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

← December 2007 | January 2008 | February 2008 →

Infoboxes

Whats wrong?

[1]

What with the image part of the infobox? Lunar Knight (Talk to me + Contribs) 12:25, 5 January 2008 (CST)

3 Left Nav Bar additions

I was thinking that there are some very useful community areas that I don't think a lot of people see or know about. Sections such as: StrategyWiki:Requested guides, StrategyWiki:Promising Guide of the Month and StrategyWiki:Collaboration of the Month. I'm suggesting that we either 1) combine it with the current navigation, or 2) create a separate, smaller navbar section lower (beneath the donate button perhaps; a split similar to Wikipedia's). I rarely go to those pages simply because they are only linked to during community discussions, when there are no CotMs or PGotMs, and on the Community Portal. Since those are major areas of our community (especially requested guides), we should be advertising them more! --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 15:29, 11 January 2008 (CST)

The pages are rarely used, and don't really warrant addition to the sidebar. I can live with "Requested guides" but the other two do not belong there. -- Prod (Talk) 15:36, 11 January 2008 (CST)
Rarely used (for the reason that no one sees it), but extremely vital to our community. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 16:08, 11 January 2008 (CST)
I think Requested guides should be there but I'm not sure about the others. But if we do put requested guides there, can we please edit the template at the bottom as many people are getting it wrong.--The preceding signed comment was added by Rocky (talk • contribs). 16:57, 11 January 2008 (CST)
I just updated it. Well I think the other two should be there because its not just for sysops, especially 'cuz most of us deal with cleanup rather than content so we miss guides that others see a lot of... Thus, not many guides have been voted upon (also probably because we don't have a lot of collaboration or massive guide improvement across many guides). --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 19:35, 11 January 2008 (CST)
User:Notmyhandle's idea is excellent. Advantages include: existing members who have spare time will be drawn in; even better, some players who are googling for material about game X will be more likley to find StrategyWiki, and some will think "Hey, I can do that". Philcha 17:46, 12 January 2008 (CST)
I would be OK with adding a link to the requested guides page, but I think voting for CotMs and PGotMs should be something only more active members should do (as they've got the best idea of what's going on), and so I don't think the main menu is an appropriate place for the CotM and PGotM pages. --DrBob (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2008 (CST)
I always organize those three together as a group based on what their content looks like (requests/support/comments), and so perhaps we would like custom header nav that links to each of the three? I'm just trying to make it easier to find them first off (I have to search through random links in community portal and such, and often don't even remember them until the following month when we have a delayed CotM or PGotM when the link to the page appears...). We need to utilize these better for our community - do we have them linked in the welcome message? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 19:59, 12 January 2008 (CST)

More flexible guide structure needed

This arose out of a not particularly friendly exchange initiated by Ryan Schmidt (see User talk:Philcha and User talk:Ryan Schmidt). Ryan insists that articles about turn-based strategy games must be structured under 2 main headings, "Getting started" and "Walkthrough". He also jawboned someone else into re-assembling into 1 long page (Master of Orion II/Getting Started) what I'd written as 3 sub-pages of "Getting started". This is simply not adequate for a complex TBS game like MOO II or Civilization III. And this is not just my opinion - I've edited bits of Total Annihilation and Starcraft, and the structure I found before I started was not just "Getting started" and "Walkthrough" (and I haven't changed it, only built on it).

My reasons for thinking a rigid framework of "Getting started" and "Walkthrough" is not enough for such complex games are:

  • Walkthrough" generally means mission / level "solutions", and using it in a wider sense will confuse new readers. It's quite unsuitable for games that do not have pre-defined missions / levels. It's even worse for games that have both pre-defined missions / levels and one-off skirmishes / standalone games (e.g. Total Annihilation and Starcraft), which need both mission / level "solutions" and a general strategy guide. In such cases the general strategy guide should come first, as it will explain points that are relevant to the mission / level "solutions", e.g. how to pump production so that you get the key units in time, or how to win battles with minimal losses (I hate limited-forces missions!).
  • "Getting started" can be a pretty complex topic, and Master of Orion II illustrates this in several ways:
    • The risk of malfunctions under Win 2000/XP/Vista is so high that the odds favour going straight to the MS-DOS version under DOSBox.
    • The MS-DOS version under DOSBox is the preferred option for multi-player, and makes it possible to use a patch and some mods developed by a very savvy group of enthusiasts.
    • Starting a single game requires a lot of decisions which the prospective player can't even understand with having an overview of the game's basic principles first. For example custom race design is very important in MOO II - and in more recent games such as Empire Earth. But that's incomprehensible unless you have a basic idea of how economies and research work in such games.
    • In a game as complex as this I think the main page should link to the "game overview" page so that potential players can look and see if they fancy the game enough to acquire and install the game and then learn all the principles.

So the sort of structure I think is needed is something like:

  • Main page (with link to "game overview" page if appropriate)
  • ToC
  • Getting started, possibly split into:
    • Downloading and installing
    • Game overview
    • Starting a game, possibly split into sub-pages:
      • Single-player
      • Multi-player
  • Strategy and tactics. Optional, as some games consist only of fixed levels / missions. May be split into many sub-pages, but the structure depends on the game. Common topics for TBS and RTS will include:
    • Race design
    • Initial build and research orders (which may partially depend on race design or choice - in Starcraft the 3 races differ some much that their build orders are very different - and critical if you're planning to rush.
    • Managing the economy
    • Rushing, raiding, porcing / turtling, etc.
    • Combat unit design, if the game has that option (MOO II has it in spades; so do a few other futuristic TBS games; and IIRC so do a few RTS games).
    • Knowing when to expand, when to keep making units at the current level and when to tech up.
    • Combat tactics - which will often have a lot of sub-pages.
  • Walkthroughs. Optional, as some games have no fixed levels / missions.
    • Solution to each specific level / mission. Philcha 17:41, 12 January 2008 (CST)
Let me first make it very clear that there is no way we can reorganise things to the extent that the "Walkthrough" page disappears completely; too much depends on it. However, I appreciate that the concept of a "walkthrough" doesn't necessarily map well to an RTS or TBS, and I've thought about this problem before. The best solution I've come up with for an RTS/TBS game which doesn't have predefined missions or levels is to have a short walkthrough page which explains how to start a game (whether it be a random scenario, or what) and gives directions for first establishing your team in the game, before linking to the various strategies you might need (i.e. linking to the "Strategy" page). This means that the "Getting Started" page shouldn't have much/any information on it about starting a game, and should just link to the "Walkthrough" page. If the game does have predefined missions, then the "Walkthrough" page should link to walkthroughs for them as you say. Other than that, I'm generally in agreement with what you say, and I'm hopeful that we can make this work and get some good guidelines for future guides put in place. --DrBob (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2008 (CST)
Just to clarify, I only was pushing for the "Beginning the game" subpage to be moved to "Getting Started", not every subpage under that heading. Both of the pages "Getting Started" and "Walkthrough" are integral parts of our navigation templates, although they certainly don't have to be well-developed, they just have to be there in some way/shape/form (even a redirect would be fine, really). Your format works well for your game, and if you wish to use it, go ahead as it still integrates the key pages that must be present (namely the Main Page, ToC, Getting Started, and Walkthrough; although a Controls page would be beneficial as well). I also agree that the structure of these types of games really need fleshing out, but I'm not being a horse's hind end on the entirety of the guide structure, just the very basic required components. Also, I edited out my siggy from your initial comment, please do not use it in your texts, but just a simple name or perhaps the {{user}} template. --Skizzerz_Scissors.png Safety Skizzerz {{ Talk | Contribs | Spel Chek™ | VFG | RTFM }} 20:12, 12 January 2008 (CST)
Indeed it was my choice to subpage the random content from the mainpage to Getting Started, and it looks like all of it applies (all basic concepts that don't relate to specific parts of the game, and since each section is so small and perhaps isolated from future subpages with a larger scope (i.e. units) it was in my best interests to promote slight redundancy. Considering the getting started page acts as both a ToC header and an actual page full of content, "game overview", "beginning", "installation", etc. all fit under that category. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 20:26, 12 January 2008 (CST)
Re length and internal structure of parts of Master of Orion II/Getting Started, we seem to have 2 votes for keeping it in 1 page ( Safety Skizzerz and Notmyhandle; and 2 for splitting it into sub-pages (the other one is Rocky, see User talk:Philcha). I've already stated the reasons for my view, so I'll let that part of the debate run.
I'm seriously concerned about DrBob's comment that "there is no way we can reorganise things to the extent that the 'Walkthrough' page disappears completely; too much depends on it." The word "Walkthrough" has a specific meaning that is inappropriate and confusing for a game like MOO II. It looks like StrategyWiki has boxed itslef in with the way it has configured WikiMedia or the templates currently in use. I've done quite a lot of software development and in this situation the usual action is to fix the root problem and convert content / data where necessary, before the size of the problem gets larger. I don't have any previous experience with configuring WikiMedia, but I'd be willing to have a go if someone will provide the necessary info - config files and templates that are fundamental to StrategyWiki, how these lin together, and about 10 guides that I should use for testing on my own PC - I have plenty of spare disk space and can set up a test bed on my PC (I've developed in PHP, so that's a start).
As a short-term fix I'd suggest for games like MOO II a pro forma "Walkthrough" section that simply redirects to "Strategy and Tactics". Then there's probably a bot that can identify "Walkthrough" sections that only redirect (it might even be possible to use a standard link checker such as Xenu) and delete them after reconfiguration has removed the site's dependence on them.
PS I'm all in favour of standard layouts, provided they can support the full range of content. Philcha 04:51, 13 January 2008 (CST)
The problem is not just in the fact that many templates depend on the "Walkthrough" page existing, but also in the fact that all the documentation would have to be rewritten, and everybody would have to relearn everything. That's not a small thing to ask people, and if there's a way to fit a "Walkthrough" page in nicely with RTS/TBS games, I think it's worth pursuing. What are your thoughts on the rest of my proposal for using the "Walkthrough" page in RTS/TBS guides? --DrBob (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2008 (CST)
I appreciate the re-learning and conversion may be non-trivial, but the experience of the whole IT world indicates that it's better to face such problems before they grow even bigger.
Coming back to (temporary) work-rounds, is there any problem about creating a "Strategy and Tactics" "chapter" at the same level as "Getting Started" and "Walkthrough"? If there is no problem, that's what I'd prefer - and for missionless games like MOO II the "Walkthrough" page should just link to "Strategy and Tactics".
If having a "Strategy and Tactics" "chapter" is a problem, then something needs to be done about Total Annihilation and Starcraft), which both have a "Strategy and Tactics" "chapter". Starcraft currently has both "Strategy and Tactics" and "Walkthrough", which I think is right because Starcraft has missions; and IMO "Strategy and Tactics" rightly precedes "Walkthrough" because the later missions are complex and require plenty of economic management and combat techniques. Total Annihilation has no "Walkthrough", which I think is a mistake because Total Annihilation has missions. As I pointed out above, I did not create the current struture of the Total Annihilation and Starcraft guides, and I think that's evidence that someone else was unhappy with putting general guidance in "Walkthrough". Philcha 07:29, 13 January 2008 (CST)
I have to agree with what DrBob said earlier on the walkthrough being a rundown of the basics of how the gameplay/strategy works. Personally, I would put everything that goes into installation and setup (before the game is to the point of even running) in “Getting started”. Especially for a game that sounds like it has some fun and/or required downloadable stuff and is played over the internet.
In walkthrough I would put game setup (choosing your race and setting variables, ect) or go over general beginning strategies that are the foundation of becoming a decent player. The things veteran players do automatically without thought but could take a while for a beginner to pick up. These strategies would be things that are universal between the races like “how to efficiently produce and manage resources”. If anything is “advanced” enough in the subpages to make no sense to a novice then these top category links are perfect for clarifications or quick summaries of whats below.
Do note that while large amounts of a guide haven’t been subpaged they normally live in places like the walkthrough page. Worst case scenario the still unorganized info could hang out there and I bet it will be obvious how to use the page once everything has a home (hmm, what’s left? Does that need explaining? Is it really clear what Those sections are?). --Zaiqukaj 06:46, 13 January 2008 (CST)
You can have whatever headings you want (you don't even need Walkthrough in the Table of Contents, you can replace it with "Strategy and Tactics" and just make Walkthrough redirect there. The only requirement is that the page exists, not that it has to have anything in it besides a redirect. As for Getting Started, don't assume that I voted for having it long. I just wanted the Table of Contents-type thing originally in Getting Started moved to the real Table of Contents and the contents of "Beginning the game" moved to "Getting Started" because the two page names are synonymous with each other. If you don't like it that long, go ahead and split it up into sub-pages. As for config fixes, everything format-wise is done at the wiki level, there is nothing that dictates how the guides are layed out that's actually in the filesystem. --Skizzerz_Scissors.png Safety Skizzerz {{ Talk | Contribs | Spel Chek™ | VFG | RTFM }} 08:52, 13 January 2008 (CST)
Zaiqukaj has done a good job of re-iterating and explaining my point, and I'm still not sure why you haven't directly addressed this idea, Philcha. There's no problem with creating extra pages such as "Strategy and Tactics" pages, but we can't remove the "Walkthrough" page. The redirect on Total Annihilation's walkthrough page was actually created by me, so that until someone wrote walkthroughs for the missions in the game, people reading the guide would at least be able to easily find the strategy information, instead of being presented with a big red link for "Walkthrough". That redirect can – and should – be deleted as soon as someone writes some proper walkthroughs for the game's missions. --DrBob (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2008 (CST)

Simplification

I think this topic has gotten out of hand mainly because of misunderstanding on Philcha's part. Here's the section you should take a look at: [[StrategyWiki:Guide/Organization#Walkthrough]]. I think you should be able to easily understand that the Walkthrough section is a standardization policy of SW's and its content definitely varies from game to game, and DEFINITELY does not contain an entire game's walkthrough. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 19:58, 13 January 2008 (CST)

Thanks. From my point of view the wording of [[StrategyWiki:Guide/Organization#Walkthrough]] indicates that it was designed for e.g. FPS or RPG without taking much account of TBS or of the skirmish and multi-player aspects aspects of RTS (especially those that generate random maps, e.g. Age of Empires, Empire Earth). But I noticed the words "The redirect on Total Annihilation's walkthrough page was actually created by me, so that until someone wrote walkthroughs for the missions in the game, people reading the guide would at least be able to easily find the strategy information, instead of being presented with a big red link for 'Walkthrough'" in DrBob's post of 10:59, 13 January 2008 (CST) under More flexible guide structure needed. I think that implies that permanently redirecting "Walkthrough" to "Strategy and Tactics" is OK for games that have no pre-defined missions, and that games that have both skirmish / multi-player and pre-defined missions should have both "Strategy and Tactics" and "Walkthrough" - which is what I thought would be a good approach. Philcha 05:15, 14 January 2008 (CST)
No, it's definitely NOT a permanent thing, as DrBob said in his post - after you actually create pages for the levels, then we can create suitable content for the walkthrough page to help link to the various ways the game is set up (by you or whoever). Please see StarCraft's ToC for campaign split ups. A page for general strategy is fine. The "walkthrough" section of any guide exists for larger guides mainly to introduce the walkthrough and explain how the walkthrough is split up and written (thus the walkthrough section is more effective when it is created at the end of the guide writing process, otherwise it is quite lacking). For no predefined missions whatsoever, then yes the Walkthrough section will either become a general strategy page (debatable) or a place for redirection (links to whatever subpages). Strategy and Tactics is definitely a good section to have, I don't see why you can't add it, did anyone ever stop you from doing that part? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 06:10, 14 January 2008 (CST)

Sections on Halo

Maybe see if you guys can strike up a partnership with Halopedia in the same manner you guys have one with Bulbapedia for Pokemon stuff. Just a suggestion. --Arrow Windwhistler (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2008 (CST)

I'll contact them (I know a few of the admins there), but I can't guarantee any results -- getting partnerships with Wikia wikis are iffy at best. --Skizzerz_Scissors.png Safety Skizzerz {{ Talk | Contribs | Spel Chek™ | VFG | RTFM }} 15:26, 14 January 2008 (CST)
Make sure to keep the StrategyWiki:Guide/Partnerships page updated. --DrBob (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2008 (CST)

It turns out they already have walkthroughs for all the games, so this partnership wouldn't really work out, as we don't have anything that they don't have (I DID talk to some of the admins of Halopedia on IRC, they came to that conclusion as well). On the plus side, they're GFDL... --Skizzerz_Scissors.png Safety Skizzerz {{ Talk | Contribs | Spel Chek™ | VFG | RTFM }} 17:38, 23 January 2008 (CST)

Total Annihilation Units

I've had disussions (see User talk:Notmyhandle) about the layout and content of Total Annihilation/Units. We started from the idea that: there's no point in listing ARM and Core units separately since over 80% are the same apart from a few % difference in cost and / or performance; and combining them makes it easier to describe any differences that are significant. I've also added material on the strengths and weaknesses of some. I'd be grateful if people could review this and leave comments at my Talk page. My main concern is the potential length of the article. I see no point in just listing all the units as that tells the reader nothing apart from their names. The options I can see for dealing with this (other ideas welcome!) are:

The other question I'd like comments on is whether to list on a separate sub-page the units added by the Core Contingency expansion pack (about a dozen per faction IIRC), or combine with the original units and simply note "this is a Core Contingency unit". Philcha 03:27, 17 January 2008 (CST)

The expansion pack elements will be covered in a separate page under the expansion pack (once the expansion pack page is created, we'll help create an adequate ToC to reflect navigation between the main game and expansion pack). For an example, see Diablo II/Table of Contents. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 19:12, 18 January 2008 (CST)
Thanks for clearing up the expansion pack issue.
I'd still like some comments on my question about unit descriptions for OTA. Philcha 11:01, 21 January 2008 (CST)
  • I would normally put Units under an Appendix, but given a focus on adding tactical information for the units moving them to the appropriate section makes sense. I'm currently working on getting together some of the unit stats to fill out the existing information (which may also help with comparisons of the units between ARM/CORE; thankfully with a game that's been so thoroughly modded, the tools to pull the stats straight out of the game are readily available). Of course, I'm also trying to figure out which stats are actually useful, because no one needs the full list of stats just formatted and displayed here (obviously a ship is either a floater or underwater, we don't need the stats to tell us that). -Vizeroth

Header Nav |custom revamp

After noticing quite a few usages of the |custom parameter of {{Header Nav}} in guides for things such as arcade fighting games, I've come to the conclusion that this parameter is badly thought-out. The pages in a guide typically aren't going to each have different custom page lists in the HN — they're all going to have the same page list, so it's pointless to have to include it each time. I propose that we replace all such usages of |custom with functionality in {{Header Nav}} to transclude a standard page per-guide (if it exists) which would provide the custom links. So for example, we'd put all the custom links on "Guide name/Guide Navigation" (CamelCase to differentiate it from normal guide pages; suggestions for a better name welcome), and the HN would transclude that. This would allow us to get rid of templates like "{{Guide name Nav}}", and potentially allow us to get rid of the |custom parameter completely, unless anyone can think of a legitimate use for having different links in the HN for each page. --DrBob (talk) 07:05, 20 January 2008 (CST)

Check out MapleStory for something that uses something entirely different for the |custom in the Header Nav for each section of pages. But I do agree that it would be better if we could move some of this guide-specific stuff out of the template namespace (like the HN links, and those MapleStory availability charts). --Skizzerz_Scissors.png Safety Skizzerz {{ Talk | Contribs | Spel Chek™ | VFG | RTFM }} 09:51, 20 January 2008 (CST)
Of course, even MapleStory can be adapted to use that central navigation, it would just take quite a few #ifeqs. --Skizzerz_Scissors.png Safety Skizzerz {{ Talk | Contribs | Spel Chek™ | VFG | RTFM }} 09:56, 20 January 2008 (CST)
It's difficult to answer this in context since there are two parallel conversations taking place here and on StrategyWiki_talk:Move_lists_project, but I feel that this problem affects more than just fighting game guides specifically. I think one of the points that WretchedSpawn made to me that resonated most with me was that certain types of game guides, namely Fighting, Puzzle, and Sports, do not need, nor contain a Walkthrough. And yet we know that we have, as DrBob points out, architected the site around the Walkthrough page which in truth is needed for a majority of games. The problem is, we don't deal with the exceptions very well, and we try to shoehorn them into our format.
Now I'm not proposing that we change our format, but I do think the flexibility of our guide format does need to be examined (as it was raised above, although for a slightly different, and predominantly misunderstood reason.) I would like to propose that Header Nav remain as is, and that we make a few exception navs for, say, Fighting, Puzzle, and Sports games. The navs for Fighting games can point to BASEPAGE, TOC, Characters, and Moves. The navs for Puzzle games can point to BASEPAGE, TOC, and Rules. The navs for Sports games can point to BASEPAGE, TOC, and Teams. Something along these lines that reflects a more intuitive navigation that users might be inclined to be seeking.
Now, obviously, the Walkthrough page should exist for every guide that we create, but it can easily be redirected to one of these alternate genre page names, so the page won't disappear from usage, and the alternate genre games don't stray from our required usage. This is something that I would like the members of the site to consider, and see if it wouldn't be terribly difficult to develop. Procyon (Talk) 14:23, 21 January 2008 (CST)
That shouldn't be hard at all to develop, it would just be hard to get used to :P (after all, we USED to have a different nav for each game, then bundled them all up into the AGN, then renamed that to the HN, and now we're talking about splitting it up by genre now... seems perfectly normal given past history). Although, we could probably change the links automatically by testing what category the game belongs to -- if it belongs to a certain category, then certain links are displayed custom-fit for that genre. --Skizzerz_Scissors.png Safety Skizzerz {{ Talk | Contribs | Spel Chek™ | VFG | RTFM }} 16:25, 21 January 2008 (CST)
That's an even better idea Skiz! You could test for it, but if a game belongs to multiple genres (rare, but possible), you end up in stick situations. I would say it's just as easy to feed it by optional parameter, so that you have something like {{Header Nav|game=Street Fighter II|genre=Fighting}}, which would automatically replace the Walkthrough link with something more appropriate. Again, I'm not suggesting that we do away with the Walkthrough page at all, it has to exist, but there's no reason why it can't be a #REDIRECT to something more purposeful. Procyon (Talk) 16:51, 21 January 2008 (CST)
Well, I'd be using a #switch statement except testing categories if we do decide to go along with that, so the first genre it matches is what links are displayed or the default if none are found. The reason why I mentioned the automatic way is because of the fact that it's entirely automatic and doesn't require user input from every subpage. The extension is CategoryTests btw, I'll revise it soon to allow testing of other pages :) --Skizzerz_Scissors.png Safety Skizzerz {{ Talk | Contribs | Spel Chek™ | VFG | RTFM }} 17:52, 21 January 2008 (CST)
I won't support the use of automated nav's unless it is as flexible as hardcoded edits. What about games that have cross elements, like a puzzle game with characters or what not? Or a fighting game with a walkthrough (can anyone say Mortal Kombat: Armageddon?)? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 19:01, 21 January 2008 (CST)

The automation by genre would be in addition to the custom links that DrBob suggested so that each game can have all the important links in the header nav and have it custom-fit to each game. Also, I added that functionality to the CategoryTests extension, it can now test other pages. --Skizzerz_Scissors.png Safety Skizzerz {{ Talk | Contribs | Spel Chek™ | VFG | RTFM }} 20:34, 21 January 2008 (CST)

The HN is used on 99% of the pages on the wiki, and should be as simple as possible. For the original topic of this thread, I would say we use Game/NAV, but keep the |custom parameter. If we do that, I'd suggest getting rid of those navs instead of hacking up the NAV page with #if's. The other option is using 'BASEPAGENAME instead. That way pages below MapleStory/Jobs get MapleStory/Jobs/NAV; MapleStory/Quests would get MapleStory/Quests/NAV. I am very much against the HN depending on the main page. If someone edits the ToC in a big guide, it affects the job queue. Main pages are the most visible and therefore major vandal targets, and that would actually affect us.
As for the other genre specific things, the simpler the better. I'm mostly against it in general, since Walkthrough should be synonymous with guide. That's why Getting Started is optional, if it can all go under walkthrough, you don't even need the GS section. -- Prod (Talk) 23:32, 13 February 2008 (CST)

Two features - do we have them, and if not can we get them?

First, I've just noticed that on Wikipedia there's a new option in your preferences that will put section edit links in for section 0 (the header). Can we can get those for SW, either as an option or standard for everyone? It would make things a lot faster for editors who just need to edit the intro, as well as save a considerable amount of bandwidth over time as we wouldn't have to download and then re-upload the entire article (multiple times if you count previews) just to change a small section of the article.

Second, the file upload page has a link to Special:MultipleUpload, though it is red. Can that feature be activated? It would be a huge time saver for those of us who have to upload a lot of images at once. If not, that sentence should probably be removed from the page. - Koweja 18:25, 20 January 2008 (CST)

I believe the extension is currently not compatible with the new version of mediawiki (correct me if I'm wrong), so we must wait. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 20:26, 20 January 2008 (CST)
Reply to first part: actually, it uses MORE bandwidth to only edit a section, as the entire page text must first be loaded, and then cropped to only that section. And upon the save the section has to be re-inserted into the page text and the entirety of it saved again, so no bandwidth saved at all there. I'll look into seeing how we can get options for that though.
Reply to the second part: MultipleUpload is broken for 1.11+, so all we can do is wait (I'll take it off the upload form text tomorrow, g2g to bed now >_>). --Skizzerz_Scissors.png Safety Skizzerz {{ Talk | Contribs | Spel Chek™ | VFG | RTFM }} 22:19, 20 January 2008 (CST)
Okay, I though the software saved each section of an article as separate entries in the database and just put them all together when needed. Good to know. Thanks for the fast replies.- Koweja 23:23, 20 January 2008 (CST)
If only we got paid for them ='( --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 18:54, 21 January 2008 (CST)

Ok, I've created a small script repository, one of the scripts is that edit-the-first-section-link modified for use on StrategyWiki. --Skizzerz_Scissors.png Safety Skizzerz {{ Talk | Contribs | Spel Chek™ | VFG | RTFM }} 15:41, 22 January 2008 (CST)

Holy crap, that search script is awesome. Thanks! - Koweja 18:41, 22 January 2008 (CST)
The MultipleUpload extension has been updated to work with 1.11+ (with one minor patch), so it'll probably be re-enabled next we update MediaWiki. --Skizzerz_Scissors.png Safety Skizzerz {{ Talk | Contribs | Spel Chek™ | VFG | RTFM }} 20:14, 14 February 2008 (CST)
Updated. -- Prod (Talk) 22:47, 14 February 2008 (CST)

Featured guides

Hey, I just wanted to see if you think we're ready to promote two of our featured guide requests. Red and Blue as well as Midway look really slick and have lots of support. echelontalk 23:43, 21 January 2008 (CST)

If you or any sysop feels that a guide is ready to be featured, just do it ^_^ Here's a step-by-step process:
  1. Move the featured nomination section from StrategyWiki:Featured guides/Current requests to StrategyWiki:Featured guides/Successful requests
  2. Add a blurb to StrategyWiki:Featured Guide (follow the directions in comments in editing mode)
  3. Add {{featured}} to the /Table of Contents sub-page of the featured guides.
  4. Change the num parameter to 5 in the Header Nav on the guide's main page.
Skizzerz_Scissors.png Safety Skizzerz {{ Talk | Contribs | Spel Chek™ | VFG | RTFM }} 11:59, 22 January 2008 (CST)
Decided to get off my lazy and do it myself ^_^ --Skizzerz_Scissors.png Safety Skizzerz {{ Talk | Contribs | Spel Chek™ | VFG | RTFM }} 17:18, 23 January 2008 (CST)

Glitch in new version of image upload

When uploading a new version of an image, the warning script blocks you from submitting unless you add categories. I'm able to get around this, but I bet others are not (I have an add-on for Firefox that lets me disable javascript on the fly). Any way we can fix this?--Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 16:55, 22 January 2008 (CST)

Yes, you put a category into the image summary (actually, only "[[Category:" is needed). The categories aren't applied anyway on re-uploads. --Skizzerz_Scissors.png Safety Skizzerz {{ Talk | Contribs | Spel Chek™ | VFG | RTFM }} 16:26, 23 January 2008 (CST)
Good to know, but it's still a useless prompt... I hate the bug reporting process =/ --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 22:03, 23 January 2008 (CST)

Halo 4 rumeors

There is some rumors going around that bungie is making halo 4 they broke off with Microsoft so they mite have to make a new halo also if they do its not going to be for the 360 cause they want to get back at them so people looking for a good ps3 game look no further its supost to come out in summer 2009 VvarlockVvarlock

Nobody cares. This place is for discussion about StrategyWiki, not for random game chat. If you want to chat about games, go to ABXY. --Skizzerz_Scissors.png Safety Skizzerz {{ Talk | Contribs | Spel Chek™ | VFG | RTFM }} 11:57, 24 January 2008 (CST)
Or IRC!. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 12:27, 24 January 2008 (CST)

Series template sub-series listing "policy" needed

After the discussion on Template talk:Mario, I was about to add all the series to the template and then I just became really conflicted as to what to do. Do we want every sub-series listed there and on other game series templates, or do we have some way to differentiate between them? Right now there are 8 series (and Luigi, is Missing, Kart, Paper, Party, RPG, Super Strikers, and Tennis). If there is a sub-series, it should be listed right? But like, Paper Mario us a sub-series of RPG so you might think oh we don't need to include it... Or like Super Strikers and Tennis - I had this idea that we could congregate those into a category called "Mario Sports" which would include all of the miscellaneous games (Baseball, Basketball, DDR? lol). I dunno what to do. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 18:16, 24 January 2008 (CST)

Uh, why not just include them all? It's not like we're putting anything under the series nav anyway, so there is really nothing to worry about in terms of a huge nav. If things get too big, we can start listing categories instead of games, but I don't think it'll ever get to that point. --Skizzerz_Scissors.png Safety Skizzerz {{ Talk | Contribs | Spel Chek™ | VFG | RTFM }} 20:47, 24 January 2008 (CST)
For any problem like this, the solution has always (unofficially) been to not include recursively. In this case, this would mean only linking to the categories which are direct subcategories of Category:Mario. That's what I've always done. That whole category is a bit of a mess though, so you might want to re-think all the subcategories anyway. --DrBob (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2008 (CST)

Move Lists Project

I'm wondering if maybe someone can write up something for the Move List Projects page. Currently there's no info there and I think it can use maybe a guideline on how the Move Lists work. (It confuses me... I was thinking about working on something for Smash Bros. pages, but I don't know how the standards).--DukeRuckleyTalk | Contribs 16:45, 25 January 2008 (CST)

I know that this will sound ridiculously ironic, but as good as I feel I am at writing video game guides, I don't feel that great about writing writing guides. But I suppose I really should accept responsibility for this task, since I'm one of the principal architects. I'll see if I can force myself to stop adding game content and take some time to write this. Off-hand, I would not think that Smash Bros., as a series, is really applicable to the fighting games move list project since there aren't any joystick motions you have to learn, just direction and button combinations. However, that may just be me being short-sighted, and they may lend themselves very nicely to one another. Procyon (Talk) 18:05, 25 January 2008 (CST)
If Smash Bros. doesn't really fit the mold, then that's fine. Like I said, I'm not sure exactly what is involved with the movelists and (more importantly, I think) how it's organized. Take your time on it too... It's not really something extremely important right now anyway.--DukeRuckleyTalk | Contribs 20:03, 25 January 2008 (CST)
Indeed, smash bros's system is very simple, however it could be set up the same way as other fighting games. Although there are no combos, they could still be laid out in the same table format - however SSBM has additional details that are very useful and I don't think converting it would do any good at all. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 03:40, 26 January 2008 (CST)
Retrieved from "https://strategywiki.org/w/index.php?title=StrategyWiki_talk:Community_Portal/2008/January&oldid=692336"