From StrategyWiki, the video game walkthrough and strategy guide wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 current staff lounge page.

March 2009 | April 2009 | May 2009




Ads in IE

Melon was saying she was noticing a weird ad in Recent Changes, so screencapped it here. It pops up like that out of the banner and stays at the top of the screen even when scrolling down the page. It lasts for about two seconds before going away. It will do it every time you reload the page as well. - najzereT 16:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are two more I saw while checking the page in IE: Red Faction and Wanted --~Vizeroth · (c)~-- 20:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Here's another really terrible one. In either state it's got moving text and flashing images and whatnot. GarrettTalk 07:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Whenever you find an ad that's obstructing the page, please view the HTML source of that page and copy the ad's URL (it will be the src attribute of the iframe tag). Without that, it will be difficult to get those ads off StrategyWiki. --Skizzerz 00:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed that if you scroll over the ad at the top, it'll pop out. If you click anywhere on the screen it'll go away, so it's not actually too terrible. In any case, here's the iframe tag for the Naruto ad:
<iframe id='a1db687b' name='a1db687b' 
framespacing='0' frameborder='no' scrolling='no' width='728' height='90'>
<a href='' target='_blank'>
<img src='' 
border='0' alt='' /></a></iframe>
--DukeRuckleyTalk | Contribs 01:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
<iframe id='a1db687b' name='a1db687b'
framespacing='0' frameborder='no' scrolling='no' width='728' height='90'>
<a href='' target='_blank'>
<img src='' border='0' alt='' /></a></iframe>
I was messing around a bit and found this one, for some Wrestlemania game. My main problem with these is that they obscure anything on the screen in the area, including other windows.--~Vizeroth · (c)~-- 00:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
<iframe id='a1db687b' name='a1db687b'
framespacing='0' frameborder='no' scrolling='no' width='728' height='90'>
<a href='' target='_blank'>
<img src='' border='0' alt='' /></a></iframe>
Hard log in with The Spirit (now on Blu-Ray and DVD) hovering over the input boxes. :P - najzereT 15:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Preload categorization

Hey, in attempting to add the preload templates to the Templates category, I realized that they are not being transcluded, but copy/pasted, so <noinclude> tags don't have any effect. This put <noinclude>[[Category:Templates]]</noinclude> into the text box when you clicked one of the preload buttons. If it's important enough to get category tags on these templates, then I guess it requires a fix in whatever's grabbing that text. It already doesn't copy/paste the <includeonly> tags surrounding the text, so hopefully it's not too hard to make it only take what's between them. The four preload templates are sitting in Special:UncategorizedTemplates right now. Thanks, - najzereT 19:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It might also be nice to have a series preload, since I know I usually end up pulling up {{Series}} in another table and copy/pasting it over when I'm trying to create one. --~Vizeroth · (c)~-- 19:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, nevermind about the preloads. Prod has informed me that preload is a MediaWiki command, so I looked it up and it says right on this page that you can't categorize them. Apparently others want to categorize these as well, because there is an open bug report on it. Okay, this thread is now about the Series page preload. :) - najzereT 06:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

A task that I need help with

With the recent creation of Boxing, it reminds me of what I started here: User:RobJ1981#To_do_list (see 3 through 20). Many games share names with categories. Back in the days of Atari, it was commonplace just to name a game something basic. Does anyone have time to help me fix redirects and so on? Many retro gamers are out there, so we shouldn't assume all those games will never have articles. RobJ1981 20:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess we should first decide whether to make disambiguation pages or just use the category for that. If we decide to use disambiguation pages, then we need a format for them that we can stick to. In Boxing I used both {{disambig}} and {{game disambig}}, but maybe category should go in the list? Or the disambig template could be changed to accept some parameters for different situations so it can be combined into one sentence? Also, it's really hard to tell whether the games are just other versions, or their own separate game. Hopefully someone with more knowledge can help sort these out as they go up, if it's decided that we go with disambiguation pages. - najzereT 21:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
We rarely use disambiguation (it's up to 3 now) so I don't think it's worth even having ANY disambiguation. The game name should belong to the first game with the name, and have a few disambigs at the top. Especially with the genres, I doubt they'd have a game named Boxing and it not be found in the boxing category. -- Prod (Talk) 04:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Future release guidelines

It seems that StarCraft II is a case where guidelines for future releases seem needed. In particular:

  • There's an editor claiming that some units shouldn't be listed because they aren't shown on the website. However, one of the units was mentioned by name on said website, even if there isn't an explicit page for it.
  • There is a battle report showing the units in question. While it doesn't go through the entire tech tree, it shows enough information about how the game works and is played.
  • One of the StarCraft wikis is using third-party sources, and almost has a complete set of information about the units. Even if the information listed would be inaccurate by the time of release, it's in a state where it's easily corrected simply by changing values.

I'm considering restoring some information declared as "unconfirmed", since I have reason to believe that it's going to be accurate. Even if the official website isn't updated all the way, there are reliable third party sources that described the units in question and given quite a good insight in how the game will appear.

To prevent future incidents, I think we'll need to establish some soft guidelines on handling future games. --Sigma 7 04:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think StarCraft II is an almost unique case... most games under development are usually kept under wraps for the most part until release, and I don't think I've seen a game that was as open in development and closely scrutinized by the public as this one. That said, Blizzard will most likely handle their future releases (Diablo 3, etc) in this way and there's good reason to believe that some other developers (Valve comes to mind) will be adopting this method as well, so a bit of a guideline is probably in order. With StarCraft II, the thing's nearing beta now so we shouldn't be seeing the dramatic unit cuts and buff/nerfs like in earlier development—so one of the (admittedly rather dubious) criteria for adding information could be that a game be reasonably perceived to be in beta. Also, with much-publicized games, articles by reliable third parties where they claim to have gotten information directly from developers could be used. Just some thoughts. Baejung92 (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Many games (especially from Blizzard) are just as likely to have somewhat fluid changes after release. I think we can all handle changes as they come, and it's better to have information that needs to be updated than to redact information just because it's unofficial on a game that is unreleased. I don't think we're likely to see a lot of companies working this way, but Blizzard always has. Fortunately, they don't develop a large number of games, but what they do are very popular and people are certainly looking for information wherever they may find it.--~Vizeroth · (c)~-- 22:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
As long as we use "reliable sources" we should be fine. IIRC, even stuff that was mentioned on the website was later changed. This guide is actively maintained, so I think having beta information is fine (since it's relatively current). If this stuff gets too far out of date, then we should start cutting back on what is allowed. -- Prod (Talk) 04:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Here's an example... just yesterday, a fansite called Starfeeder had their own Q&A batch answered by Blizzard's Dustin Browder, and one of the responses revealed a new unit called the Brood Lord. What happens in this case? Do we incorporate the unit into the guide right now or do we wait? Baejung92 (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Incorporate it. It's a legit interview with a Blizzard developer. As long as something is confirmed by Blizzard, it should be allowed. We should be avoiding rumors, so anything not confirmed by the developer/publisher should not show up on StrategyWiki.--DukeRuckleyTalk | Contribs 12:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Medal of Honor Heroes 2

I'm pretty worried about importing images. I've already made a mistake with Ghost Squad that the pictures were watermarked but my eyes aren't sharp enough to tell which is which. If I'm going to get a boxart or a screen image, how do I tell which image can be used or not? All I'm good at is control templates and sometimes typing paragraphs which might not work out. I don't mind you guys cleaning up pages on what I'm working on but when it comes to images, that's my total flaw.

I know that it sounds ridiculous but the last thing I need is to end up with a comedy or errors that I could sometimes misunderstand what I did wrong since I first learn how to create new pages and nearly cried when I shouldn't get help like this. That time did give me a wake up call and it changes on how I contribute to the games. Anyway, it's a question I have no answer for and I do give up because of the difficulty in finding those things if it becomes too hard. Johnnyauau2000 13:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If an image is watermarked, the watermark is usually in one of the corners. I don't think that sites usually use watermarks on box art. If there is a screenshot you want to use, but it is watermarked, copy the image to an image editor (you don't have to download one; I use MS Paint) and cut off the bottom of it, which is usually where the watermark is. Just remember to save the image as the filetype you plan to upload it as, as Paint automatically saves the image as .bmp, which is not prefered here on SW. But that should be, like, a last resort. Some sites don't actually watermark all their images anyway.--Melon247 Hammy, my hamster. Cute! (talk · contribs · comp) 16:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Here's another question. The boxart has to be a certain size but there are so many of them I can't tell apart because I don't know too well about pixels or something as much as the size of the image. So maybe someone other than me can show what they mean. As for a screenshot that's watermarked, I can't do that part and it will cause me more heartache than I can take. If I have to do it myself, I know I'll get criticized to death so that's how I feel at the moment. It's hard to understand but this process is going to kill me at the core if I'm not doing it right. So help me out on this please. Johnnyauau2000 06:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Johnny you gotta learn sometime right? Just upload the images and we'll fix 'em up. --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 08:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, we're not going to start critisising you or anything. After all, everyone has a weakness (I, for example, am rubbish at regional spelling differences and creating templates). --Melon247 Hammy, my hamster. Cute! (talk · contribs · comp) 12:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Well if anyone else knows about screenshots, I'd be grateful that maybe there's something that'll help ease my mind. I was going to see what you do with the images but I was so scared that I decided to leave a comment asking someone to delete the images I've uploaded. I hope in the future, if someone is an expert on screenshots can maybe at least know how to blend it into the walkthrough I made. It will help make it more natural and more like a game guide than a page full of text. Maybe someone can recommend pictures that will fit into the article. Anyway, I hope I'm not too far from my ambition. Johnnyauau2000 14:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you're going to receive help from people who don't play the game if you don't do anything. --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 03:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that's true. I'll leave it at that. Thanks for the help. Johnnyauau2000 04:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

StrategyWiki:Featured Guide/2007-08

It looks like this page (Featured Guide/2007-08) will always have all the featured guides in it, unless the plan is to drop older ones off in the future. Should this page be moved to something like Featured Guide/2007-09 or maybe something less transitory like Featured Guide/Rotation? Or just leave it? :) Since it looks like Phoenix Wright is pretty much a lock, I thought I'd ask before the page gets updated. - najzereT 07:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

How about something like Featured Guide List? Is it improtant that there's a / in it? --Melon247 Hammy, my hamster. Cute! (talk · contribs · comp) 07:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)