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

Welcome to StrategyWiki![edit]

Hello Gumption! Welcome to StrategyWiki. Thank you for your contributions. If you have any questions, just contact a sysop through their talk page or post on the staff lounge, and they'd be happy to help. If you need help editing, check the StrategyWiki Guide. If you have a question about the content on this wiki, you can check out our staff lounge page. If you want to ask questions or hang out in IRC, we're usually around. On the other hand, if you have ideas for StrategyWiki, bring them up on the forums. Please remember to sign your name on, and only on, talk pages by clicking Wikisigbutton.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field as this helps to document all of your hard work. Feel free to delete this message from your talk page if you like, or keep it for reference. Happy editing! -- Baejung92 (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary note[edit]

Could you please actually write one? Just typing aaa isn't very helpful. It doesn't take very much time to write a little more. RobJ1981 05:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, when adding new pages to a guide, please add the links to the Table of Contents. -- Prod (Talk) 06:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
For attribution, please put the links/usernames in the edit summaries rather than on the page. Anyone can remove links from a page, but it's impossible to remove it from the edit histories (which should follow the content wherever it goes). Keep up the good work :) -- Prod (Talk) 06:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Since this seems to be such an issue at this site I'll state my response once here. This isn't a big deal. Multiple edits in less than an hour by the same person is obviously someone tweaking things around. I try to make generous use of the comments and "minor edit" check box but at somepoint it's just a pain when making many minor tweaks. Preview is great for a quick edit but when working with large amounts of data and major changes it sometimes isn't the best save practice. I've lost edits before so I prefer to save small and often. You guys should relax a little especially on a new page. Thank you for your other comments though as I found them helpful.--Gumption 23:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Usually someone typing in aaa as an edit summary is a vandal. It doesn't have to be long/detailed. A single word is often enough (cleanup, fix, more). Firefox will often save your past ones, so you only need to type the first letter or two and it will let you fill in the rest. When working with large amounts of data (and especially when rearranging it) I'd really recommend using a text editor (Textpad is one I really like and it's free for personal use). However, edit the way that makes it easiest for you to add good content to the guides :). -- Prod (Talk) 05:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Mount&Blade[edit]

The table on the Companion Comparison page is huge and forces some major side scrolling. It would be better to split it up into different sections, perhaps along the lines of the subheadings at the top of the table (i.e. Companion, Attributes, Personal Skills, etc.). Also, because we have our own navigation system ({{Header Nav}} and {{Footer Nav}}), the "See also" sections aren't really necessary. The {{details}} template or just a normal link while explaining related pages in the text fits more into this particular wiki's style. Thanks for all the great info you're adding into the M&B pages, it's looking really great! - najzere 17:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The page looks much better, good job. In the future if you use the "Show preview" button below the edit text box, right next to the "Save page" button, you'll be able to see how the page is coming along without having to put up notices on the page and without multiple edits going into Recent Changes and the pages edit history. - najzere 23:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of what it takes to make a campanion choice in Mount&Blade, we don't have huge amounts of whitespace on any of the pages on the wiki. I understand you spent a good deal of time on the tables and you feel that is the best way to present the information, but if it breaks the layout, then we have to find another way. It's okay to mix in some narrative explanation to help users understand what's on the page, and it may be necessary if the tables get broken down further. - najzere 00:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Learn to be flexible[edit]

Dude, if you don't like what najzere is doing, he's offered you several avenues that you can use to air your grievance and have the matter discussed and decided upon. As a sysop, it's najzere's job to be concerned with format. You're responsible for the content, but you have to let najzere do his job. We are contractually obligated to show the ads, and therefore, any content that may interfere with the display of those ads must be corrected. Not to mention the fact that the size of that table is ridiculous. I don't care what kind of display you use, no one wants to look at a spreadsheet in order to get that kind of information. This is a wiki, not Excel. Add all the content that you want, don't fight with the sysops, and bring your complaints up in the proper places, or we accept your resignation from the site, it's that simple. Procyon 01:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have every intention of airing my greviances in the proper chanels and will. I'll try to voice most of the issues on that page but I'll respond to a few items here. "adds" I understand that you need to show the adds but I wasn't trying to remove the add. My edit was just a way to display the data after the add. "table size" yes someone does want a table that big. I do. I do so much that I took the time to creat an account and write the page. Hours of work. I choose to share that work on a wiki becouse I felt other people would want it as well. The point of those tables is not a tabular list of data broken out by type but a combination of data in such a way that it's easy to make decisions neither of you seem to get the point of displaying the data that way. It's about the decisions not the data. "excel" your right it's not but i didn't think anyone would like to manage an uploaded file. "fight" I had no idea at the time that najzere was a sysop until he locked the page. najzere is the one who turned it into a fight when he did that. before that it was just two people having a disagreement and discussion about format. a disagreement between the author (me) and some random guy that didn't like to scroll and hadn't actually worked on the page at all. --Gumption 04:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
A) This is a wiki. Your work is appreciated, but the page does not belong to you, it belongs to the community. We adhere to the policies on this page as much as Wikipedia does.
B) najzere has been promoted to sysop for a reason: He has proven himself to be a very valuable asset to this community, and as such, his judgement on the matter is assumed correct until you can demonstrate why he is wrong. You haven't shown such proof as of yet, although you are invited to do so if you feel you can. najzere did not "start a fight," he was doing his job, and the community supports him. Procyon 05:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
That's just it he broke the policies by not allowing a discussion. I had very good reasons for rejecting his edit. "It didn't work" And I have been demonstrating why he is wrong and providing that proof. But nobody seems to be listening. I'm providing reasons your just saying "I don't like to scroll" the data isn't for you it's for us users.--Gumption 06:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
do you two even play mount & blade and if you do have you ever tried to obtimize a companion group? If you had you might better understand how it is i'm trying to help the reader. these tables are usefull as they are. and the usefullness would break down if the data was broken up.--Gumption 06:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I believe this was brought up on the other page, but I'm bringing it here since it's a more generic discussion, namely the dynamic sizing aspect of the site. If you are suggesting that the site should expand beyond the width of the browser, I would strongly disagree. We have 16k+ other pages that don't need horizontal scrolling, and changing it for one page is not elegant. None of the other points brought up affect anything site-wide so should stick to that page. -- Prod (Talk) 06:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
um your mixing up the conversation a little. but yea every site should dynamically resize and content should not be hiden by any other content no matter what size window. anything else is poor site design. it's hasn't come up because so few people are running around on low resolutions anymore but that doesn't mean you shouldn't code for them. it's just as bad as a page that doesn't fill a large high res window. it even demonstrates why a 3 column layout is usually a bad idea. way too busy. but this is about it not being dynamic. It isn't even a real issue for these tables they just need to be lowered below the ad so it doesn't interfer. --Gumption 06:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I did that on purpose since the discussions specific to that page can be continued there. I think it's bad site design to make people have to scroll horizontally, since it's incredibly annoying. There should be a way to make content available so that they don't have to scroll horizontally. And making someone scroll horizontally across this table is almost equivalent to splitting the table in two. -- Prod (Talk) 07:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
ya your right about the horizontal scrolling but I had very delibret reasons for breaking those rules and I had felt I had limited the scrolling to minimum levels I think najazar has probabaly presented a working solution so it's a none issue.--Gumption 07:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)