StrategyWiki talk:Community Portal/2006/August

Archive

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the main talk page.

← July 2006 | August 2006 | September 2006 →

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

Collaboration of the Month for August?

I have a few ideas for possible collaborations of the month, and I'm always open for more suggestions. Here are some of the things I have thoguht of:

• We pick one or two guides and work on them almost exclusively until they are perfected. This will only add to the showcase of completed guides we can show off.
• We work on all of our templates and categories, deciding what we may need down the road and implementing everything correctly in all guides. This would be an "organizational" collaboration project.
• We promote StrategyWiki to get new contributors.

What would you guys suggest? echelon 15:03, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

The only problem I can think of is some people may have never played that certain game, so they could probably only fix grammatical errors, upload media, or do some general cleanup. The article may also be rushed if a small amount of people are working on it and trying to get it done on a certain date. I think a good project for us to do is to just clean up the Wiki by adding in all of the infoboxes, wikifying every page, expanding the system pages, adding in system infoboxes, and complete the series pages. I've expanded almost every Atari system article and have added in a load of infoboxes, and I know some series pages are already done. Those are just some of my thoughts for now. --Antaios 15:50, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

My opinion too. I think we should work out all orginizational stuff, and implement it in The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, which, by the way, is not entirely done. Then, if/when we get digged or slashdotted(again) for that guide, all the new contributors will know how to set up new guides and wikify old ones. So, actually kind of doing 1 and 2, but doing 2 first. --blendmaster 17:48, 5 August 2006 (CDT)

Out of experience, most new contributors will not get things right quickly, but that's something we'll have to live with. :-P --DrBob (Talk) 04:35, 6 August 2006 (CDT)

Out of curiosity, what are the games that some of you have played/enjoyed the most? I want to see if any of us have a certain game (or games) in common. We really do have to complete one or more final stage guides to serve as examples. echelon 20:13, 5 August 2006 (CDT)

Just look at my user page: Elite Force, Counter-Strike: Source, Raven Shield, and most other FPSs. --DrBob (Talk) 04:35, 6 August 2006 (CDT)

Ah, unfortunately I'm not a big PC gamer (yet). I just got an idea, though. Maybe when we get enough people, we can split up into "teams" such as "FPS Team" or "Platformer Team" or maybe even "Zelda Team". These would function as small groups of collaborative editors that are all working on a special project designated by the team. We could host information and meetings at SW:Teams and team-specific stuff at SW:Teams/FPS, etc. This will help each subset of gaming quickly organize and deploy edits in their respective fields, genres, and franchises. Thoughts? echelon 18:42, 8 August 2006 (CDT)

I would lean towards the third option. We need more contributors, and I'm always of the opinion that cleanup should only ever be done by a small group of people who really know what they're doing. If we have a cleanup collaboration of the month, I can guarantee that people (with the best intentions, I'm sure) will get things wrong, and it will result in more work for the rest of us. :-( I would echo Antaios' concerns over the fact that only people who have played a game can really contribute to the guide. I've contributed to over 2000 pages on this wiki, but I've played only a very few games we cover. If we had a few games as collaborations of the month, only the people who were here and contributing to them already (really) would contribute, although the guides probably would get some more cleanup than usual. My vote goes firmly to promotion of the wiki as a whole. --DrBob (Talk) 04:58, 4 August 2006 (CDT)

Promoting StrategyWiki would be a sure way to help the wiki grow faster. We've done Digg before--twice--, but we have not yet tried Slashdot; I was hoping on saving it for when we're a bit bigger so that more people would be convinced to join our cause. We could go ahead with the Slashdot thing, though, if you guys think now is a good time for it. We've already been featured on Joystiq, Kotaku, etc, and I don't think they'd publish us again. Are there any other means that you might've considered? echelon 20:13, 5 August 2006 (CDT)

The only thing I can think of at the moment (apart from spamming other news sites :-P ) is to make sure we're linked to from a wide range of gaming-related sites, in prominent locations. Links are power. --DrBob (Talk) 04:35, 6 August 2006 (CDT)

If you're part of a forum, a good idea is to put a link to SW.org in your signature (make sure you make it catchy :-) ). Maybe a Wikipedia entry would help too, since I joined here from clicking on the MMX2 walkthrough link. Perhaps we should add SW walkthrough links to all of the Wikipedia video game articles (I know there's already a couple). --Antaios 09:49, 6 August 2006 (CDT)

I've got a plug in my sig at DSmeet now, and I'll move the SW links on the DSmeet homepage to a more prevalant location soon. In my upcoming, larger website project I can assure that StrategyWiki will be billed at a very integral level. I hope that will draw not only the kind of traffic we need, but also in larger quantities. echelon 01:57, 7 August 2006 (CDT)

How about a collaboration on guides which don't actually need expertise to edit? By this, I mean the huge mass of stubbed company and system categories we have; if we have a collaboration to expand them, all people need to be able to do is research, and it's not hard. It would significantly cut down on the number of stubs we have. :-) --DrBob (Talk) 05:42, 8 August 2006 (CDT)

This is an excellent, sensible first project. I'm on board! echelon 18:42, 8 August 2006 (CDT)

I agree 100%. Wikipedia already has a wealth of information, so it should be rather simple. I've already done 5 Atari systems, but no companies yet. Having good company and system information will attract more people and make them think that SW.org is one of the best resources for gaming information. We should get started right away. --Antaios 20:44, 8 August 2006 (CDT)

I've updated the main page with the new collaboration, then. :-) --DrBob (Talk) 07:08, 9 August 2006 (CDT)

How much information should the pages have? How much before you just put a link to the wikipedia page? Since we're a strategy wiki, and not a general game wiki, how much stuff should we have that aren't strategy guides, and their related templates? --blendmaster 17:14, 15 August 2006 (CDT)

Just a paragraph giving the main details of the company, and make sure it's got a company infobox. :-) --DrBob (Talk) 14:52, 16 August 2006 (CDT)

MySpace StrategyWiki page?

Believe me, I'm not a huge fan of MySpace, nor do I want to create an account there, but the site has almost 95 million users, which is extremely large. I was thinking that someone could create a MySpace StrategyWiki page to help promote us and see if people on there like the idea and want to contribute to the Wiki. Digg has a large userbase too, but MySpace is just gigantic. Perhaps we should try it out to see how it goes. What's everyone else's thoughts on this? --Antaios 16:09, 4 August 2006 (CDT)

I don't want to sound like a stereotyping biggotted fool, but do we really want the typical MySpace user around here? :-P --DrBob (Talk) 16:13, 4 August 2006 (CDT)

Hmm, perhaps you're right. Strange things do happen there (let's just leave it at that). Also, there's probably not a lot of gamers there (as most people go for the social aspect). --Antaios 19:25, 4 August 2006 (CDT)

Proposal for new image categories

Hello. I was just wondering if I could propose two new image categories. I've been categorizing the arcade control panels that I've uploaded for arcade games in to the "Controller buttons" category for lack of a better place. Can we perhaps create a "Control Panel" category that would be better suited for that sort of thing? The second proposal is very minor and is simply for consideration. We have a "screenshots" category. Would it be worthwhile to create a seperate category (or perhaps sub-category under screenshots) for title screens? Just curious, thanks very much. Procyon 18:58, 10 August 2006 (CDT)

I'd agree with the first one, and I'll go off and do it, but I don't think we need a separate category for title screens. Few guides have them, and I don't think the distinction would be useful. --DrBob (Talk) 05:06, 11 August 2006 (CDT)

I've created Arcade controls. :-) --DrBob (Talk) 11:12, 11 August 2006 (CDT)

Strict Image Naming Conventions

The images in our system are becoming very mixed up, and since they're both numerous and a very integral part of the guide, we need to keep them more organized in addition to categorization. I propose picking a prefix for every single game and then all images uploaded would use the required prefix. As using the game's full name as a prefix would be tedius, I suggest using short common abbreviations: Ocarina of Time would be OoT_, Mario 64 would be M64_, Twilight Princess would be TP_ or ZTP_ etc. This would help us more quickly navigate to the images we need. Thoughts? echelon 00:43, 11 August 2006 (CDT)

I remember discussing this before, and blendmaster is already going through all the images (good man!) adding categories and tagging the ones needing renaming with {{rename}}. Once my bot's back in action, I'll set it loose on them. :-) --DrBob (Talk) 05:07, 11 August 2006 (CDT)

Ohh, that's pretty sweet! :D echelon 10:13, 11 August 2006 (CDT)

Ya, I've been going through each image (except for the one's I'm positive there are already categories) and just adding a template to the one's that need to be renamed and categories to those that don't have them. Unfortunately there is no "next 500" option when scrolling through the list (unless I'm just mistaken and haven't noticed it) so I have to actually do searches for the higher letters. In any case, I'm almost done but unless I finish today, I can't do the rest until I'm down in Florida starting probably Thursday.--DukeRuckley 10:23, 11 August 2006 (CDT)

"Competition" to StrategyWiki

I just sumbled upon 1up's latest venture today. This is interesting as it allows collaborative editing by their users. I see absolutely no kind of license whatsoever, so I guess these users are licensing their contributions directly to 1up. I didn't register though, so I can't be certain. echelon 10:22, 11 August 2006 (CDT)

Wow, it's not only for cheats it also has a "Superguide" that anybody can edit. Maybe now would be a good time to put on the main page that we were the first to do this :) In any case, this will make competition tough because 1up already has a strong following.--DukeRuckley 10:26, 11 August 2006 (CDT)

lol, they look a little too much like a Wiki. Eh, I wouldn't really worry about them too much. We have a strong community with a lot of things they don't have (control images, extra MediaWiki tools, company and system information, etc.). I still think we'll be one of the best resources for games once this site really blossoms. --Antaios 11:03, 11 August 2006 (CDT)

The term "bandwagon" comes to mind… --DrBob (Talk) 11:11, 11 August 2006 (CDT)

1Up may be popular, but their oppressive contributions policy will turn many off. Their laughably cripped attempt at a wiki engine won't even let me log in and has no diff support or recent changes list. While the actual content may seem impressive, much of it is just editable versions of their past static content.

They aren't the first, however; IGN Vault Wiki has been going for months. They wisely went with MediaWiki but only cover RPGs/MMOs, and seem to have only two or three active contributors--one of whom is the manager.

I don't think 1Up will ever be a threat unless they fix their wiki engine. Garrett^Talk 18:29, 11 August 2006 (CDT)

It's interesting to read each of your different concerns about the so called competition. When I think of a typical 1up user, I don't think hardcore, dedicated, and intelligent. I think of the average dim-witted consumer who's only interest is to consume information with little regard to contributing back anything more than "the 360 pwns the PS2." Again, I said the typical 1Up user, I'm not trying to portray every user that goes to the site the same way (even I do, once in a while.) And along those lines, I doubt most contributors even read the contribution policy, let alone care what it says.

Then there's the notion of what a typical contributor to the internet is like, and the common disdain for anything corporate in nature. Even if I saw 1up or IGN's wiki sites first, I would still prefer to come here where I feel that the well being of the site and it's contributors are considered by real people and not a company aiming for financial gain. I am grossly over dramatizing the point, but you know what I mean. My point is that I prefer and enjoy contributing to this site for the purpose that it stands for, and the quality of people I get to work with, you guys. ^_^ Procyon 19:23, 11 August 2006 (CDT)

w00t! --DrBob (Talk) 04:18, 12 August 2006 (CDT)

Critique of Legend of Zelda

Hello everyone. As of tonight, I feel that I have added everything to the Legend of Zelda entry that I possibly can. There are two bits of help that I would like to ask for if anyone is interested. First, I would like to know what people's thoughts are of the layout and arrangement of the pages and topics. I'd like to know if anyone feels that improvements could be made to it, or if navigation could be made easier by providing a side table of contents. Second, would anyone feel competent enough to replace the ugly map of Hyrule I made for the overworld page with a better image that has an image map associated with it? I don't exactly know how to do that sort of thing, and I noticed some of you were playing around with that idea. Thanks very much in advance! Procyon 21:37, 11 August 2006 (CDT)

I've fixed a few issues, and there's only one problem which I can see remaining. You've named the pages somewhat oddly (e.g. Dungeon2), and this will need to be fixed. Once it's finished doing another job, I'll set my bot loose on it. --DrBob (Talk) 06:20, 12 August 2006 (CDT)

Done. --DrBob (Talk) 11:57, 12 August 2006 (CDT)

First Person in Guides

I've noticed that some guides or parts of guides use the first person ("I"), which doesn't make much sense when there is no single author. For an example, see Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas/In the beginning ("I will describe a route ..."). The "In my personal experience" bit of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas/Burglar doesn't seem to fit, either. I think parts like these should be rewritten to avoid the first person or removed. Is there any precedent for this kind of thing in other guides? DrV 13:48, 16 August 2006 (CDT)

Yeah, that's bad. Just rewrite it where you see it, or if you don't have time, simply tag it with {{drivel}}, and the elite crack team of cleanup personnel will deal with it. ;-) --DrBob (Talk) 14:50, 16 August 2006 (CDT)

Cool, I've fixed the first one, but I'm not sure what to do with Burglar - the whole "Unlimited TV's" section is not really all that useful. In my personal experience (with the PC version), it's quite possible to finish the mission in one night without taking advantage of any "glitch", so I say it should just be removed... DrV 15:50, 16 August 2006 (CDT)

I've taken a stab at cleaning it up. :-) --DrBob (Talk) 03:58, 17 August 2006 (CDT)

Proposal for italicizing game names

I've been a registered user here for only a few days, but I already have a proposal to make. After italicizing game names on the Valve Software page, DrBob left me a friendly message on my talk page about it not being a policy and that it's unnecessary. I, however, want to propose this as an entry in the style guide. DrBob will oppose this, as he said on my talk page: "I'll be against it, because it takes effort to get right (and apply it everywhere), and - to my mind at least - it's distracting and somewhat frivolous: people'll know the game titles, and won't need them brought to their attention". --Szajd 08:29, 18 August 2006 (CDT)

I think it's distracting too, but I wouldn't be totally against it if lots of other people think it's a good idea. :) --DrV 09:44, 18 August 2006 (CDT)

If we're going to go round italicising game names, why not just link them as a guide title? That could at least be useful on an interactive level, whereas italicising is a purely aesthetic decision. Personally, I don't really see the point in making sure every game title is italicised on the Wiki; it doesn't really add much to the overall usefulness of the service we're providing. --aniki21 09:47, 18 August 2006 (CDT)

It's more of a Wikipedia hangover than anything else. While I'm used to seeing and using italics because of Wikipedia, when it comes down to it I really don't care either way. And, yes, game names should be linked at every opportunity. Garrett^Talk 17:15, 18 August 2006 (CDT)

If there is a game name, link to it's guide. Every opportunity should in fact be every time a game is used, even if we won't have the guide for a while, the red link encourages it being made. Italics aren't necessary in the sense. While Wikipedia wouldn't deem every game or thing with a title within it's scope and therefore only italicize it, here everygame is within our scope and therefore should be linked always. -- Mason11987 ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 23:09, 23 August 2006 (CDT)

Most Promising Guide

Since the Guide of the Month has been a red link for the past month or so, why don't we change it to the idea proposed in the thread up at the top? A most promising guide would be a guide that has the underlying structure laid out and enough content in it to give examples on how to write new pages, but enough red links to not be considered a {{P|3}} guide. I think its better then guide of the month because we hardly have any completed guides that aren't just transwikied. It'd be like collaboration of the month, except a bit more specific. This can be the temporary replacement for Guide of the Month until we actually get some completed guides. --blendmaster 10:12, 18 August 2006 (CDT)

I agree, especially because we shouldn't have any red links on the front page. Looks bad.--DukeRuckley 11:12, 18 August 2006 (CDT)

Done! Great suggestion! :) echelon 00:40, 24 August 2006 (CDT)

Standard back and forward links

Another idea: Since we have a standard Header Nav, we should make standard back and forward links at the bottom of pages. This was talked about, but was archived with the rest of the Header Nav discussion. DrBob and I worked on a mockup here but nothing else was done on it. I used a version of it on the EarthBound pages, at the bottom of all the Walkthrough pages. It has a back, here, forward, guide home link and a popdown (like the table of contents) to a list of all the pages within the walkthrough part. I think this (minus the table layout and earthbound images) should become standard on multipage guides.

Another thing that should be standardized are links on the main pages of guides to the beginning of the "getting started" section and the beginning of the walkthrough. Again, like EarthBound. If you look at The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time page, there really is no indicator that there's anything to continue to, unless you show the table of contents, which is tucked up at the top. --blendmaster 10:33, 18 August 2006 (CDT)

I like this. The problem with making a unvirsal template to do this is that some pages have multiple origins/destinations, although that could be resolved by including freeform parameters like Header Nav already has. This could also be implemented into Header Nav itself; it could be quite useful to go navigate fro the top of a page without re-opening the TOC. Garrett^Talk 00:04, 19 August 2006 (CDT)

How about this? This allows almost anything, and pretty much is just like what you'd already developed. The far left and right parts are optional like Header Nav's. Garrett^Talk 21:39, 19 August 2006 (CDT)

Where on the page would this be displayed? At the bottom? If that's the case, should the rounded corners be flipped? echelon 23:19, 19 August 2006 (CDT)

Yes, at the bottom. You can see it in situe on The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time/Controls. I still intend to reinstate the walkthrough start link, but at the moment I can't get it to include without displacing the rest of the nav from its centered position. I'm also not sure about the naming of the mini-TOC subpage, but that's less of an issue. Garrett^Talk 00:30, 20 August 2006 (CDT)

This is exactly what I had in mind. Sorry it took me so long to respond. Also sorry I ruined your centered links by adding the walkthrough start link. I guess you can fix that by making the start link float: left and the main links 100% width, so it will go under the floated text, kind of like how the 100% width table of contents goes under the infobox. The only way this would break is if someone included way to many custom back links.--blendmaster 16:00, 26 August 2006 (CDT)

I'm not sure the mini-TOC is needed on the less structured non-walkthrough pages; it would be easy to include another Qif parameter to make the entire unfolding function disappear and it be visual-only. Or is this too fiddly? Garrett^Talk 00:40, 20 August 2006 (CDT)

I guess you could enclose all the hide/show specific classes(like NavHead and stuff) in qifs with the classes in the else field, so they'd be default included unless you put a variable like toc=no in. I'll try and see if that works. --blendmaster 16:00, 26 August 2006 (CDT)

Sweet it works:

I put all the class settings in qif tags testing for the toc variable, with the default class settings in the else section, so unless toc is set to something, it will put in the classes and dropdown. So actually, you could say toc=yes and it would still hide the dropdown, but that's just a limitation of the qif, i guess. Also, traded the walkthrough start link for a go to top link, that really links to the closest thing I could find to the top of the page, the id=outer div. I guess one of the admins could add a #top anchor for that though. --blendmaster 14:32, 27 August 2006 (CDT)

I have a couple of issues with that - I've added my thoughts on the talk page for the template. Basically, is there any way to add a Qif to the "back" links so that if there's no specified target it'll point straight to the guide index? That way we can just use the same template for all the pages, without having to come up with a new version for the index page. --aniki21 04:20, 28 August 2006 (CDT)

I think I've sorted that. Try it now. :-) --DrBob (Talk) 04:49, 28 August 2006 (CDT)

Not quite - it's not linking in properly. See Eternal Arcadia/Characters, or even the ones above. Sorry to be a complainer.  :$ Also, shouldn't it be pulling in the Table of Contents page rather than "Walkthough Index"? --aniki21 04:51, 28 August 2006 (CDT)

Fixed again, methinks. Now it will display a link to the main page if either of the prevpage or nextpage parameters aren't passed. --DrBob (Talk) 05:05, 28 August 2006 (CDT)

Thanks! Works a treat now. --aniki21 05:25, 28 August 2006 (CDT)

Table of contents on the main guide page

Another thing on the EarthBound and Oblivion guides, is a non hidden table on contents, below the forward links, linked using the {{:Page Title}} method. This gives another way of continuing through the guide. Although this could also be rectified by having the Header Nav expanded by default on the main page, this would push everything else down the page, and in my opinion, looks worse. --blendmaster 10:33, 18 August 2006 (CDT)

Hm, I like that, yes. The problem is that infoboxes put the TOC unnecessarily far down when compared to how long the intro blurb usually is--but if the TOC is allowed to wrap around the infobox its layout goes awry. Hm. Garrett^Talk 00:04, 19 August 2006 (CDT)

This is caused by the fact that almost all table of contents(even legend of zelda), are 100% width tables with 33% width columns. So whenever you put them in without the {{-}} template, they will go under the infobox, with the text overlapping it. Maybe if you put the table of contents in an enclosing div that isn't 100% width, the table of contents table will 100% within the div, not the entire page. But I'm sure DrBob will have a better solution than this. :) --blendmaster 10:23, 19 August 2006 (CDT)

This has been on my todo list for a while. I don't think the unfolding section is necessary: we're going for a simple linear navigation system here, and if people want to go somewhere other than the next section of the walkthrough, they should scroll up to the nav at the top. I'll take a look at the Footer Nav template you've created. :-) --DrBob (Talk) 10:34, 25 August 2006 (CDT)

I'm sure it's a disappointment, but my suggested solution is to not duplicate the TOC on the front page. It's easy enough to access through the Header Nav anyway. :-P --DrBob (Talk) 10:38, 25 August 2006 (CDT)

Well then, there should be at least some better indication that there's more to the guide than just an info page. Basically a specialized footer nav template for the main page. --blendmaster 17:25, 25 August 2006 (CDT)

You shouldn't ever have the main navigation at the bottom of a page. It's suicide. I think what would be best is if we made the TOC expand link more visible, and more easily noticeable. --DrBob (Talk) 03:22, 26 August 2006 (CDT)

In general, I agree with DrBob. The top of the page should always accomodate main navigation and the bottom of the page should have only a few links. Links on the bottom should be limited to next/previous page, jump to page top, and maybe a link to the main guide page. (In fact, this is what I think we should implement.) Relatively few websites have crowded footers; the only examples I can think of are IGN and Gamespot, and they do that only because they're trying to SEO those pages. Anyhow, I'm sure there's a good solution we can all agree on. :P echelon 04:43, 26 August 2006 (CDT)

I wouldn't have the main navigation on the bottom of the page instead of on the top. I would have the Template:Footer Nav, with the dropdown a reduced walkthrough index. Pretty much like the bottom of Tom's Hardware pages, except they use a html dropdown menu as a table of contents. No one wants to scroll up to the top of a page just to get to a page other than the "next" page.

Also, I don't think that having the Table of Contents duplicated on the main page is like putting it at the bottom of the page. The main page usually isn't that long, so the table of contents will be always visible.It'd could even be the Header Nav defaultly expanded, except below the intro. In fact, I think the Header Nav on the main page with a duplicated table of contents is entirely useless save for the P completion indicator. Popping open the Header Nav to see the table of contents may be "easy enough", but it's a lot easier to navigate the guide when the toc is already sitting there open. --blendmaster 15:54, 26 August 2006 (CDT)

I made a Template:Continue Nav in the style of Footer Nav to put on the main page. Its basically a way to have the footer nav on the main page without having dummy back links put in. I still think its better than nothing at all besides the intro+Header Nav on the main page, even with a larger show/hide button. --blendmaster 15:54, 26 August 2006 (CDT)

Adding categories for game completition levels?

In addition to the guide completion level indicators shown on guide main pages, I think we should have the Header Nav categorize them as well based on their completion level. Would doing this would require some sort of Qif template hack, or is there an easier method? I'm not sure how to do this yet, so I'm wondering if one of you could point me in the right direction. echelon 23:22, 19 August 2006 (CDT)

The easiest would be to detect num=, but that would mean it would have to be "Pages at completion stage 1" or similar. I don't think Qif can do this, at least not from my brief test. You probably need to install ParserFunctions. Garrett^Talk 00:12, 20 August 2006 (CDT)

Could we just add the Completeness category to whichever template is pulling the completeness image in? --aniki21 05:53, 21 August 2006 (CDT)

No, Header Nav is the one calling upon percentage images, and doing so directly. Now if the images were instead called from Template:0001 (and so forth) then, yes, each could have a category already attached. That's probably the best way to do it, actually. Garrett^Talk 06:05, 21 August 2006 (CDT)

But there's a better way. Just put another qif statement at the bottom of the template, that tests if num is defined, (ust like the other qif for num), and if it is, it puts the code [[Category:Guides at completion stage {{{num}}}]] which would put it in the right completion level category. And if everyyone doesn't mind, I actually already did this to Template:Header Nav. Now we just need to tell people to put the num= variable as the page completion not the guide completion. --blendmaster 22:40, 21 August 2006 (CDT)

So I see. However I don't think marking individual pages is all that useful, {{wip}} and {{stub}} already serve this purpose fairly well; a page that’s 0-25% done is usually a stub, and one that's 25-75% is of course wip. Plus, hardly any pages are tagged like this yet and the rest wouldn't be for a long time to come, further reducing its usefulness. I think what echelon had in mind was an easy way of showing readers finished (or nearly finished) guides at a glance, rather than serving a maintenance purpose. Garrett^Talk 03:59, 22 August 2006 (CDT)

Well, if you are categorizing by the {{P}} anyway, and you want it as guide completion, then you should only use it for the Header Nav on the main page of the guide and omit it in all other Header Navs in the guide. Otherwise, they will be categorized. A workaround for this would be to put the category in Header Nav inside yet another qif, which tests for a variable like categorize, so if you don't wan't the page categorized but still want to show the P image, you have to put categorize=no or something like that. --blendmaster 12:28, 22 August 2006 (CDT)

Yeah, if someone wouldn't mind fixing it so that Header Nav only shows progress on the guide itself, that would be good. (I'd do it myself, but my available time has been decreased substantially--see my user page.) I see no usefulness in categorizing on a page-by-page basis, unfortunately. echelon 00:54, 24 August 2006 (CDT)

I'm not sure if it's possible, but I'm looking into it. -- Mason11987 ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 14:23, 24 August 2006 (CDT)

I'm almost completly certain that pages that are subpages can only be differentiated using parser functions and the #ifeq function:

{{ #ifeq: {{SUBPAGENAME}} | {{BASEPAGENAME}} | The code to add to the category goes here | }}

Until then we can't tell if a page is a subpage or a base page because {{SUBPAGENAME}} returns the same as {{BASEPAGENAME}} if the page isn't a subpage (ex: on Help, SUBPAGENAME returns Help and BASEPAGENAME returns Help). If the page IS a subpage then {{SUBPAGENAME}} returns the subpagename and {{BASEPAGENAME}} returns the base page name (ex: on Help/subpage, SUBPAGENAME returns subpage and BASEPAGENAME returns Help). -- Mason11987 ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 19:59, 24 August 2006 (CDT)

Also, think about the .hack games and what will happen to subpages on them. echelon 12:46, 25 August 2006 (CDT)

Well individual games shouldn't be subpages. If they are something like that, they should be .hack - Game Title/Walkthrough and so on. There shouldn't be a main page for a game that is a subpage. Also a disambiguation page shouldn't have subpages. That disambiguation page should/could even be a category, and .hack should redirect to it, that would make sense structurally, and would also be easy to find and navigate, as well as edit. -- Mason11987 ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 10:52, 27 August 2006 (CDT)

YouTube plugin

I've found that there are TONS of good videos on [www.youtube.com youtube], and a lot of sites have them "embedded" in the page, so you just click it and it plays where it is. This way we could include videos in guides, and you wouldn't have to worry about the bandwidth issues (youtube has like 200 TB/day or something). Although we can still provide links to youtube, which is nice, the inline videos would be much cooler :P. No idea how hard this would be, just a suggestion. -- Prod 21:15, 24 August 2006 (CDT)

This has been disscussed before, and echelon didn't like the idea of using a proprietary FLV video player like youtube or google video on strategy wiki, because it would break our total use of open source software(i can't think of a better phrase to describe this). I did find a open source FLV player, flowplayer, but we'd need our own hosting for our videos with it. It would be cool to eventually have, but I think we should focus on getting the structure of the guides up before we add video walkthroughs. --blendmaster 21:29, 24 August 2006 (CDT)

From what I can understand you saying, is that you dont want to host your own videos and run your own software (i use the term "your own" loosly). I meant something like embedding it. From what I can tell, google hosts the video and you just link to it. -- Prod 22:15, 24 August 2006 (CDT)

It's the opposite; echelon wants to provide his own equivalent service rather than outsourcing. You can read the original discussion right here. Garrett^Talk 03:20, 25 August 2006 (CDT)

Without looking into the copyright/licensing problems with embedding them rather than linking to them (I'm not sure if there are any, but there might be), we are looking into adding video and panoramic view stuff later on, with an OSS player. Just forget about it for now, and keep linking to the videos externally. ;-) --DrBob (Talk) 10:44, 25 August 2006 (CDT)

Heh, cant wait :D. -- Prod 21:18, 25 August 2006 (CDT)

Stub guidelines

As a general rule, how much information does a page need before it's okay to remove the stub template? I think there's enough now on the Sega page (I removed the stub there), but on the other hand I doubt you'd generally need much more than what's on the Overworks page to give an overview of the company's history - unless it's a particularly long or complex story. Should there be guidelines for the basic amount necessary to disqualify an article or Category as a stub? --aniki21 08:45, 29 August 2006 (CDT)

As a very general rule, two paragraphs would be needed to warrant removal of the stub template, but it does depend on the subject and how detailed it is. It's basically up to individual discretion, but I'd say that if it's basically covered (which two paragraphs would probably do) it's no longer a stub. :-) I'll get round to writing some guidelines for it eventually. --DrBob (Talk) 16:29, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

MapleStory Transwiki

I just got back from my vacation and I'm now going to try and get the wikibooks:MapleStory book transwikied. There are a few concerns I have before going ahead with this. I've put together a list of all the pages and images that are used by the book (though its out of date now). There are a lot of images in this (pictures of the enemies) and they are all very badly named, potentially causing collisions. Will it be possible to transwiki all the pictures automatically and rename/categorize them at the same time? Also, the wikibooks:MapleStory/Monsters page is quite large (90+ megs in the database including history I think, page is 83k) and is updated fairly often. Will this cause problems for the rest of strategywiki due to bandwidth issues? (It's the most edited pages on wikibooks). -- Prod 12:52, 13 August 2006 (CDT)

With reference to the images, I can't think of an easy way of transwikiing them off the top of my head, and if you want to rename and categorise them at the same time, it's going to have to be done manually. You can take your time over it. :-P It wouldn't be preferable to have to categorise them all later, due to the fact that we can't make a list of uncategorised images, and would thus lose them. The Monsters page is a monster. Whatever you do, it will have to be split up, and the history might have to go, but I'm not too knowledgeable in such matters. (Talk to Garrett, methinks.) I don't think we'd encounter any bandwidth issues, but it should be split up anyway, to make it at least somewhat sane to read. --DrBob (Talk) 13:03, 13 August 2006 (CDT)

Yeah the history can't be imported (maximum is around 2 MB) so the history for that will have to be pasted onto the talk page. The rest shouldn't be much of a problem. Images could be transwikied automatically by Kernigh's bot, but since they have to be renamed I don't think it can handle them (unless it has a batch rename feature). I'll look into transwikiing the text portion sometime soon. Garrett^Talk 21:06, 13 August 2006 (CDT)

Well, there 1500 revisions, so that will be some pasting :P. I'll need to go through the pages again since some pages have changed and new ones have popped up. I'll put a note on StrategyWiki:Wikibooks Import List when its ready (hopefully soon).--Prod 07:26, 14 August 2006 (CDT)

Right, sounds good. Garrett^Talk 21:51, 14 August 2006 (CDT)

There are a few pages where the info was cut and pasted to another page. Those pages are now redirects. Should they be transwikied as well, or just leave them where there are (where they will probably be deleted)? -- Prod 19:33, 17 August 2006 (CDT)

I can't see much point in transwikiing redirects, unless they're used really frequently. :-) --DrBob (Talk) 01:18, 18 August 2006 (CDT)

Hmm, guess I didn't say the part I had wanted to say (oops). I meant to say that some of those redirects have a fair bit of history behind them since the original content was cut and pasted elsewhere, and a redirect added manually. I'll see if I can contact Kernigh about the images. -- Prod 22:11, 19 August 2006 (CDT)

Kernigh writes: Okay, I used my bot to download the 397 images (372 PNG, 15 JPEG, 10 GIF) from Wikibooks. They are now in a folder on my computer, along with a "files.txt" containing the image descriptions. (They are in maplestory.zip if anyone wants to look at them.) I believe that I can easily remove the extra ==Summary ==, == Licensing==, and {{game-screenshot}} tags and put everything in Category:MapleStory images. I want prod to send me some lines looking like this:

mv 0023423.png Whatever_the_new_name_is.png

I should be able to use these to rename the files (and replace the filenames in "files.txt") before I tell User:File Upload Bot (Kernigh) to upload them to StrategyWiki.

Also, 397 images is a lot, so should the bot receive a "bot" flag? --Kernigh 23:27, 20 August 2006 (CDT)

W00t, thanks :D. I'll try to upload the file somwhere around here in the next 24 hours, though I can't make any promises as I'd like to make a good naming scheme so I dont have to re-upload the pictures later, probably something like 'MapleStory Monster MonsterName.xxx' for the monsters. -- Prod 00:01, 21 August 2006 (CDT)

It might be a bit late for this, but I'd just use initials for the repetitive parts of filenames, such as "MS" instead of "MapleStory". It'll save a lot of typing. --DrBob (Talk) 03:26, 26 August 2006 (CDT)

Images are being transwikid as we speak (Thank Kernigh!). I think the import list is ready for transwikiing (so many strange words >.>). If there is anything you need from me, leave a message on my talk page. (This is so exciting ^_^). -- Prod 19:53, 25 August 2006 (CDT)

Could you please go through all the images in the MapleStory images category once they're uploaded, and categorise them accordingly? You can find information in the policy. --DrBob (Talk) 03:26, 26 August 2006 (CDT)

Currently, they've all been moved into three categories, Category:MapleStory/Monsters, Category:MapleStory/Skills, Category:MapleStory/Items. Can I just add the Monster category as a subcategory of Category:Sprites and Category:Characters or do I have to put those on each and every page? Skill would go under Sprites, and Item would go under Items and Sprites. If you want them individually, do you know of a program to automatically edit a bunch of pages. -- Prod 10:09, 26 August 2006 (CDT)

Sorry to give you a load of work to do, but those categories won't do. The images'll have to go into the normal categories, but I can't think of a program off the top of my head which will allow such easy editing of multiple pages (my bot's currently out of action). Try rooting around on Wikipedia. --DrBob (Talk) 12:55, 26 August 2006 (CDT)

Everything is ready for transwikiing at StrategyWiki:Wikibooks Import List/MapleStory. When can we get started? -- Prod 22:10, 3 September 2006 (CDT)

I was thinking of waiting until the automated dumps are updated (this happens roughly every 20 days), as any changes between that date and the importing would have to be carried over manually. This also means the diffs between those two points would be missing. What do you think? Garrett^Talk 04:10, 4 September 2006 (CDT)

Sounds good to me. -- Prod 07:50, 4 September 2006 (CDT)

Looks like the dumper bot broke. I guess it'll be another 2 or 3 weeks before we can get moved over :(. Do you think this would be a good time to start moving pages around (ie. split the monster page up into 7 or 8 separate pages), or should I wait till after the move? -- Prod 20:01, 6 September 2006 (CDT)

The transwiki is done now, except for these oversized pages which I'll do in the morning:

• MapleStory
• MapleStory/Authors
• MapleStory/Bowman
• MapleStory/Bowman/Builds
• MapleStory/FAQs
• MapleStory/Glossary
• MapleStory/Jobs
• MapleStory/Magician
• MapleStory/Monsters
• MapleStory/Quests
• [[MapleStory/Quests/Party Quests]]
• MapleStory/Thief
• MapleStory/Warrior

So, um, go wild! Garrett^Talk 06:19, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

Transwiki is now complete except for the histories of the above pages, which will have to be reproduced on their talk pages. Garrett^Talk 19:00, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

From the looks of it you just copied/pasted. Some of them were done by someone else before and weren't done properly. I'll copy paste them over. After looking at the MapleStory/Table of Contents, I realized that I missed MapleStory/Warrior. It has a very short history, so can you please transwiki it? Also, are you going to bring over the histories, or should I?

Thanks for all the help Garrett. If it weren't for you, we would probably never have transwikid anywhere. -- Prod 19:27, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

That page must be cursed or something, I didn't type it in properly again. MapleStory/Warrior/Weapons is the page that needs to be moved. -- Prod 23:31, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

Cursed or not, that one imported fine too. :) As you worked out the rest are just pasted; this is because Special:Import has a limit of ~1.4 MB. Garrett^Talk 05:52, 14 September 2006 (CDT)

To import the histories, do I just go through the history pages one by one and copy paste? or is there a program that does it? -- Prod 12:26, 15 September 2006 (CDT)

The GFDL isn't actually that picky. Special:Version merely uses "Magnus Manske, Brion Vibber, Lee Daniel Crocker, Tim Starling, Erik Möller, Gabriel Wicke, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason, Niklas Laxström and others". So unless you think the edit summaries contain useful information you could just pick out a handful of names (I think 8 is the maximum required) and list them on the talk page. Garrett^Talk 15:55, 15 September 2006 (CDT)

I added History pages to each of the pages and copied the histories from wikibooks. Put an archives link on each of the talk pages. Is that good enough, or is there anything else needed? -- Prod 18:20, 21 September 2006 (CDT)

Nah, looks fine. :) Garrett^Talk 21:03, 21 September 2006 (CDT)

Too much like Wikipedia?

I'm wondering if we're taking too much of a Wikipedia route with these infoboxes and writeups. They have nothing to do with the actual guide content, which is what people are here for. As described above, they take up valuable screen space that could be better used by an always-visible TOC.

Personally, I'd like main pages to have a brief blurb with a Wikipedia sidebox, directly followed by a permanently visible TOC. Infoboxes look nice and all, but really don't help those wanting to get straight to guide content. Those who want encyclopedic info or metadata about a game can visit its Wikipedia entry. Garrett^Talk 00:13, 19 August 2006 (CDT)

Erm...that's basically what we've already got? --DrBob (Talk) 10:40, 25 August 2006 (CDT)

I happen to agree with you, but for an entirely different reason. It's not that having this information at StrategyWiki is redundant--it's not--and it can be useful at times when distinguishing between versions comes in to play. The problem I have with the design of our main guide pages is that they are too confusing. For the newcomer, it may be difficult to tell that StrategyWiki is a place for game guides, when it appears at the superficial level that we are a repository for game info.

Our main pages should serve as an introduction to their respective guides, and that varies from game to game as all games have different elements and considerations. In supplement to the walkthrough itself, some guides may have full bestiaries and item lists, others may have time trial strategies for those who participate in speed runs. Our main pages should make it easy to find this key information quickly (though I don't think we should clutter main pages with a full table of contents--we have the top navigation and table of contents pages for that purpose). What do you guys think about this? Also, if you happen to agree with Garrett and I, we should perhaps collaborate on a sample introduction page. echelon 13:46, 19 August 2006 (CDT)

I can't see what you're getting at here Echelon. You haven't actually posted any suggestions, and I can't see any real improvements which could be made to our current accepted front page style. --DrBob (Talk) 10:40, 25 August 2006 (CDT)

Well lets be straightforward here, if you think there is a page that is "wrong" by design, redesign it at a test page, then elaborate on the changes so that we can examine if those changes in general are beneficial. No need to collaborate right now, if you think pages are wrong, either be bold and edit the pages, or make test pages that illustrate why your idea would be better. Too much talk slows stuff down :), make a demo, show it, then we'll find out what works best. -- Mason11987 ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 10:56, 27 August 2006 (CDT)

Yeah, you're both right. I am working on something, but I don't think I'll be done with it for a while. For now we should just continue working with what works and I'll present you with an alternate idea when I have something more concrete. echelon 11:22, 27 August 2006 (CDT)

Transwiki Fighting Game Moves Book?

Hi all. I've been watching the transwiki process of Maple Story. I have a project that I started earlier this year on wikibooks (that has since been moved to wikiknowledge) detailing all of the different moves for different 2D fighters. I pretty much completed Capcom and started working on SNK before I found strategywiki. Anyway, with blendmaster about to upload arcade buttons, I was thinking it would be a good time to consider transwiki-ing the book to here and making it much better. I have two concerns however. The easy one is: I don't really know how to transwiki something other than manually copying and pasting, and I don't know if there's a more formal process or something. The harder one is, given the layout that I used, will I be able to bring it over in the same format. That is, under Capcom I have each game, and also each character. Each game lists all of the moves for the different characters in that game, and each character lists all of the moves for that character in every game he/she appears in. It's easier if you check it out for yourselves and let me know your thoughts. As always, thanks! Procyon 20:21, 28 August 2006 (CDT) http://www.wikiknowledge.net/wiki/index.php?title=Fighting_Game_Moves

I don't know much about the transwiki process or its formalities, but I'll definitely support your desire to transwiki this book. I'd like to see it on StrategyWiki, and I think the potential for its growth is better here on SW as the book is relevant here. echelon 15:42, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

I'd say that would be good, but I think it should be transwikiid to a set of pages in a non-main namespace, as the main namespace is reserved for game guides, not more general guides such as this. Echelon, what thinks ye about this? --DrBob (Talk) 16:31, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

I don't have any problem simply copy/pasting the contents of the guide over to here. It's a bit of work, but it's mindless work, so there shouldn't be any problems. DrBob, I take it that you would prefer to see a "wiki/fighting moves guide/capcom/sf2" and "wiki/fighting moves guide/capcom/ryu" as opposed to a "wiki/capcom/sf2" and a "wiki/capcom/ryu"? The more than I think about it, the more your approach makes sense to me, and this way we could still have main guide pages for each individual game that link in to page(s) of the fighting moves guide where ever appropriate. My only other question would be: is there a better name for this than "fighting moves guide"? Thanks! Procyon 10:14, 5 September 2006 (CDT)

Thinking about it some more, it might make more sense to split it up, and put all the fighting moves for each game in a sub-page of the game's guide itself (e.g. "SF2/Fighting moves"). I don't know how much work that would be, though. --DrBob (Talk) 10:31, 5 September 2006 (CDT)

I'm cool with that, but what I'm not sure is where to put the "Ryu" page. For example, there will be a Street Fighter II page, a Street Fighter III page, and a Street Fighter Alpha page. These pages will obviously contain all the moves for all of the characters in each of those games. However, Ryu is a character in all three games, and one of the things that people commented about the original guide, was the cross referenced character pages, such as the page for Ryu which contained all of the moves for each of the games he belongs to, (so for the above example, SF2, SF3, and SFA.) It helped illustrate how each character changed and evolved across each revision. So the problem is, where does a "Ryu" page belong? I was thinking "Capcom/Ryu" but that would be a new rule where a company's characters could be subdirectoried off the company's category. I could make a "Capcom Characters" category that belongs to "Capcom" and then make "Ryu" a member of the "Capcom Characters" category, but that still begs the question: where does he live? Procyon 01:45, 6 September 2006 (CDT)

You could either have the SF3/Ryu page embedding the SF2/Ryu page ({{:Street Fighter II/Ryu}}), or have some text explaining that the moves are the same as in the previous game, with a link to the other page. --DrBob (Talk) 10:51, 6 September 2006 (CDT)

Have a look at Street Fighter II/Ryu to see how an entry might potentially look. I'm not satisfied with the ratio of the glyphs yet. The plus and the buttons may need to be scaled down (or the joystick motions scaled up.) Procyon 01:45, 6 September 2006 (CDT)