting users at least x days old and with at least y edits become autopatrolled would help alleviate some of that load. As for the community aspect, I do agree with you on that, as having a good, solid community is the only way to collaborate on some tasks. Also, I've revised our EditSubpages extension (the thingy with MediaWiki:Unlockedpages) to work a bit better (still needs more work, though), and I can probably add a toggle to it that allows any sysop to enable/disable the extension (and thus enable/disable anonymous editing) with a simple edit of some MediaWiki page, so if we change our minds a few times, we don't need someone to go edit our LocalSettings.php a hundred times. -- Safety Skizzerz ^{{{ Talk | Contribs | Spel Chek™ | VFG | RTFM }}} 19:15, 25 December 2007 (CST)

New RfA

Tathar (talk · contribs) has been nominated for adminship. Please voice your opinion here. -- Safety Skizzerz ^{{{ Talk | Contribs | Spel Chek™ | VFG | RTFM }}} 18:58, 24 December 2007 (CST)

WikiNode

Hi, I've started the WikiNode here (looks like some other guy created it before which got deleted). Right now the only other wiki I made SW connect to is the Bulbapedia, since last I stirred up conversation around here it has an official partnership with SW. Currently the AliceSoft Wiki (which SW's Sengoku Rance guides outsources to) has its WikiNode points here, and I'd like to request permission/consensus of the SW community to add the AliceSoft Wiki to the SW WikiNode (WikiNodes don't have to be mutual, so it's up to you guys to decide what to link or not link to).

For examples, see:

• Wikipedia's WikiNode
• AliceSoft Wiki's WikiNode.

-Afker 01:28, 26 December 2007 (CST)

Ad problems

I keep getting this message box:

"Adobe Flash Player 9

"A script in this movie is causing Adobe Flash Player 9 to run slowly. If it continues to run, your computer may become unresponsive. Do you want to abort the script?"

If things get too annoying, it might cause me to choose to block ads on SW (I run ad-block, but I only selectively block ads). I'd suggest sending feedback to your advertisement provider and get rid of the offending ads. -Afker 02:14, 26 December 2007 (CST)

Do you know which ad is causing it? -- Safety Skizzerz ^{{{ Talk | Contribs | Spel Chek™ | VFG | RTFM }}} 10:21, 26 December 2007 (CST)

My guess would be one of the ones in the right side, since that's the fancy stuff. Oh, and since SW is on ads anyways, can we get more bandwidth? Things load really slow around here, and I live in California... -Afker 19:39, 26 December 2007 (CST)