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.

← November 2006 | December 2006 | January 2007 →

Main Guide page content

How far into the game should the main page go (ignoring the one page guides)? What kind of guidelines should they follow? My thinking is: Main page should essentially be an advertisement for the game. It should tell a bit about the history (main infobox points in words), and from there be essentially an advertisement for the game. Include a bit about the story and some unique features of the game. If there are any major flaws in the game they should also be discussed on the front page. Anything more indepth about the game should be in either /Story, /Getting Started, or /Walkthrough. Thoughts? -- Prod (Talk) 01:13, 3 December 2006 (CST)

Must say i agree with this. Also the mainpage should go BRIEFLY over the Information about the Game and not go More in-depth that Absoutly Required. Like the Geist Page which myself and Prod were speaking about. I tossed a whole ton of Info and thankfully Prod Helped my Half Asleep Mind to Relize it was overkill and summerized the page for me. As for Major Flaws they should Prob. Be Mentioned on the mainpage also. And there may be a need for an /About page for further Information about the game. WillSWC 01:18, 3 December 2006 (CST)
As reference, here is the edit. I think I may have cut too much (info is moved to Geist/Getting Started). -- Prod (Talk) 01:22, 3 December 2006 (CST)
I would agree with that. --DrBob (Talk) 07:58, 3 December 2006 (CST)
Though i must say he did a rather nice job. I will see if i can work in a little bit more Info. WillSWC 11:08, 3 December 2006 (CST)
I added a little more content to the Page. WHat do you think?WillSWC 16:10, 3 December 2006 (CST)

MySQL Database Errors

Is anyone besides me getting these errors? I just want to report that it makes this site REALLY crappy and is causing me from upgrading guides, etc. I'm hoping its just me. --Notmyhandle 03:15, 10 December 2006 (CST)

I also got one this morning, but the edit I was making did save. I'll talk to the server guys about it. --DrBob (Talk) 05:23, 10 December 2006 (CST)
This is preventing people from uploading or creating new pages, however editing existing pages seems to still work. --Minimaul 08:10, 10 December 2006 (CST)
The message said that some part needed to be restarted. Everything seems to work again, so I guess they fixed it. -- Prod (Talk) 11:02, 10 December 2006 (CST)
I have the distinct uneasy feeling that we're going to have some downtime and reinstall the entire operating system, because everything has been falling apart for over a month now. I have no idea what was causing the transaction errors, but strange quirks like this have been showing up ever since somebody messed up the PAM authentication. FTP doesn't work (we have to use SCP for all file transfers), su doesn't work, permissions are sporadic. We're not locked out of the box, of course, but it's very difficult to operate. Anyhow, we should do a reinstall within a week's time. I want database/upload backups in everybody's hands just in case. echelon 11:22, 10 December 2006 (CST)

All of the above issues were resolved when we formatted the server on December 21st and reinstalled it on the 22nd.--Dan 22:58, 3 January 2007 (CST)

Sidebar Navs

Keeping them? deprecating? adding? -- Prod (Talk) 13:11, 10 December 2006 (CST)

I started out with them cuz I thought they looked cool, but then the whole site seemed to be moving in the Footer/Header nav direction, so I started removing mine in order to be consistent. Every page I've made thus far has used Footer/Header navs instead. Procyon 13:35, 10 December 2006 (CST)
I like the way it's used on the Contra III: The Alien Wars page. But on Contra, Metal Storm, Final Fantasy VII and Solar Jetman: Hunt for the Golden Warpship , I think they're redundant. Keeping it synchronized with the ToC is another step, and they're at the top of the page with the {{AGN}} anywayz. I think they should be deprecated as nav's within guides, but used to link within a series or group of guides on only the front page. -- Prod (Talk) 13:50, 10 December 2006 (CST)
So the sidebar navs work for the games themselves rather than the broad category of games that they exist under. So what I'm really saying is that the side-bar nav should have more general links regarding the game in terms of what it is categorized with. The sidebar nav should link to other games in a series for example rather than reiterating the ToC.--Notmyhandle 17:07, 10 December 2006 (CST)
Actually, that is pretty cool, I just took a look at that. I could do something similar with all of the Pac-Man pages. That's a great idea guys, thanks. Procyon 17:23, 10 December 2006 (CST)
Should we deprecate their use as ToC's for the guide? -- Prod (Talk) 13:00, 11 December 2006 (CST)
Didn't we just say that the ToC shouldn't be included in the sidebar nav? Since it's on the page already it shouldn't be repeated and the generalized additions that the sidebar could have would enhance the article. --Notmyhandle 13:05, 11 December 2006 (CST)
As they're already there, is it worth getting rid of? I'd also like to get a few more views on this (more than just 3 people). -- Prod (Talk) 13:10, 11 December 2006 (CST)
This is slightly off topic, but Community Issues hasn't been getting the kind of traffic it used to. I wonder if that because things are generally running smoothly and there's less to figure out, or if people have less interest in the bureaucracy of StrategyWiki and more interest creating content (which of course is not a bad thing, just interesting) Procyon 13:19, 11 December 2006 (CST)
I'd say they're OK for linking games in a series, but not for ToCs (basically, I agree with all of you above). Make sure you don't get too reliant on them, however, as there is a planned re-skin sometime, and the sidebar may just disappear. --DrBob (Talk) 14:00, 11 December 2006 (CST)

Personally I think the Sidebar ToCs CAN be much better than the header ToC's the only problem they have is they can get very long so they do need some CSS work. I think if we could make them expand/collapse by section (like the whole header ToC expands) that it would be much cleaner and be much more usable than header ToC. For example on the FF VII sidebar ToC I would have the following Section headers visible and then expand to view the sub listings: Intro (would expand to show Characters, Story and Controls sections), Walkthrough Part 1 (Would show Disk 1 and 2), Walkthrough Part 2 (would show Disk 3, Minigames and Sidequests), Appendix (would list Materia, Equipment and End matter items). That would be four main visible sections on page load that would (IMHO) display much cleaner than expanding the whole Header ToC. This would be especially usefull for the really long books like FF7 and OOT. --Argash 00:56, 12 December 2006 (CST)

I disagree with this. As I said before, we can't guarantee that the sidebar will exist when we re-skin, so I'm not putting all the work in for some wonderful solution, just to have it made redundant. Additionally, it's a seriously bad idea to have your main navigation for a guide in a 1" wide space on the right-hand side of the screen. Nobody looks there. --DrBob (Talk) 01:40, 12 December 2006 (CST)
I would agree that the right hand side is less preferable to the left hand side. Perhaps the whole right sidebar should be moved to the left side below the existing menu there? --Argash 04:22, 12 December 2006 (CST)
Much easier said than done, and that still doesn't address the problem that when/if we re-skin, the sidebar may not be there. --DrBob (Talk) 11:38, 12 December 2006 (CST)
Not improving something simply because things may change in the future is non productive. Just because the whole site layout may change at some unspecified date doesn't meen we shouldn't improve what we have now. That said I have cleaned up the FF7 Nav menu and re-skinned it to match the main toolbox (the CSS obviously is not site wide as I can't edit that so if you want to try it out copy my CSS to yours. Now that I've finished this I think it's time to start working on the next version that I think should replace the sidebar navs AND the more common dropdown ToCs. I have an idea on what should be done but I'm going to mock it up first before going any further. --Argash 22:34, 17 December 2006 (CST)
I must admit, that is quite impressive :). However, on my screen that space is about 3 cm, which greatly limits the length of words and font size. I think it would be great to use for the earlier discussed intergame navigation, but I still feel it's somewhat too small for a game specific navigation. I also don't think that date is that far off since they have been hinting at this reskinning since ABXY came out (check the main page announcements). -- Prod (Talk) 00:30, 18 December 2006 (CST)

Skin Independent Solution Proposal

Ok I've mocked up a new ToC system that is skin independent using the Suckerfish solution. I think this is a MUCH MUCH MUCH more elegant solution than the current ToC system (either the header based or side bar) and it can be done vertically or horizontally! I personally think the best way to do it would be vertically from the left sidebar however horizontally floating from the top (so it scrolls with the page) probably would work good too. My basic goal here is to have something that is accessible from any part of an article.

Now the only problem with this solution is converting it to work with media wiki's html output wont be fun but once we do we can easily style the thing anyway we want. As for the styling I'm average at best with CSS so I can help but if anyone out there wants to improve it please feel free.

A final note this solution is compatible with all major browsers. --Argash 03:09, 18 December 2006 (CST)

Well I tried to start converting the CSS to adjust for how wiki outputs it's html list code but so far no luck. Anyone else willing to give it a try? --Argash 00:56, 19 December 2006 (CST)

Ok so apparently when I wasn't looking it started working. To see it you need to copy my css to your css file before you go to my sandbox to see it in action. It still needs a bit of tweeking and cleaning up but with a little bit of work I think we will have a MUCH better solution to work with. --Argash 01:46, 2 January 2007 (CST)

I copied and pasted like you said but it didn't change anything when I checked the sandbox. --Notmyhandle 02:25, 2 January 2007 (CST)

Sorry I forgot to mention, when you change your css file you have to be sure to clear the cache, in FF you can do CTR+F5 or hold CTR and click refresh. --Argash 02:54, 2 January 2007 (CST)

I just tested it in IE6 and it does not appear to work properly at all (the place I got the script from says it should work though) so that might be a problem. I don't have IE7, safari or opera to test on can someone else check it out in those browsers. --Argash 03:12, 2 January 2007 (CST)

I tested in IE7, it doesn't work but the formatting works, so it looks like a nice looking bar with the top sections. The drop downs didn't work is all.--Notmyhandle 04:08, 2 January 2007 (CST)
odd, I'm looking at the code and trying to figure out whats going on. I may have to wait till tomorrow before I can really get at it. Also I don't have any access to IE7 (I run ubuntu at home and my two work PCs HAVE to have IE6) so if you or someone else with IE7 can help me debug that would be great. --Argash 04:33, 2 January 2007 (CST)
I apologise for being blunt here, but I feel it is necessary. I don't think this is a good idea at all. The current ToC solution works fine, fits in with the wiki theme, and falls back gracefully if people don't have JavaScript enabled/available, or a sufficient level of CSS support to use :hover. Your solution has hacks all over it, doesn't fit in with the wiki-theme (imo, anyway), and you're wanting all sorts of changes to be made to the layout of the site. Our re-skin has been on the table for months now, and certainly isn't going away. There's also another flaw with using menus: people won't always categorise things the same way. You may think it perfectly reasonable to put "Glitches/Errors" under "End matter", but others wouldn't. They can't use their browser's find functionality, because what they're finding is hidden. They'd have to presume that there isn't such a page, or go all the way through all the menus to find it. At least with one expandable ToC section (as we have at the moment), people can use their browser's find tools, or quickly scan the list themselves. --DrBob (Talk) 07:33, 2 January 2007 (CST)
Heh well I wont argue that it's riddled with CSS/JS hacks to make it work in IE, however with the find feature we could just include the ToC page in the menu and you could go there If you want to find your way through it. By no means am I saying "this is how it should be done!" I'm just throwing it out there as a possibility for when we do the redesign because IMHO it can be much more elegant and user friendly then the current version. Also I love challenging CSS projects and I work 3rd shift so I'm bored as hell and had the time to try :) --Argash 08:03, 2 January 2007 (CST)

Section Transclusion

An example of what section transclusion can do for you is visible on [[Ragnarok Online/Jobs/Magician]] using the transcluded section at {{Ragnarok Online/Job TOC}}. I've replaced the wikiTOC with something much prettier and more appropriate to the content; other guides may want to implement similar methods. Karimarie 21:14, 10 December 2006 (CST)

Yeah its a good idea, although I don't know how to make templates. Someone needs to make a game company one based off the one at Wikipedia. --Notmyhandle 16:41, 11 December 2006 (CST)
{{company}} perhaps? --DrBob (Talk) 01:38, 12 December 2006 (CST)

Downtime and Upgrade

The Abxy and StrategyWiki server has been experiencing some difficulties as of late. There is probably little doubt that many of you have seen the website go offline for extended periods of time. This is an embarrassment to our community, and we're going to fix the problem by taking approximately a day or two of downtime to change the OS to Fedora Core, which is certainly less likely to fail us in the future.

This said, I would like you to help in this effort. I'm going to offer backups of the database and file uploads; I'd like a handful of you to offer to keep them just in case. Please sign up! Additionally, I would like to upgrade MediaWiki to the latest version, so if one of you wouldn't mind finding out the discrepancies from this version and the latest version, that would be great. (I've more than got my hands busy with the server upgrade and coding, so help here would be excellent!) I would especially like to know which files changed, if any of our hacks/modules will be incompatible, and if there are any schema changes to be mindful of--especially the schema changes!

The database backups I'm making are going to XML-based [1]. If any of you know of a more appropriate format, let me know.

Thanks guys! echelon 00:45, 18 December 2006 (CST)

Count me in. :-) --DrBob (Talk) 01:12, 18 December 2006 (CST)
Me too. -- Prod (Talk) 10:23, 18 December 2006 (CST)
I'd be happy to host data. Perhaps torrent files for transferrence? --Notmyhandle 19:27, 18 December 2006 (CST)
I have a ton of spare storage on my dreamhost account if you want to set-up a mirror or something like that--Argash 23:48, 18 December 2006 (CST)
Leave a message on my talk page and I'll be able to do it when I get back to school mid-january probably. -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 01:47, 19 December 2006 (CST)
Will there be a useful placeholder page in lieu of the main page (strategywiki.org and strategywiki.org/wiki/Main_Page due to potential bookmarks)? -- Prod (Talk) 20:59, 19 December 2006 (CST)

w00t We're back online. --Notmyhandle 05:01, 23 December 2006 (CST)

w00t is right. --Antaios 08:58, 23 December 2006 (CST)

I notice we're still at version 1.6.6. Will we be upgrading to 1.8 or waiting for 1.9? -- Prod (Talk) 12:18, 4 January 2007 (CST)

I'd love to do the upgrade, but in reality it's up to echelon whether or not we should upgrade, and when it should be done. I'll bring it up with him once he's done playing RL.--Dan 14:12, 4 January 2007 (CST)

Citing sources

Could we get the Cite extension installed? It really makes it a lot easier to cite sources then <ref> --Argash 04:41, 18 December 2006 (CST)

I'll look into it. --DrBob (Talk) 02:02, 4 January 2007 (CST)
Install'd--Dan 02:20, 4 January 2007 (CST)
Thanks --Argash 03:13, 4 January 2007 (CST)

Logo Image for MonoBook

Yo, I'm a noobie, fresh off Wikipedia. I changed my prefs to MonoBook, and discovered there's no logo there. Instead, it says "Set $wgLogo to the URL path to your own logo image. Can anyone fix this with a good logo? Meowster 17:13, 11 December 2006 (CST)

I wouldn't be the best person to do this, but I'll see whom I can run the idea past. A difficulty would be matching any MonoBook logo with the BlueCloud logo's style; I'm not sure how we could do that in a square logo very easily. It'll take some skill to do this properly. echelon 22:47, 17 December 2006 (CST)
We could use a higher resolution version of this logo.--Dan 18:01, 20 January 2007 (CST)
here is the SVG version of that, so someone can scale it to the right size for the monobook logo (its square). --blendmaster 18:14, 29 January 2007 (CST)
Retrieved from "https://strategywiki.org/w/index.php?title=StrategyWiki_talk:Community_Portal/2006/December&oldid=510824"