Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Aemony

  1. 1 hour ago, NeoChaos said:

    when I notice that the warning about the game's language availability is in the middle of the infobox, before the series listing. This wouldn't bug me too much, except that the warning text showing up like that breaks the formatting of everything below it (screenshot attached, notice how the left margin is no longer recognized after the warning message).

    Thanks for mentioning this -- I've moved the warnings section to be shown below the seriesbox. The change will be visible on pages after they've been purged.


    1 hour ago, NeoChaos said:

    While we're at it, can we separate the warnings from the infobox so they're easily editable on the game page itself?

    The warnings section is a fully automated section that dynamically changes its contents based on the rest of the page. Any additions should preferably match that, and be designed around automatic population so that they're added to all other articles as well were such a warning is applicable.

    What editors can do, however, is exploit the fact that the warnings are added to the very bottom of the infobox by, well, merely adding new bullets that they want to appear as part of the warnings list below the infobox. This, however, isn't technically supported nor established, so no guarantees are given -- such an approach might very well break in the future.





  2. Though you need to note that this would only apply for persistent availability, where the game is available any time and not merely limited to short periods of time interspaced with unavailability.


    And you need to figure out how we would cover a game like Crucible, that was initially available to everyone but then turned around and went closed beta where only "existing" players could still play it and new players were granted access in waves like a regular closed beta 🙂 


  3. 46 minutes ago, Andytizer said:

    Does this help at all? https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Topic:Qe11vb4856fnlpmh - seems an expensive way to check whether a subpage exists.

    Mhm, I'd prefer it if I found another solution than that one. The thing I like with Special:PrefixIndex is that it allows for non-standard subpages, such as https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/SimCity_(2013)/Bugs, which would allow the community to create custom pages if they so desired.


    46 minutes ago, Andytizer said:

    I'd be happy for RGB middleware and everything to be grouped under this one section Third-party tools. If we have lots of RGB stuff then becuase it's one template, we could output to its own subsection of the table in the future, e.g. Tools, RGB, etc.

    Yes, that's the direction that my own thoughts are going in right now -- to basically have a table akin to the input table that automatically hides or shows different subsections of the table according to the filled out rows.

  4. Of course MediaWiki loves to throw a god damn curveball at you when you least expect it... Why do I even still expect it to function within expected parameters?! (╯‵□′)╯︵┻━┻

    So the Special:PrefixIndex call itself isn't an issue -- determining whether to show the sidebar or not is. In a logical, perfect, world, a simple IF statement to check whether the Special:PrefixIndex call outputs anything would suffice, but in a MediaWiki world that isn't possible. Because even on pages where there's no actual subpages to list, that command still evaluates as 'true' on such statements and so the sidebar still appears even though it's intended to be hidden.

    I've tried various ways of working around the issue but no dice, so far.

    Dunno if I will be able to figure this one out, as I have basically nothing to go on.

  5. On the subject, the RGB lighting middleware page has a lot of examples of third-party stuff that we could add to the table.

    I'm going to contemplate the subject a few days more or something, and will probably then throw up a draft we can test.


    22 hours ago, Andytizer said:

    Navigationally, It would be interesting to to see something like this:

    - Article: collapsed box under Seriesbox that lists all Subpages

    That should actually be relatively easy to achieve using {{Special:PrefixIndex/{{FULLPAGENAME}}/|hideredirects=yes|stripprefix=yes}}

    That call creates an alphabetically ordered list of all subpages below the specified prefix (the page name in this case) and lists it in an ordered list.

    See https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/User:Aemony#Pages for an example.

    It would be rather easy to create an automatic inclusion of a seriesbox/categorybox containing such a list where appropriate and add it to the bottom of the infobox game template. Although I'd recommend not keeping it collapsed by default until we've seen how many subpages got used.

  6. We'd probably preferably want a solution that combines dedicated subpages (in those cases they're necessary) with an actual "Third-party support" table, below the "Other information" section.

    Imagine that we made use of a new table on the game pages where we tracked support among all kinds of third-party tools, such as ReShade, Special K, dgVoodoo 2, DXVK, Logitech's G Hub-whatsitcalled, etc, etc, etc that we can semi-easily extend by adding new parameters if a part of the community wants to track something new.

    If the relevant information for e.g. ReShade or Special K was only "basic", then it would be situated in that table on the game page itself, and nowhere else. However if a subpage existed and was required for further instructions or details, a link would be added to that subpage, along with whatever else was entered in the relevant parameters.


    For example, based on our ReShade page right now, for that particular third-party tool we would have to have three different parameters in that table:

    • reshade status
    • reshade render api
    • reshade notes


    For Special K, we would be looking at some more, such as:


    • special k status
    • special k render api
    • special k version
    • special k injection
    • special k notes


    For more 'basic' tools like dgVoodoo 2 or DXVK or OEM's lighting software suites, we would be looking at a typical 2 parameter combo:


    • dxvk
    • dxvk notes
    • dgvoodoo
    • dgvoodoo notes


    So just based on those, the table would look something like this:


    {{Third-party tools
    |dgvoodoo                 = 
    |dgvoodoo notes           =
    |dxvk                     =
    |dxvk notes               =
    |logitech hub             = 
    |logitech hub notes       = 
    |reshade                  = 
    |reshade api              = 
    |reshade notes            = 
    |special k                =
    |special k api            = 
    |special k version        =
    |special k injection      = 
    |special k notes          =
    |steelseries engine       = 
    |steelseries engine notes =


  7. The discussion on the PCGW Discord was quite heated when the proposal was raised, I'll admit 🙂 Though it mostly concerned whether there was a need of tracking third-party tools in general through a separate table, as opposed to just continuing to keep track of them through a separate page. While the proposal haven't been closed yet, I've gone ahead and set up a separate page that can be used to keep track of Special K support, based on the ReShade compatibility table:


    Feel free to add or edit entries as desired.

  8. Well, that turned out to be easy. I've changed it so it acts as a link on the profile page as well, and that it uses the Steam icon as well.

    I want to add functionality for those without a custom URL set on Steam, but it seems there's no simple way of adding that functionality beyond adding an entirely separate field -- so for now I guess we'll just use the custom URL instead.

    The edit profile page though has been updated to easily provide a way to be taken to the page where one can view or change the custom tag.



    Thanks for bringing it to our attention that the Steam profile wasn't properly linkified on the profile pages 🙂

  9. In general, rather minimal amount of information. The few times we mention physical stuff it's typically under the Version differences section and only in passing to cover all differences between that edition and others. See for example Borderlands 3 (all digital editions), Ion Fury (one retail edition), or Doom Eternal (mixes digital editions with one physical collector's edition with extra goodies).

  10. Differences between editions themselves are usually listed under the "Version differences" header below the Availability category, see e.g. https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Doom_Eternal#Version_differences.

    The reason why availability rows list editions are to highlight the different ones available for purchase on each storefront.

    Beyond that, game code-wise PCGW does not really keep track of versions of the game per se (v1.0, v1.1, v1.2 etc) as the article is meant to (unless stated otherwise) target the latest available version of each game.

  11. On 6/18/2020 at 7:22 PM, Armistel said:

    Question. From now on windows 10, I could install windows 7 on one of my secondary hard drives, without risk, that is, from my iso of windows 7 I tell it to install the operating system on disk E for example and thus operating systems are not mixed . Could that be safe?

    You're out in uncharted waters with too many unknown factors -- there's almost no guarantees that can be made.

    The general gist of it though, if even possible, is to convert the Win7 iso to a USB stick (Google for instructions on how to do so) and then boot using the USB stick and install Windows 7 on a separate partition/drive through there.

  12. Well, my strongest recommendation would be to, well, not install Windows 7 at all.

    But if you really have to, I imagine installing it after Windows 10 should hopefully do the trick. Although be mindful that something might go wrong and you might have to reinstall both OSes to fix it in the worst case scenario.

  13. 15 hours ago, Armistel said:

    It doesn't put that exactly. Said this

    Sin título.png

    Is there no more rows below that? That row you've highlighted is the "SMBIOS Version" shown on the page I linked to.

    The actual row "BIOS Mode" you need to look for is two (or possibly more) rows below that one.

  14. 13 hours ago, Armistel said:

    Well i did a check and my current pc (win7)
    in Asrock UEFI Setup Utily. In other words, the hard drive should recognize it, right?

    Not necessarily as it could very well be that your motherboard is configured to use legacy/BIOS/compatible boot and not UEFI boot. The legacy option was often the default on older machines as well as on components sold separately. It was mostly only pre-built machines that had UEFI boot enabled by default.

    See this for how you can determine whether Windows 7 is booting in UEFI or legacy BIOS mode: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/archive/blogs/home_is_where_i_lay_my_head/how-to-check-in-windows-if-you-are-using-uefi

  15. 20 minutes ago, Armistel said:

    Thanks for answering so quickly.

    Let's see, then that means that UEFI / BIO recognizes both disks and something like an interface will appear that allows you to choose which one to use?

    Not necessarily -- it all depends on which boot manager is being invoked, and whether that boot manager recognizes the other OS automatically or not.

    If it does not, you should be able to create the missing entry from the booting OS by using bootrec.


    There's also a possibility that your new OS is configured to use UEFI to boot, while your Windows 7 is configured and installed as legacy/"BIOS". If that's the case you might not be able to boot Windows 7 until you put the BIOS/UEFI in legacy/compatibility mode, and might or might not have to once again recreate the boot entry using https://neosmart.net/wiki/fix-uefi-boot/.


    So... it depends? 😄

    Windows 8.x and newer uses a new boot manager (blue interface with mouse support) while Windows 7 uses the legacy boot manager (black interface without mouse support). The two can function alongside one another but I've never done so with a migrated Windows 7 install.

    When I dual-booted Windows 7 and 10 (as well as 8.x) I always did so by first installing Windows 7 in UEFI mode and then after that installing Windows 10 (8.x). This ensured that both OSes had full boot support while my system was running in UEFI mode and not the legacy "BIOS"/compatibility mode.

  • Create New...