← January 2020 | February 2020 | March 2020 →
License doesn't show
I uploaded File:Gothic how to evade the orc between the bridge and the citadel.png and File:Gothic how to evade the orc before the citadel.png and I selected the public domain option in Special:UploadWizard, but it doesn't show on the file page? Lite Grooves (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- UploadWizard is kinda broken since it's built for Wikipedia and we don't use it the same way. It's on my to-do list to clean up. -- Prod (talk) 04:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Prod I think it works now. Lite Grooves (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Prod Template:Self/Documentation says "Note that this is NOT a requirement for it to be licensed this way, nor does it imply that content can be licensed under a different license." but is this still correct? I uploaded my guide image as CC0, I don't see why that wouldn't be allowed. Lite Grooves (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
How to suggest deletion of an image?
I don't know what's the procedure here. (if there is any other than adding Template:delete)
I want to suggest deleting File:StrategyWiki user.jpg. This image is not from a game, purely decorative and there is no indication it has a free license. (it's probably a stock photo anyway) This isn't fair use, there is no comment on the photo itself.
It was used on StrategyWiki:Guide/Walkthrough, but I replaced it with File:StrategyWiki cat Monkey Island 2 Monkey Wrench puzzle.jpg which does have a free license, see Martha the cat reads up on aquariums. The Monkey Island within the image I photoshopped is fair use, but that's from a game. (and arguably the image also comments on the puzzle, making for a valid claim of fair use) Lite Grooves (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- {{delete}} is correct. -- Prod (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Actually, in this case I'd suggest just uploading the file to the existing location. That's a really long filename. -- Prod (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Prod Oh, didn't know that was allowed here. As you wish. Lite Grooves (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- Actually, in this case I'd suggest just uploading the file to the existing location. That's a really long filename. -- Prod (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Can I make a single-page guide from a multi-page guide?
I've read StrategyWiki:Guide/Main game page#Single-page vs. multi-page but it doesn't mention this and maybe it hasn't been done yet.
Some readers will prefer a single-page walkthrough/guide, for example for printing or to save the walkthrough when there is no reliable internet. Is it allowed to create a page that generates a single-page walkthrough/guide from a multi-page walkthrough/guide (only for those readers who prefer that format) by means of inclusion? Lite Grooves (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- The preference is not to do that, as most users visit for only very specific content. We could potentially build an extension for it, but it hasn't been very high on the priority list. -- Prod (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- But any user would have the option? View the multi-page guide or the single-page guide? Lite Grooves (talk) 04:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- It's additional pages to maintain, and when we tried it before modifications to the base content would sometimes mess up layout on the "merged" page. They would also be pretty long. -- Prod (talk) 13:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Prod I'm just gonna try it for the Gothic guide to see if I run into any of those issues. I do think that {{Header Nav}} and {{Footer Nav}} will have to be encapsulated in {{#switch:{{SUBPAGENAME}}|Single page=| (current template content) }}. Being long, well, that's common. But it can be more convenient to just scroll as you play and scroll back when you think you missed something, besides the printing and spotty internet advantages. It's a matter of preference. Lite Grooves (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- User:Lite Grooves/Gothic/Single page this generally seems to work fine, but there is a limit to page length. (so I excluded the side quests) Still, a walkthough could be provided in a small number of pages like one per chapter without getting close to the transclusion limit. The header nav and footer nav template would need the adjustment I suggested. Lite Grooves (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- It's additional pages to maintain, and when we tried it before modifications to the base content would sometimes mess up layout on the "merged" page. They would also be pretty long. -- Prod (talk) 13:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Long pages take a long time to load and can impact a user's browser. And finding your location on a super long page is difficult. The ToCs would also become a mess. And as you mentioned, having to customize every single page to support this feature is a lot of overhead for a matter of preference. -- Prod (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Prod long pages take longer to load, but don't have to take excessively long. Trackers and ads slow down internet pages in general way more. (on StrategyWiki it's not that bad btw) More text doesn't impact browsers too much. Finding a location isn't difficult, you just ctrl+f for it. (also there actually is a ToC) And there is no need to customize every single page? I haven't changed a single page of the Gothic walkthrough for this. To the degree that there is a mess: the changes that would have to be made to the individual guide pages to improve this would also benefit those individual pages themselves. Turning a guide full of drivel (and there is some level of drivel in the Gothic walkthrough) results in a single page with a lot of drivel.
- By using headers where appropriate on individual pages and using {{Sidebar}} the way it's supposed to (allowing for its exclusion on single-page versions, reducing the page length), both the single-page version and the individual guide pages benefit. Lite Grooves (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm very much not in favor of this approach. We simply aren't constructed for this kind of content. Ideally, we would have auto-loaders that stream in more content as you scroll to the bottom of the page, instead of trying to fetch 100% of the guide in one shot. But more to the point, we're not that kind of site. We are built specifically around the page-ification of guides. Our entire infrastructure is built around that concept, for over 10 years. If you want to make that kind of guide, that's entirely your call, but StrategyWiki is not really the place to do it. Procyon 18:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- User:Procyon Oh God, you are suggesting a (near-)bottomless page with infinite scrolling system? If you do that, I'm outta here. No ctrl+f, no proper navigation, no opening pages in tabs and if the next section refuses to load, well, reload the page and have fun scrolling to the bottom 100 times to get back to where you were! Prod said "And finding your location on a super long page is difficult", but with infinite scrolling it's not difficult: it's impossible!
- But why do you really object? Fetching 100% of the guide (or half, or a third, in case of long guides) is perfectly doable for those who want that and (if we had to make a choice) infinitely preferable over infinite scroll. No changes are needed to existing guide pages, there would just be one (or two or three for long guides) additional pages that show more pages at once. Lite Grooves (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm very much not in favor of this approach. We simply aren't constructed for this kind of content. Ideally, we would have auto-loaders that stream in more content as you scroll to the bottom of the page, instead of trying to fetch 100% of the guide in one shot. But more to the point, we're not that kind of site. We are built specifically around the page-ification of guides. Our entire infrastructure is built around that concept, for over 10 years. If you want to make that kind of guide, that's entirely your call, but StrategyWiki is not really the place to do it. Procyon 18:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- But any user would have the option? View the multi-page guide or the single-page guide? Lite Grooves (talk) 04:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Please understand that there wouldn't be any obligation for these to be created. If anyone wants to, they would have to create a version in one or a few pages themselves for any given guide. I'm just asking if it's not forbidden to do that and (if it's not forbidden) to make some small changes to {{Header Nav}}, {{Footer Nav}} and {{Sidebar}} (protected templates so I can't) that won't affect any existing guide page. Lite Grooves (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- {{Header Nav}} and {{Footer Nav}} are used on _every single page_ in the main content space on the site. They are purposely kept as simple as possible. Adding switch statements and and a subpage check to every page just for the small percentage who want a onepage guide is not going to happen. Really, the only way this can be accomplished cleanly is via some kind of extension on the backend. Also, {{sidebar}} is often used for showing differences between versions, so depending on the guide, it could be critical to include. -- Prod (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- User:Lite Grooves, I appreciate your enthusiasm for this subject, but we've been running the site like this for close to 15 years now. You are the first and only user to make this request. It's simply not our philosophy. As you have a demonstrated, if a user truly wants this kind of guide, they can construct it for themselves via transclusion on a user page they make for themselves. But I don't think that this approach should be incorporated into the site guide as an approach that we want users to encourage users to take. If we get more users who request this kind of feature, we can consider it, but like I said; in 15 years, you're the first. Procyon 01:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- User:Procyon, please don't get complacent and think nothing could ever change. Try to keep an open mind and find a compromise to avoid division. You're not the first to tell me this, and I've been responsible for bigger changes on bigger sites. That doesn't mean I'm always right, I get stuff wrong too, but don't discard ideas too easily. And besides.. if you ever want to offer that bottomless scroll as an optional feature (I'd hate it, but I'm all for offering the choice for those who actually like it), you'll probably need the single-page guides I want to work on so whatever plugin you'd use would have something to work with.
- Prod said above "when we tried it before modifications to the base content would sometimes mess up layout on the "merged" page" and you say "in 15 years, you're the first". So which is it? If someone tried it, they were asking for it, weren't they? You couldn't have tried it more than 15 years ago, because StrategyWiki is a little over 14 years old. And receiving few requests seems logical, if nobody is aware it's possible, why would they? Did anyone ever ask for a microwave oven before they were available? So how about this: I create {{Header Nav2}}, {{Footer Nav2}} and {{Sidebar2}} that include the regular nav and sidebar on the usual guide pages but do nothing on single-page transclusions. And those can be used for guides that have been polished to allow single-page transclusion, are low on drivel, don't overuse headers and use the sidebar only for optional information. So only those will incorporate the extra switch element. I won't be adding it to Gothic until I've polished that walkthrough. I won't push anyone to use it either. Give it some time, evaluate later. Sounds reasonable? Lite Grooves (talk) 06:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- I think Procyon just forgot, it was a long time ago and the trials were unsuccessful as well (I can't seem to find the discussion anymore...). Editing on this site already has a high barrier of entry. I'd rather not make it worse by having an "optional" set of replacement templates that has such a small use case. If you want to include it in your userspace that's fine. A way for you to hide all the header nav's for yourself is to override the 'noprint' css class to 'display: none' in your personal style sheet. -- Prod (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- Prod how do you know it has a small use case? Did you convert some guides into single-page guides and were the pageviews abysmal or something? It makes sense that few would ask for a feature that doesn't exist, if I didn't know it was possible, I wouldn't have asked for it either. I'll think about it. There might be another way. Lite Grooves (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- From our analytics, I can see what pages are regularly visited, and how many pages people view once they come on the site. As you updated in the SW:GUIDE yourself, many people come for a very specific difficult segment and then move on. -- Prod (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- Prod that is correct, I also think the majority of visitors will probably prefer the individual pages. But that doesn't mean that SW can't or shouldn't also cater the needs of the minority. Lite Grooves (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- From our analytics, I can see what pages are regularly visited, and how many pages people view once they come on the site. As you updated in the SW:GUIDE yourself, many people come for a very specific difficult segment and then move on. -- Prod (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- Prod how do you know it has a small use case? Did you convert some guides into single-page guides and were the pageviews abysmal or something? It makes sense that few would ask for a feature that doesn't exist, if I didn't know it was possible, I wouldn't have asked for it either. I'll think about it. There might be another way. Lite Grooves (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- I think Procyon just forgot, it was a long time ago and the trials were unsuccessful as well (I can't seem to find the discussion anymore...). Editing on this site already has a high barrier of entry. I'd rather not make it worse by having an "optional" set of replacement templates that has such a small use case. If you want to include it in your userspace that's fine. A way for you to hide all the header nav's for yourself is to override the 'noprint' css class to 'display: none' in your personal style sheet. -- Prod (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- User:Lite Grooves, I appreciate your enthusiasm for this subject, but we've been running the site like this for close to 15 years now. You are the first and only user to make this request. It's simply not our philosophy. As you have a demonstrated, if a user truly wants this kind of guide, they can construct it for themselves via transclusion on a user page they make for themselves. But I don't think that this approach should be incorporated into the site guide as an approach that we want users to encourage users to take. If we get more users who request this kind of feature, we can consider it, but like I said; in 15 years, you're the first. Procyon 01:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- {{Header Nav}} and {{Footer Nav}} are used on _every single page_ in the main content space on the site. They are purposely kept as simple as possible. Adding switch statements and and a subpage check to every page just for the small percentage who want a onepage guide is not going to happen. Really, the only way this can be accomplished cleanly is via some kind of extension on the backend. Also, {{sidebar}} is often used for showing differences between versions, so depending on the guide, it could be critical to include. -- Prod (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
What links here?
User:Prod thanks for the Discord invitation, but I like being able look up previously asked questions.
Special:WhatLinksHere is useless here because {{Header Nav}} and {{Footer Nav}} are including the entire table of contents. I didn't even know why it was broken until I looked at it and discovered that the header/footer nav templates are doing this.
I honestly never even noticed that little "[show]" link and I bet many visitors overlook it. And those who don't may or may not use it. I'm a bit shocked: above there is severe concern about the performance impact of a #switch element (which is ridiculously cheap), but the table of contents is transcluded twice on every single page, which (compared to a #switch) costs a fortune. And the reality is that the table of contents is now shown three times on every guide page, because it was already available on the left.
There are a few ways this could be improved.. The obvious one being to remove the ToC from the header/footer nav templates and just point users to the ToC on the left. Another option could be to use plain links on the ToC of every single guide ToC. (would require a bot and users to learn to use a template to link pages on the ToC, so probably not very attractive) Or perhaps load the ToC in the header/footer nav ondemand using JS.
Either way I'd really like to be able to use WhatLinksHere because when splitting/merging pages, I have to replace the links in any pages that actually link to it. Lite Grooves (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- Special:ReplaceText, but I'm not sure if you have access. -- Prod (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- "You do not have permission to make string replacements on the entire wiki, for the following reason: The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Administrators."
- Any other ideas? Lite Grooves (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- Btw, for replacing links there is an alternative I forgot to mention: if mw:Help:CirrusSearch were installed here, I could just search for them. I don't know if CirrusSearch comes with any major downsides, but if it doesn't that could be an option. Lite Grooves (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- The AutoToC on the side is not (yet) supported on all skins, so we may change the transclusion once that is ready. mw:Extension:CirrusSearch has significant dependencies that we're not ready to handle yet. The default search can sometimes handle basic searches if you use full text search. If you need something more complicated, you can find me on discord or leave a message on my talk page. -- Prod (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Template:Floatingtoc
Since the square ad was added, pages that use {{floatingtoc}} have generally been a bit messy looking. I've switched the default to left-alignment and fixed a few of the odd cases that I found. Please let me know if there are any major impacts that I've missed. -- Prod (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Gothic II versions
There are two versions of Gothic II: vanilla and gold which includes Night of the Raven (NotR), an add-in. Not really an add-on because it adds stuff as part of the base game, not a new chapter.
Nowadays few people would play Gothic II vanilla, I think. On Steam and GOG you're getting the gold edition today, nothing else. So unless you're installing it from a CD-rom you bought many years ago, you've got the NotR add-in.
As I'm adding bits to the walkthrough, it is possible that some stuff doesn't apply to or is different in vanilla Gothic II because I'm obviously playing Gothic II gold. Wouldn't it be wise to just ignore the existence of Gothic II vanilla here and dedicate the entire guide to Gothic II gold? Lite Grooves (talk) 09:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- The goal is to have coverage of all versions of the game, so things that aren't part of the original game should be pointed out with the sidebar template like on Gothic II/Walkthrough. If you're not sure, then write it out as vanilla and someone can fix it later. -- Prod (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
- Alright, I will. There is no apparent way to disable the add-in and I'm not really interested in looking up every detail to check if it applies to the original as well. When reading this guide by Ellusion which appears to be kind of famous I sometimes notice that something in the guide doesn't seem to be quite right. It's extremely comprehensive but it was written for Gothic II vanilla. For the most part it applies to G2+NotR as well, but not always. And no, I don't copy anything from it (that's not allowed and I prefer to omit plot details unless needed), but I need a guide too. Lite Grooves (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)