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 main talk page.

February 2007 | March 2007 | April 2007

StrategyWiki:Requests for adminship/Ryan Schmidt

Everyone's attention to the above please. :) -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 14:30, 1 March 2007 (CST)

There's a little bit of an issue concerning this Mason. I don't think anyone here would actively oppose Ryan's nomination for adminship, but it's very likely that people (such as myself) will neither be in favor of supporting him, nor opposing his nomination. In other words, I abstain because I don't have enough of a strong feeling either way. We need to come up with a criteria upon which a user is promoted. Is it simply a matter of yeas versus nays? Or does there have to be a strong enough consensus among all admins? In other words, there are 11 sysops, so does he need at least 6 supporters? If there were 5 supporters and no one opposes, is he promoted or is he not? Do Bureaucrat votes count more than sysop votes? Just curious. Procyon 15:12, 1 March 2007 (CST)
With wikipedia, they would rather give everyone admin privileges since everyone should be allowed to contribute, as long as they understand the policies. This means that there are over 1k admins right now. On the admin page they state "From early on, it has been pointed out that administrators should never develop into a special subgroup of the community but should be a part of the community like anyone else." They just can do some of the more difficult to undo tasks. For the moment, admins=regulars, as in we tend to be on here helping out with everything. As the site grows, the number of sysops will definately grow. And this is a vote for anyone to support/oppose, not just admins.
The way I see it, there are two general voting methods that could work:
  1. You count the number of supports and the total votes, and if the supports are over half of the total votes (rounded up), then the consensus is "yes"
  2. Each support adds a point, and each oppose takes off a point (undecided doesn't add or remove points). If the points total up to more than half of the total votes (rounded up), then the consensus is "yes"
I'm personally in favor of method 2, but, as this is a community thing, I'll leave it up to the community to decide which one (if any of the above) to implement, or suggest new ideas. --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 16:18, 1 March 2007 (CST)
Actually, after reading what Prod had to say, I'm more in favor of supporting Ryan now. As for how we determine the promotion, it sounds like it should simply be democratic yeas vs. nays since it's open to everyone on the site (and there's no true way to determine what the representative percentage of users voted.) Procyon 16:29, 1 March 2007 (CST)
From the StrategyWiki:Requests for adminship/Front matter page, (can someone post it I forgot what it was, StrategyWiki:RA?) it says, "At the end of that period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion." Thus only Ech, Dr. and Garrett can decide who becomes admin. The nomination however is only meant to open the discussion of the person for adminship, to weigh the pros and cons of the person and to see if they would even be useful. Bureaucrats, is this right? --Notmyhandle 17:00, 1 March 2007 (CST)
It's SW:RFA, and that's a good point. It's a discussion, not a vote. Final decision is up to the person who has to power to promote (Bureaucrats). -- Prod (Talk) 17:06, 1 March 2007 (CST)
How it works at WP and how I think it should work here, is Bureaucrats determine if their is consensus, then simply act on that consensus. If most people think it's a good idea, then go through with it. I understand your first comment Proc, and that's fine, that's why there is abstain. My feelings on sysops is just as WP feels, since we don't really ever rely on votes, sysops only real purpose is to have more effective tools to deal better with cleanup and problem-users (of which we've had a surprisingly small number as far as I know). My criteria is, if I don't not trust the user with the tools, and I believe they are here enough to make their ownership of them worthwhile, then give it to them. :) -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 17:54, 1 March 2007 (CST)
This is true. Our ratio of sysops may be rather high, but it may nevertheless come in handy when a vandal or spammer sets themselves loose on StrategyWiki in our absence. While we shouldn't go overboard with RFAs at this stage, I don't think this particular RFA is excessive. echelon 01:39, 2 March 2007 (CST)
  • Let's allow for another day of voting so everyone can have their say, and we'll come to the consensus. (Though it seems like we may know the outcome.) echelon 01:39, 2 March 2007 (CST)
Support: I also feel that right now our biggest criterion for adminship is how often the nominee is around. In any case, I support Ryan Schmidt for sysop.DukeRuckley 12:15, 2 March 2007 (CST)
I may as well toss my support in for him also. I know the pain when a vandal comes tearing into a wiki. Trust me, You'll need every man and then some to stop them. Last time i ran into a vandal on my wiki i lost over 85% of over 3,000 pages. Its not fun cleaning up. WillSWC 20:55, 8 March 2007 (CST)
The vote is already over, but thanks :P --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 21:22, 8 March 2007 (CST)

What happened to my Mule :(

Look at this image. The dithering is all off. The original source image was a smooth grayscale. The uploaded image looks all weird. And when you download it back to your harddrive, it looks fine again. (At least, it did for me.) Could this have something to do with the remaining bugs? Or is this just what naturally happens?

Are you using IE6? It's got an alpha transparency layer, and IE6 can't always handle those correctly. If not I really don't know. For me it looks the same in Firefox as it does in various image viewers/editors. GarrettTalk 15:41, 2 March 2007 (CST)
For me it looks worse in FF(0_0), in IE6 it looks better but I don't know what it's meant to look like.--Rocky Rally-X Rock.png (Talk Contributions ) 08:52, 4 March 2007 (CST)

Bugs in History

I'm not sure if anyone has noticed but for me in IE6, when you go to the history and edit tab, the white writing in the blue at the very bottom of the page has gone, it usually says this: "This page was last modified 19:11, 2 March 2007. Content is available under GFDL 1.2." but it is gone, also in looking at a previous diff, it is very far to the left. Can someone fix this please?--Rocky Rally-X Rock.png (Talk Contributions ) 14:59, 2 March 2007 (CST)

Not too sure about the history tab, but when clicking the edit tab, the white text has been shifted left in firefox as well. -- Prod (Talk) 15:06, 2 March 2007 (CST)
I don't think that text is meant to be displayed on those two pages. It isn't on Wikipedia, anyway (as far as I can tell). --DrBob (Talk) 16:38, 2 March 2007 (CST)

All Game Nav Bug

Uh, is the table of contents drop down not showing for anyone else? Its like this on every page. --Notmyhandle 19:11, 2 March 2007 (CST)

#Site Changes. Same with the one below. -- Prod (Talk) 19:17, 2 March 2007 (CST)

Editing Shortcut Buttons, Gone?

Another glitch, on all edit pages the little buttons have disappeard! ='( --Notmyhandle 19:13, 2 March 2007 (CST)

See #Site Changes. GarrettTalk 19:48, 2 March 2007 (CST)

Summary required no longer?

Is the edit summary no longer required? I just did a few contributions without having to summarise them. Lunar Knight 15:33, 3 March 2007 (CST)

The edit summary has always been required, but the notification isn't working at the moment due to our JavaScript issues. --DrBob (Talk) 15:46, 3 March 2007 (CST)
Sorry, what I meant was the notification. So this problem is also from the cause of the show/hide problem? Lunar Knight 15:53, 3 March 2007 (CST)
Most likely. They're at least related. --DrBob (Talk) 15:57, 3 March 2007 (CST)
I've never seen a summary notification, ever. --Notmyhandle 16:18, 3 March 2007 (CST)
It's always been on bluecloud, just recently (kinda) got on monobook, I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't on other skins although it may be on the common one now. -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 21:58, 3 March 2007 (CST)
It's in common.js, and should be working again now. --DrBob (Talk) 01:16, 5 March 2007 (CST)
For me when I first came here I had to turn this on myself in preferences (at the bottom of editing) can we change it so it is automatic, it would help people new to the site provide a summary--Rocky Rally-X Rock.png (Talk Contributions ) 10:14, 5 March 2007 (CST)
The JavaScript warning that you haven't provided an edit summary is on for all users, regardless of their preferences. --DrBob (Talk) 11:27, 5 March 2007 (CST)
I've been here a month, has it been put on after that because I had to change it myself (btw I'm using IE6 and there is no warning in upload file if you don't put in a category)--Rocky Rally-X Rock.png (Talk Contributions ) 12:03, 5 March 2007 (CST)
The edit summary JS was added less than a month ago, as far as I can remember. I'll look into the IE6 issues, but I can't guarantee anything. I suggest you add this to the list of IE6 problems which is floating around somewhere. --DrBob (Talk) 13:23, 5 March 2007 (CST)

Message Template Locales

Can someone make a page like in the StrategyWiki:Guide or I dunno, post them on Ech's userpage, in which the templates containing the welcome message, the vandalism warnings, etc. could easily be found? I think people would use them more (i.e. help with warning/welcoming people) if they had access to them. --Notmyhandle 19:50, 4 March 2007 (CST)

It's Category:Message templates, and what section of the guide would it fit best in? StrategyWiki:Guide/Templates? --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 21:22, 4 March 2007 (CST)
Well, maybe we should start a new page like StategyWiki:Guide/Community management or something. --Notmyhandle 21:43, 4 March 2007 (CST)

I think that since SW has been getting so much traffic from Google lately, it would make sense to add a "Donate to StrategyWiki!" button to the main page, just like we have on ABXY. We seem to be getting the brunt of the hits, so I think thatthis could really help get funding. -GANNON 22:10, 4 March 2007 (CST)

Nick Weinberg? Anyway, I talked with DrBob about this. For now the consensus is not while we have ads. echelon 02:25, 7 March 2007 (CST)

JavaScript problems, still need fixing?

If so, you guys might like to check out the Web Developer extension for FireFox, it'll tell you what the problem is, on every page too. --Notmyhandle 22:30, 4 March 2007 (CST)

I know exactly what the problem is, and I'm just waiting on Dan or Echelon to get moving and implement the patch. :-( --DrBob (Talk) 00:22, 5 March 2007 (CST)
Well ok. But if you're interested you should still check it out, great tool (much more than just a java script checker). --Notmyhandle 00:40, 5 March 2007 (CST)
I've used it for years. :-P Anyway, the errors should now be fixed. --DrBob (Talk) 01:14, 5 March 2007 (CST)
You might want to check Firebug out, if we're going to be recommending web development extensions to each other. --DrBob (Talk) 01:14, 5 March 2007 (CST)

User Contribs

Is there any way to change the site to find out exactly how many edits you've done, It's a minor thing really but could we change the bullets to numbered lists in Contribs or just a scentence at the top saying how many edits you've done?--Rocky Rally-X Rock.png (Talk Contributions ) 15:40, 5 March 2007 (CST)

That's MediaWiki, not us. :-P If you want such a feature to appear next time we upgrade, why not suggest it on their Bugzilla? (Just make sure that somebody else hasn't suggested it already!) --DrBob (Talk) 15:48, 5 March 2007 (CST)
There are several edit counters for Wikipedia, and some of them are open source. Maybe we could get our own version running? GarrettTalk 16:00, 5 March 2007 (CST)
I didn't know about those. We should look into them. --DrBob (Talk) 17:17, 5 March 2007 (CST)
Uh, Bugzilla doesn't allow suggestions yet (only bug reporting); at least for MediaWiki. --Notmyhandle 17:03, 5 March 2007 (CST)
Bugzilla has always allowed suggestions; just set the bug severity to "Enhancement". ;-) --DrBob (Talk) 17:17, 5 March 2007 (CST)
>_< they make it so complicated haha! --Notmyhandle 17:40, 5 March 2007 (CST)

Better image map support

If it's not too much trouble, the current extension should be replaced with this one. Not only does it eliminate separate map files and allow making and testing adjustments within MediaWiki itself, it has the added bonus of making the usage show up on the image links (with the current extension they are considered to be orphans). GarrettTalk 20:24, 5 March 2007 (CST)

Done. :-) --DrBob (Talk) 01:10, 6 March 2007 (CST)

Policy Creation (Collab): StrategyWiki:Templates

It's an empty page so far; so what's the policy, or rather what should it be? "Templates should only be created to graphically arrange data, and/or to ease the creation of additional pages or elements of pages. Keep in mind that templates should be used to reduce the amount of code on a page via repeated use." Or something like that... --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 00:34, 7 March 2007 (CST)

Something like that. Also mention that they need to be categorised into either Category:Templates or Category:Guide-specific templates. --DrBob (Talk) 01:07, 7 March 2007 (CST)
Categorization, careful naming, and maintaining a hierarchy is key in ensuring that our templates don't get cluttered. I'd say this is one of the most important things we have to keep tabs on. Granted, templates are critical for reducing redundancy, but they are powerful tools that must be given respect and much thought so that they don't in themselves become redundant. echelon 02:29, 7 March 2007 (CST)
Created, see header for link (basically a rewrite of this thread). --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 17:37, 7 March 2007 (CST)

Regular "staff" (IRC) meetings

I'm suggesting that we start some regular IRC discussions for everyone to participate. I use the term staff loosely to mean admins are highly recommended (to keep discussions on track), but everyone is welcome. Either weekly or monthly. Weekly might be a bit too often, and bother some users, but monthly might not be regular enough. This would be to quickly get through some of the stuff on community issues, without getting discussions that are too lengthy, or just for general brainstorming. Timings might get tough, since I know we have people from all over North America, many from Europe, and even some from Singapore. It could be that whoever is online at one of the two or three "designated" times can discuss whatever is currently happening, but have one "main" discussion. It would be great for some general brainstorming that may not be appropriate here, as well as attracting people to IRC. Thoughts? -- Prod (Talk) 00:07, 8 March 2007 (CST)

I'm for promoting IRC conversation in general; I don't like an empty, "silent," channel. I'll be in there as much as I can. --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 00:30, 8 March 2007 (CST)
Sounds alright. What day/time were you thinking of? --DrBob (Talk) 11:09, 8 March 2007 (CST)
Probably around 11 PM GMT (6 PM EST). Most NA people will be off work (assuming regular work hours) and it won't be too late for some basic discussion for EU people. -- Prod (Talk) 11:13, 8 March 2007 (CST)
In general I could make a weekday 6 PM IRC (I'm in EST), but I couldn't make any weekend ones, until the summer at least, but then it'd be whenever I wasn't working. Although I like the idea and plan to be in IRC most of the time during the week. -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 12:52, 8 March 2007 (CST)

For reference, the channel is #StrategyWiki. -- Prod (Talk) 12:57, 8 March 2007 (CST)

I say sure, maybe once every other week? Btw, I feel like a fool for asking, but I currently don't have an IRC client. Which one should I get? --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 15:29, 8 March 2007 (CST)
Unless it's on a Friday or weekend, I have class at 6 PM EST Monday-Thursday. :X echelon 15:34, 8 March 2007 (CST)

Info about IRC clients can be found at Wikipedia:Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients. I use mIRC, though I've heard good things about x-chat. -- Prod (Talk) 15:37, 8 March 2007 (CST)

Wasn't their a link to log in without requiring a client?--DukeRuckley 15:42, 8 March 2007 (CST)
It's gone for some reason, but works. Once you're on you should be able to type /join strategywiki to change to the channel. GarrettTalk 16:21, 8 March 2007 (CST)
I tried and that didn't seem to work either. The Java applet comes up but it won't connect. It says software abort or something of that sort. I also cannot connect using mIRC or GAIM, both of which should work... What port are you using? I'll also check my firewall, but that shouldn't be the problem.--DukeRuckley 12:52, 9 March 2007 (CST)
I'm not using a port and it works fine for me. That's very strange... GarrettTalk 13:23, 9 March 2007 (CST)
I've had trouble using IRC through a wireless router, is that your situation? -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 13:25, 9 March 2007 (CST)

I figure if we're all on IRC when possible, then meetings will sometimes just occur when enough people are around as well. -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 16:05, 8 March 2007 (CST)

I think that's the problem - I visited it during my lunch break today and only Prod and some other guy were there - the other guy has been there for aaaages and I don't think that s/he/it (:P) has logged out at any point, but I haven't checked - just check it every now and again. - Froglet 08:37, 10 March 2007 (CST)
I agree with Froglet. Sometimes I go on and I'm the only one there, sometimes there are five other people. I somehow don't think that would work, nor would only having six people (not all of which are currently on) there put much into a "staff" meeting. I'd say at least 10 for that. --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 09:45, 10 March 2007 (CST)
I've had a battle with GAIM, and now it's all sorted, and I should be in #strategywiki whenever I'm at the computer. :-) --DrBob (Talk) 12:12, 10 March 2007 (CST)

Compression of CSS files

I've decided to use to compress our MediaWiki CSS files. Of course, this will be great for maintaining server stability, but the downside is we'll have to keep two different copies of the CSS file, one compressed and the other uncompressed on it's talk page. Example.

This is going to be incredibly useful since querying for a CSS file via MediaWiki is intensive, and compressing it will reduce the time it takes for an httpd fork to handle a request. What do you all think? Should I go on and do the rest of the CSS files?--Dan 08:18, 8 March 2007 (CST)

Sounds good to me. What sort of improvements did you see with BlueCloud? --DrBob (Talk) 11:08, 8 March 2007 (CST)
What would be even better is to put all of our CSS rules for BlueCloud in a static css file that doesn't involve MediaWiki in any way. Why don't we just do that instead? echelon 15:23, 8 March 2007 (CST)
The disadvantage of that is that then only a few select people can change the CSS, which is the exact opposite of the intent of these pages. GarrettTalk 15:49, 8 March 2007 (CST)
Yes, and MediaWiki does some voodoo with the CSS to concatenate all the files, including the user CSS, and other stuff based on the theme. It would be best to leave it as Dan's set it up. :-) --DrBob (Talk) 16:25, 8 March 2007 (CST)
Done, for the most part.--Dan 18:35, 8 March 2007 (CST)
Also compressed a couple javascript files. It seems this is working really well. :)--Dan 08:56, 10 March 2007 (CST)

Code box

I was trying to make the Templates use Code Boxes similar to [1] But it appears the BlueCloud Template messes with them. Any chance we can get it Added? WillSWC 21:09, 8 March 2007 (CST)

You mean variables? {{{name}}} like dat? StrategyWiki:Guide/Templates --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 21:56, 8 March 2007 (CST)

I believe he means this:

template description

That's messed up on bluecloud? (I don't use it). -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 10:00, 9 March 2007 (CST)

It could be because they put the code box in a table, like so:

| parameter =
| parameter =

the code of which is this:

{| style="background: transparent;"
| parameter =
| parameter =

-- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 10:06, 9 March 2007 (CST)

The following works fine for me:


--DrBob (Talk) 14:44, 9 March 2007 (CST)

That code box thing is a monobook skin thing to explicitly show that it's preformatted text. BlueCloud doesn't use that box. You can still see the different font that's used, even in BlueCloud. -- Prod (Talk) 15:32, 9 March 2007 (CST)
Oh, I realise now that it's the border you're after. Just add "pre { border: 1px dashed #2F6FAB; }" to your CSS file. --DrBob (Talk) 16:56, 9 March 2007 (CST)


I was thinking outlining the exact scope of this site would be a good thing. I know Runescape is here, but does that mean that all browser-based internet games could be allowed here (if there was a need for them)? What about Flash games (like n ninja)? This came about in my thoughts on the text-based browser-based strategy/politics game cybernations. Would a guide for a game like that (which could use one) be appropriate? I say this mostly because I sysop the cn wiki and am an avid player of the game, and think that having a strategy guide for games like this would prove quite useful. Of course, this isn't really in the same scope of our other games, so what should the boundaries be? We obviously don't want games like Chess/Risk/Monopoly here (right?) so there should be some solid line. -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 13:40, 9 March 2007 (CST)

Chess/Risk/Monopoly are ok I think, as long as it's based on the video game version :P. I think we should stick to something similar to wikipedia, and assess them based on notability. Things like, have they been mentioned on major news sites, how many players play the game, is the game by a notable company, is the game official (or just a hack/mod). Perhaps we need something like WP:WP:NOT. -- Prod (Talk) 13:48, 9 March 2007 (CST)
Good point, and I was thinking doing a scope thing would take care of what we are and what we are not. But either would work. I think I may start the Cyber Nations guide then... -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 16:58, 9 March 2007 (CST)

New organized effort to promote StrategyWiki

Over the next few weeks I'd like to begin a two-tier program to promote StrategyWiki to a new level of visibility, adoption, and usage. This involves a range of tasks such as outreach to other wikis and related websites and both direct and indirect forms of promotion. Here are some of the things I would like to try:

  • In order to rise in the google results, we need to do a little offsite SEO. Normally, a rise in search engine visibility occurs over time (as it has already), but a boost would not hurt. If we get links from highly ranked sources (other than Wikipedia--which we already have thousands of), Google will appreciate our site's value even more. One way to accomplish is to request links from similar websites and wikis, especially ones that are already seeing a moderate or good level of success. I don't think this is a bad thing to ask.
  • Along the lines of what was stated above, we could also consider more strategic partnerships, such as our one with Bulbapedia. I think the choice to work with them was a wise one, and we should choose a Zelda-related and MapleStory-related wiki to work with.
  • Beginning this week, I would like to start talking directly with GameFAQs contributors on a 1-on-1 IM or email basis. While the word "proselytize" may be strong, in essence this is what we'd be doing. We can tell GF contributors what a good resource we think their guides are, and then we can explain how we think StrategyWiki may be a great place for those guides to be accessible and extendible by anyone. Obviously, some editors will not want to join us. Be it pride, a sense of loyalty, or something else entirely, not everyone will see StrategyWiki as the next logical step in guide writing. Others, however, may see this as an opportunity to help build our project. Gaining even a few of these such contributors would be invaluable for our project. A great place to start would be with the map makers, as they must already be fed up with GameFAQs lack of inline images.
  • I'd like to use some of our budget on advertising, whether on adsense, through text links, or maybe even banners posted all over my (or your) college or school. I'm not sure how affective this would be, but it's worth a shot. There has to be some reason companies pay millions of dollars for ads...

In closing, this is a pending project that I would like you guys to consider and comment on. Each item is a suggestion and is not set in stone; we can tweak everything as necessary before we begin. The ultimate goal of this project is to increase awareness of StrategyWiki, increase our search engine rankings, and possibly add new and seasoned talent to our already growing pool of contributors. Comment away. echelon 03:41, 7 March 2007 (CST)

May I suggest a way of advertizing, we could link to relevant Youtube videos, it should then show up on the Links section and we may earn a little free advertizing that way, I'm not quite sure if Youtube will count as a highly ranked source though:p----Rocky
Rally-X Rock.pngUser:RockyUser talk:Rocky
(Contributions) 10:20, 7 March 2007 (CST)
I would also suggest looking at this discussion from a while back. Here are some of my comments on the suggestions. -- Prod (Talk) 11:11, 7 March 2007 (CST)
  1. When approaching another website, be sure to read their rules and see if they mention their external linking policy. I'm pretty sure most sites would be willing to do some kind of link exchange, so we may have to figure out how to add links to their sites. I'm not too sure a link in our external links section will be enough of a trade for a link in their sidebars.
  2. There is a Final Fantasy wiki I think, but I'm not too sure about Zelda. There is only one wiki I know relating to MapleStory, but I think we're essentially in competition with them ( Most of the sites potentially willing to partner are standalone websites (hidden-street and any of the external links on MapleStory).
  3. I think the main reason many don't/wouldn't want to join is the lack of their name on the front of the guide. There are all sorts of "incentives" for people to contribute. For example, there is a count kept of guides uploaded, saves contributed (should we add that?) and various other things. I think the fact that GF is owned by CNET might have reduced the loyalty of some people (fight the power! :P). One thing they have which we don't, is a thriving community (ours + abxy is somewhat small at the moment, and fairly disjoint as well).
  4. Ads are always good :D There are some small gaming stores nearby, and I think they might be willing to put up an add for a gaming wiki if they were asked. With the Wii gaining popularity (and the non-gamers perhaps looking for help) getting access to people offline would probably help. In general, when putting up posters at universities and stores (or any building) you have to get permission from the owners. At the university I went to, there is a special department that decides which advertisements to allow. Anyone attempting to put up posters should look into this first.
  5. Gamerankings and metacritic (and similar sites) link to websites which host "official" reviews for games (not community reviews, but site staff reviews). If abxy can get recognized by these sites, and has reviews for many games (plus link to strategywiki) we should be able to help increase our traffic.
I found a Zelda Wiki that doesn't seem to have walkthroughs (which is good for us). As for GF, I think it would be a good idea to talk with them one on one (maybe getting the LUEs to start up a thread in the forum as well). Also, GF's "thriving" community consists mostly of immature idiots (not to insult anyone at GF, but it is a fact), so I think we have them beat there. We could also try getting an ad into the newspapers, maybe the local ones (as it usually doesn't cost as much). --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 15:39, 7 March 2007 (CST)
From my experience with working with GF users, so far image users, is just the fear of GFDL licensing and "public domain" works. They are afraid they will lose their copyright and thus the connection between their name and their work. --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 17:55, 7 March 2007 (CST)
Their name will always be retained in the page's history as well as their contributions, so I really don't think that the connection between their name and the guide is that big of an issue (unless they like to put their name in the forefront). Also, they really shouldn't be worried about the GFDL because it only changes one thing, the fact that they don't have to sort through e-mails and retype the guide if there is a simple spelling error (someone else will do it for them here). As for other people copying the guide, they'll do it anyway no matter what it is licensed under, it just so happens that GFDL makes it legal. --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 18:35, 7 March 2007 (CST)
Exactly, the few that I have spoken to (the ones who haven't accepted my request for use of their work) want their name to remain on the images. --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 19:06, 7 March 2007 (CST)
Yeah, Ryan, GFDL seems harmless to you because you're comfortable with it, and you don't have the kind of ego that needs your name advertised all over your work. GF authors have a different mindset (as they are entitled to have) and strongly protect their work as their own. It's simply a distinction of philosophy. I used to be a GF author, and I understand how they feel about it. I was strongly protective of my work too. Coming to SW was simply about accepting the wiki philosophy. I know that I don't own any of my work here, but I know what work is my own, and I'm fine with that. I gain recognition, not by claiming any of the work that I do, but by contributing positively to this community. It's not easy for everyone to make that jump. Especially if they've produced a large body of work. I think approaching GF authors is a good idea, but I think the approach chosen is key to the success of that kind of attempt. Procyon 19:55, 7 March 2007 (CST)
I find it best to just email a GF author with a large amount of contributions, explain StrategyWiki and GFDL and encourage them to join so that their work can be spread more efficiently. The thing is, I don't want to say it to them, but it's not like we won't use their information if they don't want to join or give us permission to reproduce it =/ --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 20:30, 7 March 2007 (CST)
How about we work on a kind of template e-mail? That way we can contact those who contribute to GF most effectively? It's not very personal, but they are e-mails so it won't really be known that they are template e-mails and it would be more efficient. I've contacted about a dozen GF authors already, mostly on specific guides that we could use here, and only a few seemed really interested, but I didn't explain everything as well as I could have (and can now) so I think something like a template would be useful. -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 16:56, 8 March 2007 (CST)
Sorry if I'm butting in here, but I don't think that having a template letter would be a good idea. The way to rope - er, I mean, convince :-P - people to join would be by gaining their trust and slowly bringing them around to the idea. I reckon that you could achieve this with some editors who are working on a new game that you have, and you give them a few effective strategies for bosses, puzzles, sidequests, etc, but tell them that you're giving the strategy to both them and SW (and provide a link to the page if you like). This would be slower, but it potentially could bring in more people.-Froglet 02:50, 9 March 2007 (CST)
Note:You aren't butting in :). -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 10:07, 9 March 2007 (CST)
I have to agree to the thought that template letters are a bad idea. There's nothing less personal than a--excuse my convictions--half-assed attempt to lure someone into following our organizational goals. I can think of times I have done this in the past and I have never felt good about it afterwards; maybe it's just because I don't have the loose convictions of a car salesman, who knows. What I do think we should try is working on a perfected series of talking points, where we concisely and succinctly put into words every reason why GameFAQs contributors should move their efforts here. We can all study this plan of ideals and use it to lull their every concern away. Every time we encounter a new objection on their part, we can discuss it and amend our document so that we can counter it in the future. As we gain practice doing this, I am sure we will begin to see the results. And since we'll be talking to them on a one-to-one basis, they will see that we are, in fact, a community. I think that would be most effective. echelon 06:02, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
I think if we follow StrategyWiki:What_makes_StrategyWiki_different in general during our discussions then this will work out good. I'm gonna do that today for a few guides that I'd love to have here. -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 08:16, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
I think the one problem with this is that Strategywiki and GameFAQs attracts two very different kinds of contributor. This might just be me, but I think that GFAQers can be arrogant (not all the time!) and very driven - there are guides out there that are absolutely massive, with huge amounts of information and stuff which evidently have taken ages to put together. I don't think that these types of contributors would like to have their work taken and put on a wiki because they did the work, and so they should have the rights to splurging their name all over it. SWikians on the other hand are a bit more laid back, (although you do get the odd territorial one), which is why SW appeals to them - they can just contribute, go away for a bit, come back, contribute some more and they don't get pestered with emails like 'why haven't you put down XYZ?'. Sure, I reckon there are loads of people out there who can be persuaded to come to the dark side, er, I mean, join us (:-P), but there are many 'regular' contributors who will outright refuse and then publicise it to everyone else and make it much harder to bring in more people. - Froglet 06:32, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
Eh, we can't get everyone, I imagine as time goes on we will lure more and more though. -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 08:16, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

SEO Plan

I've been submitting StrategyWiki to free directory projects such as DMOZ. While I know they're fairly dated and backlogged, these sites can help boost our search engine rankings and thus bring in new readers. I've noticed from our referral logs that we are being increasingly referenced in communities such as IGN, GameFAQs, Gamespot, and more! I only suspect this will continue as StrategyWiki awareness increases.

If you guys find any NSA directories, topsites, etc. it would be great to submit our site with a number of relevant keywords. I'm also going to contact the owners of a lot of major Zelda fansites and ask if they'll link to our guides. If that goes well, we can do the same for other series. The advantage will be twofold--we gain exposure from immediate users of said websites, but we also pick up brownie points from Google, etc. echelon 01:01, 18 March 2007 (CDT)

Wikibooks and StrategyWiki

Hi all, I think some of you know me from Wikibooks (SB_Johnny), and I was hoping to get some feed back from you regarding the VG/RPG policies there. If I understand correctly, StrategyWiki was originally created as a fork from Wikibooks after Jimbo Wales (presumably speaking for the foundation) called for an end to the creation and hosting of most VG-related Wikibooks.

For those of you who are familiar with Wikibookian culture, it should come as no surprise that there's yet another angry exchange going on about the subject :). I know some of you watch the VFD page for new material, but I was wondering if anyone watches the Administrators Noticeboard, where the most recent reincarnation of the dispute is/was taking place. It's a bit wordy, but the conversation is here.

One of the concerns seems to be about the "status" of StrategyWiki as a "sister project". My own opinion on that is that since SW is at least in some ways a fork from WB, the best all-around policy is to treat SW as a sister project and encourage those interested in writing on the topic to all come here (to the same place), rather than scattering everything to the winds. In any case, I think the way we've been collaborating for the past several months has been beneficial to both our projects, and I generally take the approach of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

One hard part of this is that the user who wanted to make the book has now marked his account as "no longer active", and I was hoping you folks might have some encouraging words for him as well. SB Johnny 10:03, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

I'm not sure about the initial reason for the creation of SW, but I know it existed before the game guide removals from wikibooks. Nevertheless, those guides did give us a boost in content initially, and continue to trickle in more content that we wouldn't have had otherwise (and most definitly appreciate).
That being said, we could consider ourselves a "sister project" to you, at least in my opinion, if people came here wanting to write about stuff outside of our scope, but within the scope of wikibooks, I would definitly send them there. If that's what you mean by "sister project" then I think that's accurate. I'm going to look at the Admin noticeboard when I get a chance, and would love to encourage a guide writer to come here if his work isn't within the scope of wikibooks. Who is this user?
Also, glad to have you visit, hope you enjoy SW :). -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 10:55, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
The user is Seraphimblade, and he wants to write about Xenosaga. Apparently the book is going to be more aimed at the background story of the game, but I can only imagine that that sort of material would be an excellent thing to have as part of a strategy guide.
I'll stick around... next time I'll leave a note here when such conversations start, rather than after the Game writer gets frustrated. To be honest I really don't play video games (the last game I owned was Super Mario Bros on Nintendo), I just want to make sure that those who are passionate about them are directed towards a wiki where their contributions will be valued, since the Wikimedia Foundation isn't thrilled about such content being on wikibooks. SB Johnny 11:32, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
Hi. StrategyWiki was originally created because a few people were tired of the text-only approach of GameFAQs and similar sites, and saw an opportunity to make a good wiki. It was created before game guides were removed from Wikibooks, but it is true that a not inconsiderable amount of our content has come from Wikibooks, due to Jimbo's ruling about them. We would definitely like to continue treating StrategyWiki as a "sister project" to Wikibooks, and continue taking game guides/game guide writers as appropriate. By all means, encourage Seraphimblade to come to StrategyWiki. :-) One point I feel I should make in response to a comment on Wikibooks' admin noticeboard is that StrategyWiki is not for-profit. The adverts we've put on the site are purely to raise money for server costs, so that we can eventually buy co-located servers. Thanks for your visit SB Johnny, and keep referring people to StrategyWiki! --DrBob (Talk) 12:27, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
I hadn't caught that, but I think I knew before that it was non-profit. I was hoping that one of you guys (rather than me) could maybe try and get in touch with him: while I certainly didn't intend to offend him, I'm pretty sure I did (I had provided a link to this page earlier in any case, but it may have gotten lost in the "throng").
I also just noticed that SW is a link prefix (you can just use [[StrategyWiki:Pagename]], so I presume metawiki had already decided that this was an official sister in any case :).
In any case, I'm always glad to help... I'm actually an administrator on Wikiversity and commons as well, so I have a bit of experience in facilitating cross-wiki relations (Wikiversity was also once a part of Wikibooks, and there were some hard feelings about the forking for a while). In general I feel that contributors should always be steered towards the most appropriate, welcoming, and supportive community that is available, and I've lurked here often enough to get a good sense of your community here. I'll try to keep checking in, but as I said on my userpage: if I don't respond in a reasonable amount of time, give me a poke on Wikibooks and I'll head on over. SB Johnny 12:56, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
I've just left a message on his talk page, and I hope he gets it. It's quite nice that we've got a link prefix on Wikibooks, but would it be possible for you to fix it? It's currently linking to, and we're now (although the former redirects to the latter, so it's no big problem). Thanks for all you've done. :-) --DrBob (Talk) 14:36, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
The interwiki map already has the .org, so that will probably be fixed whenever the script runs next. GarrettTalk 18:10, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
Interwiki shortcuts don't indicate sister project status; anyone can request one at metawikipedia:Interwiki map (which is how we got ours). Only those listed in sister projects templates get the real perks. GarrettTalk 18:10, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
Heh, shows how smart I am :). SB Johnny 20:25, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

Cheat Code Wiki

Check this out: [2]. Cheat Code Wiki is up for sale. (Just to clarify, I am not intending anything)--Lunar Knight (Talk to me + Contribs) 12:43, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

That appears totally ameteur IMO. What benefit is there between buying a wiki full of cheat codes, which will require tedious merging and handwork to get integrated into StrategyWiki, than just searching for cheats on Google? Not to mention licensing issues, an acquisition of this site is simply out of the question. I wish the owner good luck on finding someone to buy the wiki.--Dan 14:19, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
It seems to be released under the GFDL, meaning we can use the info directly (with attribution). Of course, we can take the codes themselves, we just need to rewrite the descriptions (information wants to be free :P). -- Prod (Talk) 15:10, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
Well...I was just spreading word. Lunar Knight (Talk to me + Contribs) 19:45, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
Thanks for the heads up. I'm going to ask Nick Weinberg if he thinks buying the domain would be a decent investment. (I'm of the immediate opinion that it is not, but Nick would know if it were able to drive more traffic to us.) echelon 06:12, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
Nick said it wouldn't be worthwhile to purchase the domain. Apparently they're asking for $3k. echelon 15:46, 16 March 2007 (CDT)

Registration problem on Bulbapedia

Is anyone here a member of Bulbapedia? For some reason (I am very aggrevated at this) I cannot join the site. I enter a user name, real name and e-mail address and it comes up with the message 'The action you have requested is limited to users in the group "Administrators". What is going on? Lunar Knight (Talk to me + Contribs) 13:46, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

I have an account there and I remember having the same problems. Check through the forums, I think I posted something in there (and may have gotten a reply >.>). IIRC, I finally got it solved over IRC. -- Prod (Talk) 15:12, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

Partnership with Xenosaga Wiki

This is an offshoot from the #Wikibooks and StrategyWiki discussion. From links on seraphimblade's talk page, I found Xenosaga Wiki. They seem to have a lot of info about Xenosaga in general (which includes a few ps(2)/ds games and anime as well). What they lack is a walkthrough section. I feel that the annotated plot guide would approach the boundaries of our focus (the anime is what worries me) and would be best either on wikibooks or xenosaga wiki. -- Prod (Talk) 15:21, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

I think if we can get them to link to us for guides and we link to them like we do in bulbapedia, it would be great for us both. -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 19:00, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
If that's going to be the case, someone ought to let Seraphimblade know before he gets to work on all the Xenosaga work he plans on doing... Procyon 19:58, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
I fully support this. While their wiki doesn't look too big at the moment, but we should seriously consider working with them if for no other reason than to get more backlinks for search engine purposes. They'd get the same benefit from us, and thus both parties win. And I'm sure they'll grow in the future--that'll be good for SW readers looking for Xenogears info. echelon 14:36, 16 March 2007 (CDT)


The message within the notice focuses on plot elements; what about unlockables and secrets, easter eggs and such, aren't those spoilers? --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 18:57, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

I Think things you can unlock, unless they are related to the story, are not in themselves spoilers. Knowing I can unlock characterx wouldn't really be a spoiler, but knowing that I can unlock characterx as he was as a zombie would be a spoiler, if the reader didn't know he'd become a zombie. Or something like that. -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 19:02, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
I think this is going to have to be decided on a per-case basis. That's what talk pages are for of course. Though if an argument is ever to break over whether or not something should be considered as a spoiler we should probably go ahead and mark whatever is in question as a spoiler simply to be on the safe side. echelon 06:16, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

Ideas Are just Coming To Me!!!!

I think I have an idea!!! For certain games that everyone plays, there should be a forum so that people can place there ideas about that game and hints & tips for people to use. I am new to this, so if you already have one of these, just ignore me. But i am seriouse that if you DON'T have one of these, it will be a cool way to help each other in the game that the forum is on!!! --Sar-bear 21:59, 13 March 2007 (CDT) ~Sarah~

Each guide has a talk page associated with it, but the primary function of this site is to make sure that all of those hints & tips are incorporated directly into the guide itself, not on a seperate discussion page. If you know of a particular piece of information that's not in the guide for a game that you play, be sure to edit the appropriate page and add it in directly, so that every other user can easily find it in the future. Forum functionality may be added to the site at some point in the future, but as far as I'm aware, it's a low priority. Procyon 22:05, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
Check out [3], the other half of strategywiki. There are forums there and a bunch of great people to talk with too!. If you have other ideas, please mention them! The more people who share their ideas, the better it is for everyone :D. -- Prod (Talk) 22:09, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
You also might want to drop by the irc channel and join us for chat; we need more people in there and you might find someone with common interests =) --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 22:29, 13 March 2007 (CDT)

It might actually be a good idea to have a little note on the talk page to find out users who could help you with the game, the major editors, people who have completed it and the people who own it, it could be usefull.--Rocky Rally-X Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 11:53, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

Just look at the guide's history pages. --DrBob (Talk) 12:17, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
While I completely agree with you DrBob, and would have, in fact, responded exactly the same way, I guess the problem is that not all SW users (especially those new to wikis) know to do this. Regardless, Rocky, if you examine your own experience on this site, you have become a part of this community by in large through your contributions to the site in general, not specifically because of your work on Pokemon. In other words, there aren't really any game centric communities on this site (other than possibly MapleStory), just one editor community. And I think that some users come here expecting to find that sort of thing, and are disappointed when they don't. In that respect, abxy could really come in to play as a method to nuture that kind of user-desire. I know that Echelon eschews the idea of adding forums to SW, and I complete agree. However, if abxy was leveraged to provide that sort of support so that it wouldn't be a resource drain on SW, it might be the best use of that site. I hate to bring up more comparisons to GF, but GF only really took off once CJayC implemented the individual game forums system. Before that, you could go on the site, save a FAQ to your hard drive, and never need to return until you needed a new FAQ. It was those forums that fostered a community within the site. And if we're interested in expanding our user-base, it might be the best non-wiki step that we could possibly take. Personally speaking, I have no desire for that type of interaction, and I happy to focus on editing and promoting the site other ways. But some site features have a way of increasing user visits simply due to their presence, and not through the efforts of any individual at all. Just my $0.02 rant. Procyon 12:33, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
P.S. believe it or not, I was hanging out on the IRC channel when some UPS IT Security guy logged on the abxy server just to tell me that UPS has a no IRC-policy and asked me to log off :P I was so spoked, I did it, but damn, that cuts me off unless I can set up a remote desktop connection from home. Procyon 12:35, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
A while ago, I asked Echelon to make a Portal: namespace like this, so we can have that kind of community work on a game, or a group of games. It's gone now (for good reason, it was never used), but it's another possibility +$.02

IRC Problems (Revisited)

I still haven't figured out my problems with IRC, so I'm up to new ideas here. I'm currently using mIRC (most reliable it seems) and I can connect to other chatrooms. Whenever I attempt to connect to, I get an error that says "Unable to connect to server (Software caused connection abort)." I've checked my firewall, so its not that, and like I said before, I can connect to other random chatrooms. I've attempted connecting using different port numbers with the same result (I used 6666, 6668, 6669 where 6667 is the default). The JAVA applet gives me the same error. Any ideas?--DukeRuckley 08:40, 14 March 2007 (CDT)

Nevermind... It was a firewall problem. I ended up just disabling the virus scan I have and now it works... I'll have to go through it and see why it was blocking only and nothing else. See you all online sometimes.--DukeRuckley 08:50, 14 March 2007 (CDT)
Yay more people; by the way, how do you use the Java Applet? --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 16:44, 14 March 2007 (CDT)

we should really add more stufff

We should start to make stuff on new games that are coming up like command and conquer 3 tiberium wars.

It's so hard to prod the community for this since it requires purchasing games. The purchasing of games becomes a problem due to 1)systems, 2)funding, and 3)PC specifications. Anyways, we try, but if you get the game we would really appreciate if you could help more than other people. Arigato xD --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 22:51, 14 March 2007 (CDT)
The number of regular contributors here is so low that the selection of games currently documented don't come in diverse arragements. For instance, you may have noticed that we currently cover more arcade and Nintendo games than the number of both XBOX 360 and PS3 games combined. StrategyWiki took some root out of a pure Nintendo community, so that's what is covered most. In time we will have a diverse selection of walkthroughs once StrategyWiki gets more contributors. In the meantime, you're welcome to help out. :)--Dan 22:54, 14 March 2007 (CDT)
I may be buying this, although I'm not really good at RTS games, so I probably can't write a guide on it. -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 02:26, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
Perhaps there should be a new project? I get what you mean, a new game comes and while GFAQs and other sites have a huge amount of coverage out for it, there is a scarcity of information here. By a new project, I meant something like, oh, I dunno, 'Project 1 Year' or something like that, where everyone collaborates to at least start popular video games that have been released in the past year or so - most people who've come here have bought a game in the last six months - it's general enough so everyone can collaborate. What does everyone else think? - Froglet 06:41, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
I believe that collaborations are important for the creation of a guide, it helps get most of the ground work done quickly and helps for gathering research (numbers/names, etc.). The only time it isn't effective is when communication is lacking; this is when guides written by a single person work best. --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 15:28, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

Wikipedia article ready to go live?

Opinions/concerns?--Dan 12:00, 16 March 2007 (CDT)

We should probably add a paragraph about bluecloud and maybe a few pics, also WP:COI means we shouldn't do it ourselves.
We probably shouldn't put competitors, the only time you should put competitors on is when they are a famous rivalry e.g Pepsi and Coke--Rocky Rally-X Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 13:38, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
I edited a few things, but the WP:COI policy does concern me somewhat. I don't want to be in any kind of willful violation of that. Perhaps someone with a neutral opinion (such as an editor at Wikibooks) could help us out? echelon 15:45, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
Sorry, I forgot to add, I'm not an editor but I'm pretty sure we could put it up for review or just ask a random admin to check it for us. BTW if we really want we could invoke WP:IAR and the policy isn't too firm, it seems ok to me, it looked good as it was one of my first views when I was new to the site and we are exercising extreme caution right?.

P.S, why don't we just take out the similar sites, we don't want people getting ideas, also we need a place for ref no.2.--Rocky Rally-X Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 16:29, 16 March 2007 (CDT)

P.P.S, I'm going to put in the image from guide for now, feel free to change it, Echelon, didn't you create the site?--Rocky Rally-X Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 16:40, 16 March 2007 (CDT)

Ad update

Since we started displaying Google Adsense ads on January 23rd, we have accumulated $219.77 in earnings from StrategyWiki alone (this figure is from noon today). I believe we will be receiving a $253.44 check from Google at the end of this month--$157.33 of that earned by StrategyWiki; this will put nearly $150 towards our co-located server fund!

On a new note: our total average daily earnings for StrategyWiki are $4.15/day. Our January daily average was $4.07, February $4.31, March $3.90. Though it seems our traffic is increasing, I am slightly worried that our totals are sliding away. (It could just be a temporary thing, but I can't make inferences on such limited raw statistics.) Nick Weinberg, our resident SEO/advertising "expert" suggests that we right-align the ad unit and test using black text on a white background. I think I'm going to implement this for a few days and then compare the daily averages again to see if it has affected anything. In the past when Nick has suggested implementing changes to DSmeet/Abxy's ads, they have proven successful. I do not think this will at all be an eyesore (it may actually be better), but the thread is open for your opinion, since I really want to make sure everyone has no problem with it. echelon 17:26, 16 March 2007 (CDT)

I think the ads would have the highest possible impact on the left navigation bar. It worked so well in DSmeet 1.8, so why not StrategyWiki?--Dan 17:35, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
I agree with Dan that the left navigation bar would have the best impact ad-clicking wise. Also, while we're at messing with AdSense, why don't we block a few ads that would hurt us (like GameFAQs and IGN ads), after all, why advertise our competition even if we get some money from it? --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 17:39, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
I do not support moving the adsense over to the left. To me that would just look awkward. I have to ask, how would moving the adsense box over to the left change things? Changing the color of the text and background? I am sorry, but I am just a little skeptical. Lunar Knight (Talk to me + Contribs) 18:19, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
It wouldn't mean moving them to the left! They're still on the right, just aligned to the right. echelon 18:37, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
Left alignment would also solve the problem with tables that go over the blue border (extend beyond the page) and thus are covered by the ads. --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 18:24, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
Tables extending over the border is a problem with the page, so that shouldn't affect this. Changing the color might help, though not too sure about the right align. Would it be possible to shrink the width of the toolbox so that it matches the width of the ads? (would seem odd changing the site to match the ads though :P). -- Prod (Talk) 18:29, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
I've thought about that, but it's a very complex css hack... echelon 18:37, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
I just updated the color scheme. What do you guys think of how it looks now? echelon 18:37, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
Also StrategyWiki:Ads echelon 18:48, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
Looks good! I think it's much less intrusive, but more easily seen (however that works >.>). This way alignment doesn't even matter, since there's no border around it. -- Prod (Talk) 19:30, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
Looks alot better! Lunar Knight (Talk to me + Contribs) 20:35, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
MyCheats and 1UP should both be added to the ban list. I don't know whether they actually use AdSense at the moment but they're definitely competing services. GarrettTalk 21:45, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
I still think it should be put on the left, right under the small graphic under the navigation, be made smaller and have bluish text to match. The goal here is to have all of the links displayed without having the user to scroll through, making it much more attractive and fitting and less intrusive.--Dan 21:52, 16 March 2007 (CDT)

I think Moby games should be in the banned list, it's a competitor (I think)--Rocky [] (Talk - Contributions) 02:42, 17 March 2007 (CDT)

Could help it if we made adsense work on monobook...
Also this, please. -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 13:57, 17 March 2007 (CDT)

Next time, can you wait a bit, some of us didn't see this thing in the portal until the next day--Rocky [] (Talk - Contributions) 15:33, 17 March 2007 (CDT)

Why wait? It's not like it was a big change. The colors are just different. It can always be changed back in 10 seconds.--ConfusedSoul 16:06, 17 March 2007 (CDT)
I guess, now i'm using FF, my sig's gone wierd, why, the source is exactly the same as the one a few comments ago?--Rocky Rally-X Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 16:16, 17 March 2007 (CDT)

Naming cheat code pages

Should they be named Cheats or Secrets? I'd go with Cheats, but what does everyone else think?--Dan 23:56, 17 March 2007 (CDT)

Depends on the game and the kind of code you're using. Eg, the developers room in FFIV would be a secret (as it's there and you can find it), the invincible code in Doom would be a secret and a cheat (as it's built into the game but you're not meant to be invincible), while an action replay code would be a cheat. - Froglet 00:21, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
Generally I use /Cheats for those either entered as actual codes or else the result of deliberate exploiting of glitches for positive gain. I use /Glitches for those that are merely interesting or annoying rather than useful. I use /Secrets for intentional things that can be accessed in "legal" ways. GarrettTalk 02:29, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
I like Garretts's naming convention the best. --ConfusedSoul 12:07, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
I'm almost with Garrett on this one. Biggest difference being, I would include glitches (whether useful or not) into a /Glitches page and cheats are action replay codes. Any other codes (like infinite health in GTA) that were programmed into the game on purpose would be /Secrets.--DukeRuckley 13:21, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
There's also /Passwords for games like Mega Man. --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 13:43, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
In the Pokémon Ruby page it has cheats split into 3 sections, maybe we should use that. Btw after this discussion, make a policy about it.--Rocky Rally-X Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 14:06, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
Whatever is decided should go under [[StrategyWiki:Guide/Organization#Cheats/Codes]]. -- Prod (Talk) 14:08, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
Sigh...Even though in no way do I support the use of cheat codes (or cheating in general :-P) I'll add my input. /Glitches would be used for in game graphical and design errors that allow the player to exploit them to their advantage. /Secrets would be used for hints to finding, locating and unlocking things. /Cheats would be used for codes and other ways to hack the game to give yourself an advantage. Lunar Knight (Talk to me + Contribs) 15:54, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
What Rocky is getting at would all be classified under cheats (Under my classifications). As they both utilize codes to hack the game. Lunar Knight (Talk to me + Contribs) 15:57, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
Isn't there a difference in the definitions between cheats and secrets? bibliomaniac15 00:18, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
Indeed, cheats being button combinations; secrets being unlockables/glitches/findables/locales/ways to legitely get large amounts of things, i.e. items/etc. --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 00:31, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
Heres my input: A cheat is a button combo or a code, a secret is something such as an unlockable. I may be basically repeating what Notmyhandle has said, but with the addition of a cheat as a code. :-P Lunar Knight (Talk to me + Contribs) 18:00, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
Also, passwords are secrets, but constitute cheating if used to... cheat (bypass stuff/help urself out in game). --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 18:15, 23 March 2007 (CDT)

You can thank Dan for the speed increase...

Dan got Zend Optimizer installed, and all I can say is wow. What an incredibly noticeable effect it's had on our page load times! PHP should seriously come with this packaged in the core. echelon 22:10, 18 March 2007 (CDT)

Yipeeeee <3 Dan --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 22:26, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
I've also moved over some more static images over to the media server, so the server is now responding even *quicker* to StrategyWiki requests.--Dan 23:50, 18 March 2007 (CDT)

Gallery Broken

I.E. User:Notmyhandle/Images and Capcom vs. SNK 2. --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 00:18, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

The error seems to be caused by MediaWiki not being able to find a config file. The fix is here under the heading After I run importDump.php or mwdumper, the articles are messed up. Templates are skewed and do not display properly. what can I do? (the bug report is here). -- Prod (Talk) 00:45, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
Fixed. Thanks for the info Prod. :-) --DrBob (Talk) 02:25, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

Disambiguation pages

These things exist on wikipedia, and for those of you who don't know what they are they are pages that list all of the references of a name for navigation purposes. Thus they should also exist on Strategywiki. I made one for Drivel, which was deleted, but I felt that it was necessary for finding both the drivel template and the drivel category, perhaps the drivel image could have been added to the list as well. Anyways, what would be bad about having these? --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 00:53, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

The drivel disambig specifically wasn't needed. I've redirected it to the category (which has info about the template). The pages are only when the "pages" aren't directly connected. There are some examples at Category:Disambiguation. I just realized that those subcategories probably don't belong there as most are just series templates. If anything, the whole Category:Series should go as a subcat. -- Prod (Talk) 01:05, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
Disambig pages are fine for the topic of StrategyWiki (games), but I don't see the need to clutter the namespaces with disambiguation pages for maintenance categories. --DrBob (Talk) 12:40, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Minor Helping out with Stuff Query

Hey, I know that there's Project:Cleanup and all that around here, just that as far as I've been looking, it isn't that accessible. I know that it's there, just that I've been looking around and so far the only way I've found of looking it up is by going to a project-member's page. Sure, I bet if I typed in the right words I could find it off the search, just that when you type in 'cleanup' or something like that, you only get talk pages and places where the 'cleanup' tag is used. I'm more than happy to help out with the stuff like formatting and expanding articles, but it's kinda hard to do so when you can't go to, say, the Community Portal and just click on a link to the project page. Would it be a worthwhile task to put that and similar projects on the 'ways you can help' section? This would certainly make it easier to get more people to do the minor stuff that it seems predominantly sysops and bureaucrats are doing right now.

To get it in the search, type in cleanup, then tick strategywiki, untick main and search again, but it would help if it was a little easier.--Rocky Rally-X Rock.png (Talk - Contributions)
I'm of the opinion that if people can't find the cleanup project, then they're not going to be particularly helpful with it; if any new user could come and "clean stuff up", it would probably make more work for the sysops cleaning up the mistakes they made. The work is predominantly done by sysops, due to the fact that a considerable amount of it involves doing things which only sysops have the power to do. :-P --DrBob (Talk) 12:37, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
Because I disagree with this principle, I put the link on the community portal, where there previously was simply whitespace. This stuff will definitly overrun the amount of work the admin team can handle, and plenty of it can be done by anyone. I put a notice on the project page for those who have questions.  :) -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 21:42, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
Also - StrategyWiki:Cleanup project. -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 21:45, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
Ignoring the top two, these were the only ways you could get to the cleanup project. I really doubt an inability to go through those pages to find something has an effect on how useful someone would be for cleanup. -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 21:46, 20 March 2007 (CDT)


Does anyone think that we should use any of these ads on our user pages, 2, 18 and 21 seem like the best choices to me but hat do you think?--Rocky Rally-X Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 03:36, 25 March 2007 (CDT)

They look interesting, although few would be directly applicable. I think they might be a little..."loud", though. :-\ --DrBob (Talk) 06:38, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
Yeah, I guess they are a bit big, no.15 seems OK but there are loads that we could probably change Wikipedia to Strategywiki on if we are allowed to import them.--

Rocky Rally-X Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 07:02, 25 March 2007 (CDT)

I have to agree with DrBob here, these are a bit too loud and we really don't want to encourage the creation of flashy things on StrategyWiki (they get out of hand rather quickly). --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 09:11, 25 March 2007 (CDT)


Does anyone mind if I transfer the rating templates e.g{{ESRB}} to Wikipedia, it would save a lot of time there, does anyone have any problems with this?-- Rocky Rally-X Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 14:59, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

They're all GFDL, so if you keep the revision history it's fine. ;-) --DrBob (Talk) 16:22, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
How do I do that? do I have to use import and Export?--

Rocky Rally-X Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 10:11, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

In order to retain the revision history, yes you do (unless there is some new way in 1.10 that I don't know about). While exporting is fine, the problem comes in the import stage, as Special:Import is restricted, so you'd have to contact a Wikipedia sysop to import it for you. --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 15:53, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

Prod is the sole author of {{ESRB}} and probably some of the others too. You could just link to the appropriate userpage(s) in the edit summary when you paste the current revision into Wikipedia. That way his name appears on the author list, and the GFDL is satisfied. At least that's the way I understand it. GarrettTalk 16:08, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

Broken SVG rendering

The SVG to PNG rendering is completely broken. For example look at Wikimedia's rendering of an upscaled 0004.svg compared to ours. Not only is there no transparency, for some reason the smooth rectangles end up being fuzzy... any ideas? With behaviour like this, SVG is far less useful. GarrettTalk 16:51, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

Was the original svg image just created using fuzzy lines? Thus whoever made it should just make another one. Other than that I have no suggestions ='( --Notmyhandle (talk contribs) 16:55, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
They're both the same image. I uploaded the Commons version here. I recall Blendmaster mentioning the lack of transparency in the past, but this is far more significant as it indicates some SVG images won't be rendered correctly at all. GarrettTalk 15:48, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
We're using the default MediaWiki 1.9 list of SVG->PNG converters, so there's something wrong with the configuration of one of them, or something else wrong on the server. This probably a situation for Dan. --DrBob (Talk) 16:34, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
I'm going to pin this on ImageMagick for now. I'll check out our phpinfo and php.ini and see if there's any additional info. echelon 14:32, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
I'm not sure why it would be doing that... IM and GD are usually all or nothing affairs. I'll take a look at the installations and talk with Dan about it the next time I see him online. --PowerMatt 15:08, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
Thanks Matt! echelon 15:47, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
I'm not sure if this is relevant but if you go into the upload.wikimedia website there is a prompt to install Adobe SVG viewer on IE6, for our media.Strategywiki there's no prompt at all but it shows up.--Rocky Rally-X Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 07:44, 11 April 2007 (CDT)


Here's an idea that would work for many game guides. InvisiClues were used in Infocom games, and even though I'm not a giant interactive fiction enthusiast, I say the idea has merit - especially when hypertext format makes these clues dead simple to implement.

I just blew my enthusiasm to hell with Twilight Princess when I basically looked at one spoiler from a complete walkthrough; if I had only gotten a clue that would have told me I'm on the right track, that would have kept my enthusiasm going.

So this is what I'm thinking - we could do InvisiClue-like things: (Highlight to see, be careful if you hit Edit as that shows the solutions in plain text, obviously)

How do I get to the north tower in City in the Sky?

  1. [There's clawshotable panes here. What do you think? Clawshot from pane to pane. Duh.]
  2. [But they're not turned properly to get all the way, are they? Well, it would be cool if you'd make them turn all the time.]
  3. [There's a switch to make them turn nearby.]
  4. [Yes, that big fan on the outer wall is involved.]
  5. [That's right, the switch is on the roof of the central room.]
  6. [You've probably checked out the top rooms and figured out a way to shut down the big fan on the central room's ceiling. Ever wondered why you did that?]
  7. [Yes, so you can reach the central room from above.]
  8. [Clawshot on the grating on the roof of the above room, then lower yourself to the main room. Use second clawshot to get yourself to the ball switch.]

The good idea with these is that initially, they give only hints that let you know you're on right track, without giving away the entire solution. For example, to my own credit, I already figured things out to step 7 without any assistance, but I was growing frustrated with the level and had no idea if that really was the only option that I should have been focusing on. Now I hate myself for looking at GameFAQs... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 06:51, 31 March 2007 (CDT)

I guess it would be a good idea, I got these from wikipedia but what about text-only browsers and screen readers, it might also be a copyvio and people who set it so that text colour might not be changed. Other than these, it's a good idea --

Rocky Rally-X Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 07:13, 31 March 2007 (CDT)

Er, I don't think it's a copyvio; I didn't mean copying Infocom InvisiClues wholesale, I meant creating new clues for other games in the same format. I don't think the idea is patented or anything, and folks like UHS use similar scheme anyway. =) But you're right about text-only things, and (as said above) there's also the problem that hitting "Edit" will show all of the clues; if this is implemented, these things have to be considered too. I'm thinking of some CSS/template wizardry here. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:13, 31 March 2007 (CDT)
Actually, I don't think hitting edit would be too much of a problem, I guess that if you wanted to improve something then you should know the plot and the solution first. BTW try logging out and hitting the above edit button, you can't even see the source.--Rocky Rally-X Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 08:33, 31 March 2007 (CDT)
This could be resolved by using comments (like this), but, yeah, I don't think that's much of a problem. GarrettTalk 04:49, 1 April 2007 (CDT)

spoiler template, anybody?

Besides, chances are if they are looking at a guide, they'll want the solution itself, not just pointers (as Midna is good at giving those). The only problem with the spoiler template is that you can't read it without javascript enabled... (and if you have anything else concerning the Twilight Princess guide, leave a message on the guide's talk page or my talk page, as I'm the main contributor) --Ryan SchmidtTalk - Contribs 13:38, 31 March 2007 (CDT)

This is an interesting idea. One way of implementing this would be to open with a hidden set of brief numbered points, and then a non-hidden full walkthrough further down the page (like Grand Theft Auto III/The Fuzz Ball, only with the "Brief" section whited out). This way the clues would be a sequential solution (more like UHS) which is preferable since the "how do I?" organisation of FAQs has largely gone out of style in favour of step-by-step walkthroughs. It would also be easy to put a JavaScript-powered link beside each answer to reveal it with a single click, just like how YouTube's URL/embed code is completely selected when you click in the box. GarrettTalk 04:49, 1 April 2007 (CDT)