Suggestion Edit

Wondering if there should perhaps be a Stalker: Shadow of Chernobyl, and then a Clear Sky wikia seperate?

Otherwise how will you track what is for what? Unless you ensure each article is included in a relevant category to distinguish the game. It wouldn't be too much to organise wikia to setup relevant wiki's for the two games. That is if you are interested?

Daworm 10:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to have separate wikis for both games - stuff like setting background are the same, as are many of the items etc. They should just be categorized accordingly. Ausir 11:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep Single Wiki, just categorise the articles accordingly. Unconscious 13:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

For example. Jellyfish is just -2 to Radiation in Clear Sky, I haven't played Shadow of Chernobyl yet so don't know if the stats on that are correct or just random... I have two other Artifacts picked up before I even left the Swamps that are not on the wiki so far. I'll have to add them later next time I'm playing.
Replikanxxl 20:17, April 29, 2010 (UTC) we must shape this wikia by looking at the fallout games wikia. cause its structured so well . the games are similar also. so all the games should be in one wikia. hope people read this.

Templates Edit

Are cleanup / stub type templates used at all?

Mind if I setup a couple for use on pages that are really short on information and need to be expanded or are just a mass of text and not formatted for ease of read?

Example: X16 could do with a {{cleanup}} type tag to help prompt others with more knowledge of it to neaten it somewhat.

Daworm 05:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead and add them. Ausir 06:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Can you please copy User:Daworm/monaco.css into MediaWiki:common.css, the colouring isn't final, especially if you want to customise the whole markup for stalker wiki. After copying refresh Template_talk:Ambox for the examples on what they look like. Daworm 15:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Call of Pripyat Edit

The new game is out in Russia and Ukraine, and, frankly, this means the entire wiki needs a revamp. If anyone has any good ideas how to do it, shoot.

Separate sections (optionally infoboxes) inside articles for each game. Octurion 16:52, October 12, 2009 (UTC)


Hey guys since we've been using the logo still says "Shadow of Chernobyl" don't you think we should revise the logo? SHIELD unit 11:07, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

Weapons category overhaulEdit

Just a heads-up: I'm currently in the process of overhauling the weapons category to tidy it up and make it consistent.

  • There is no consistency in naming. As we know the games falsify the names of all of the guns. I didn't take part in any previous decision-making process on this topic (if there were any...) but the prevailing view seems to be that we should be using the real names, and I agree. The titles of articles (mostly) use the real names, but the actual articles still use the fake names, as do some categories and lists. I'm going to make sure every weapon article is named after the real thing, then fix all the double redirects.
  • The unique weapon articles are a bit of a mess. Most unique weapons are simply the original weapon with slightly different stats, so I'm thinking most unique weapons can be covered in the original article. Do we really need a separate article for the Fast-shooting AKS-74 when that could be mentioned in AKS-74? I don't think so.

Anyway, I'll be doing a lot of moving and merging, and even if it doesn't seem logical you can be assured that there is a method to my madness. If you object, please don't revert my edits without speaking to me about it. --MattyDienhoff «talk» 00:31, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

"I'm going to make sure every weapon article is named after the real thing"
  1. First of all, this is encyclopedia about the games, so real-life info about the covered subjects is really not needed (even can't be confirmed by the game canon).
  2. The in-game names are established and in the most cases absolutely consistent. (In the case, that the gun doesn't have a name, the real life name could be used)
  3. Real-life counterparts can't be clearly indentified (see Gp-37 talk page).
  4. Real-life naming could cause lot of confusion.
Although O. Yavorsky mentioned that the weapons are supposed to be 'real-life', I'm not sure if we can take his word as a canon. And if so, some guns just can't be clearly identified.
"I'm thinking most unique weapons can be covered in the original article."
Strongly disagree. The unique weapons are guns on their own. They have separate infoboxes, lots of info etc. And before we could proceed with these things, we need to setup some basic Manual of Style, expanded Canon policy etc. Octurion 10:23, May 20, 2010

We specifically named the weapon catalog using the in-game names as a reference for those who aren't versed in their weaponry and only know weapons by their in-game names. I advise against this change. SHIELD unit 11:02, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

> Octurion:
"real-life info about the covered subjects is really not needed"
I agree, which is why each article (the introduction excluded) is about the weapon as it appears in-game, not about its real-life history and use (because that would be irrelevant). That said, as far as I'm concerned that has no bearing on what we name the articles. There are other factors involved.
"The in-game names are established and in the most cases absolutely consistent."
No, they're not consistent, not in the least. All of these weapons are renamed at least once between games. Fort-12, TOZ-34, AN-94 Abakan, AS Val.
"Real-life counterparts can't be clearly identified."
I'm not one for blowing my own horn, but I know more than most gamers about firearms and I can say with absolute certainty that there is only one unidentifiable gun in the entire series, that's the Gauss rifle. Unidentifiable because it's fictional, of course. I've already cleared the G36/G36K issue up on the same talk page you linked to. STALKER's weapons are not the same as the cars in Grand Theft Auto, which are just amalgamations of various designs that are literally unidentifiable. The fictional Gauss rifle aside, each and every firearm, launcher and hand grenade in the series is a real, identifiable weapon. Even the most questionable case is still identifiable (The G36, while it is a bit oddly proportioned, is still clearly a G36).
You're right about unique weapons, in some cases the differences are too great, it's best they have their own articles.
> SHIELD unit
I'm not sure if you're talking about the article names themselves or the List of weapons, so I'll address both.
  • It's difficult to name articles after the in-universe names because in several cases they're different from one game to the next (see above). If not for this caveat I would agree to title the articles with the false names. As it is, though, if we use the real names and make it clear in the article text what the fake name is, even the uninitiated should have little trouble figuring out which is which.
  • I agree the list of weapons should mention the false names people are most likely to recognize. I haven't finished overhauling it yet (clearly, as it's a mess). When I'm finished with it it will link to all of the weapon articles (with the real name in the title, as per the above), and the false name/s will be somewhere alongside.
I agree with you guys that using the real names may confuse players who are only aware of the false names used in-game, but I believe that can be overcome by the means I mentioned above and that, all things considered, it's easier and better to use the real names.
Also, I rearranged the messages in this thread to make it easier to read, I hope you don't mind, I didn't tamper with the content of any messages. --MattyDienhoff «talk» 03:07, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I did totally forget about this. It's getting longer, it should be moved into forum and we could continue there. Octurion 03:13, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

We're about to get established leadership Edit

I've petitioned for an adoption in wikia central for this wikia, according to them I need to talk to the community for an agreement. More details here, particularly we need some votes and suggestions from the veterans of this wikia like Oct, Boredgunner or anyone else who's contributed a fair chunk of work here. Come on fellas, pitch in.

SHIELD unit 12:59, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

No background? Edit

I'm not seeing a background. I liked it, and it made it feel official, not some stupid single-fan-made site. David 97 23:57, June 5, 2010 (UTC)

The Dark Blue background? Odd could have sworn I have the default one set for this site. SHIELD unit 01:26, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that it's way too bright and cheerful looking now. 07:33, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

Are you people seeing the White and light blue theme at the moment? SHIELD unit 08:15, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

We demand dark background!

I don't know if this is a bad thing, but I went into edit and changed the background color to black. If this is something I shouldn't have done then I think I can change it back. ControllerSlayer 01:26, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

I think it looks a lot better now, no idea why it was changed in the first place. DarkZenith 13:43, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

Main pageEdit

So yeah, I trialed the template I was envisioning for a while during those boring days in class. If anyone has any objections, comments and all other related things: I'm as open as the rookie village to loners. Ok now, I didn't expect google to screw up the icons' formation. Great just bloody great SHIELD unit 12:38, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

I like it. Quick and convenient. DarkZenith 12:49, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Ok now, I've fixed the Template's placement, now the only thing left is to generalize the lists. SHIELD unit 12:53, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

I know I'm not registered, but maybe you could have featured article and blog section like other wikias? 00:54, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I'll get on the featured article part when I'm done wading through some school related shit, as for blogs it isn't really necessary since very few people use the thing.

SHIELD unit 01:17, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

You never know, maybe GSC really will release an xbox port of all 3 games as well as a 2.0 and if the wiki is up to date by that point it might become the hottest thing since sliced bread.

Chikubi 15:54, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

A console release is unlikely, due to the hardware limitations of current consoles; the game uses a lot of resources as it is. As for being up to date, I rather thought this Wiki was up to date, insofar as possible. DarkZenith 19:13, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

They didn't become Xbox 360 developers just for kicks zenith. A port is coming. And as for being up to date, Arties and quests are incomplete to put it mildly. Chikubi 22:56, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Now it looks nice! Dabur 09:58, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Chikubi, I still don't see how they're going to get around the technical issues, STALKER is a very resource hungry game, the latest incarnations even more so. They will have to do some serious backward steps with their engine, and I just don't see it being worth the time or money in the long run. I may be wrong, it's just I can't see this selling well on console.

With regards to artifacts and quests, surely it's not up to date, because someone has yet to write the appropriate articles? That being the purpose of a Wiki, after all. Perhaps now would be the time to do so. DarkZenith 19:38, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

hmmm , when the last stalker was done a few started to build on a new version , since they shelved it who knows ? after the games a lot of people where put out of a job and left for other firms ,

there has been talk about it before , there was talk about a new one as base for some other games but nothing ever came of it , ... they could start over and redo it .

one huge benefit they have is the fact that in the former east soviet union one can get this job done for 25 percent of the price of what it would cost in the states or europe , in the chech republic for example a dev might not even make 1000 usd , .... i had some software work don there and it was at least 5 or 6 times cheaper then in lets say france or the usa , .... so money wise they could be okay , the main thing is to convince them to invest it , and release stalker 2 all over the world , not just for the ukraine and russia , but for all over the world ! the benefits would be huge and plenty of people would be willing to invest , me being one allready !

well the artifacts and quests will see major updates in the next few months , i am willing to devote time to it every day a few hours , with many others it should go fast , .... !

have a nice day Dabur 22:50, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Zenith, with respect, GSC said theyre making a port, Microsoft doesn't simply give out certificates to whoever asks for one, if you've read the articles you'd have understood that.

As to new articles, feel free to add more info apart from your user page. :) Chikubi 01:07, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

What Edit

We can't read the text without highlighting it right now. Boredgunner 22:56, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

hmmm , what are your settings ? it reads fine on two comps on my side , .... Dabur 23:01, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

It was a screw up in the .css, my fault. Hopefully everything works fine now. How do you like the new decor? Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 23:48, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
i did not notice anything , had to redo a few edits but thats all , or people could flag personal settings for the display of the site , .... Dabur 00:05, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
Can't see the white user buttons because of the background.. They end up just over the right shoulder of the stalker. Chikubi 01:07, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
I'll fix it in the evening. Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 05:58, July 5, 2010 (UTC)


Hi i've been working on this wiki for a while now, improving articles, checking information, adding pictures, and checking the wanted article list now and again. But one thing I can't figure out is how to make certain things on this wili such as the signiture the thing with the username, time month day year (utc). Another thing I don't know how to check is the exact weapon stats, such as the exact damage percent, exact accruracy percent, and how much durability it has. I'm also having trouble figuring out the symbols such as the line that look like this | (don't know the exact name). Happy 4th of July. ControllerSlayer 11:06, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Heya CS,
  • Wikipedia:Signatures should have all the info you need about editing them and once you're comfy with what you can do, take a look here Special:Preferences
  • As for weapon stats, take a look in your stalker's gamedata\configs\weapons ltx files for those, play around with them if you like, just make sure to back em up or be prepared for a resintall if you mess it up.
  • the | is called a pipe, so.. take a look here Wiki:Piped Link for some guidance on what they can do :)

Chikubi 01:07, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Is it me, or is TOW taking forever to load pages? SHIELD unit 01:36, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, TOW? Oh, or this one? Cycled through it, everything seems to load well enough. Chikubi 02:07, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

No I mean Wikipedia, sorry, spent too much time on Encyclopediadramatica. SHIELD unit 03:49, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

The Background Edit

The background looks really nice, but those black bars on the sides are really annoying, and possibility making it wider?

What resolution are you using? The page is optimized for 1600x1200.
hi ,
check your screen resolutions , go to your desktop and check the settingsand resolutions or try custom settings
have a nice day Dabur 14:50, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Zone Survival Guide Edit

Most of the links to the so called "Zone Survival Guide" appear to be dead. The domain has been taken over by a domain parker. If there is no other mirror of this site then I suggest we remove all references to this site as it doesn't serve any purpose anymore. N0la 08:23, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

I went to the SurvieG site. It's back online and I think this wiki could link to some of the articles there. They don't have anything better on items or weapons than us, tho. 06:46, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

We're both unofficial information sites of a video game. Linking to another site similar to ours would probably happen if ZSG had more info than our current available ones. Also, the ZSG will probably be unreliable to us right now as they only cover Shadow of Chernobyl. Times' been changing.
SHIELD unit 06:57, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

Wrong target Edit

Games\Clear Sky from the drop down menu on the left points to the faction not the game...
Chikubitalk 07:27, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

Games doesn't point anywhere at all...
Animals and mutants points to Category:Animals instead of Category:Mutants
Edit here. Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 07:39, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
"You do not have permission to Edit page, for the following reason:
This page provides interface text for the software, and is locked to prevent abuse."
Fail. You're gonna have to do it :P Unless anyone feels like handing me a banhammer...
Chikubitalk 07:45, August 4, 2010 (UTC)


Is it just me or is anyone else getting the blue and white screen instead of the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. background? ControllerSlayer 02:09, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Do you have your "let admins override my skin choice" option checked in your preference menu?
SHIELD unit 04:12, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

New Wikia ThemeEdit

So to the admins around here... how are you liking the new wikia theme? I forgot if it will be applied automatically or not... if not will the switch be made? I think it's great. Boredgunner 21:54, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

It needs work. The worst offence is removing the sidebar, which is the cornerstone of navigation... Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 22:19, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah that's the one thing I don't like. Gonna submit this feedback. Boredgunner 22:42, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

Well sidebars are now on the top....just a little more hidden and less likely to be seen. Other than that.....meh, could be a little better.
SHIELD unit 02:24, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

Rich text editor and background image problem... Fixed! Edit

When editing an article in rich text editor, the text is almost impossible to read without highlighting it because the bright-ish background interferes with the white text. My choices would be either to change the otherwise lovely skin to an uglier one or use source code editor all the time, options of which neither is to my liking. Is there something I could do to give the rich text editor a black background? (Or black text on a white background.) This is how my rich text editor looks like now. As you can (or cannot) see, the text is nigh-impossible to read. Is there something I can do about this?

M0RGION 18:28, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: Thanks for whoever changed the background image, the black area in the middle of the image did the trick! M0RGION 16:19, January 17, 2011 (UTC)
I made a few slight modifications to the skin. Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 22:38, January 17, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! M0RGION 00:03, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

Any help? Edit

In SHOC, I am in Yantar, and I just completed the mission that gives you the coordinates to X16. But When I load a save that happens right after I complete the quest were you take the professor to run tests in the tunnel, the professer you escort walks into the door and gets stuck in the door, and I cannot leave the building. Any help?

Best guess would be to reload your most recent prior save. SoC is a game that almost requires you to have multiple manual save points at critical point in case the bugs in the game get in the way. Moleonthehill 21:35, December 25, 2011 (UTC)

Equipment names Edit

When listing a character's equipment, the in-game names should be used, correct? I've been seeing a mix of both in-game and real life names, and am just curious. Novfanaion 14:36, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, in-game names. You see some real world names because this wiki used to use real world names, but then changed back to in-game names as the standard. Boredgunner 19:26, October 14, 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Novfanaion 20:12, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

I heard that you some how can combine artifacts in Stalker CS. Edit

Is that correct?Confundus1 17:59, November 27, 2011 (UTC)scottConfundus1 17:59, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Nope. I believe some mods let you do this, and I also believe that this was one of the gameplay features that never made it into SoC. Boredgunner 19:09, November 27, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah check out the Stalker Filefront page if you want a mod that can combine artifacts and such...
Scare Cr0w 19:58, November 27, 2011 (UTC)Scare Cr0w

Personal bias or lack of evidence about "best" weapons and armour Edit

Many articles, especially weapons and armours, have sections like "this is the best weapon, and should be used at endgame", "this outperforms everything" etc. It may very well be that if you upgrade these weapons and armour in one particular way, they "outperform" something else. Yet usually you see "this outperforms X" instead of "if upgraded to fully boast Y it outperforms X with similar upgrades". Most of the time, this boils down to apple vs. orange comparisons, or simply to a lacking phrasing of the sentences. What should we do with these? Delete those lines until sufficient proof is given (i.e. pictures showing that a fully ROF upgraded TR 300 outperforms a fully ROF upgraded Strelok's SGI 5K in terms of ROF)? Or just give generalised information like: "If fully upgraded for close quarter scenarios (ROF), this weapon can outperform many other fully upgraded weapons of its class, making it a higher tier weaponry.". Long story cut short, I am just annoyed that I supposedly just read about the bestest gun eva, yet there are virtually no numbers to back things up. N0la 07:23, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah bias info needs to go. Generalized info with facts to back it up is fine. Boredgunner 16:49, April 6, 2012 (UTC)

Someone please help me improve my page about mod. You are free to edit it just type "Mods" in the search section.

thank youKrongfah (talk) 16:26, September 30, 2012 (UTC)krongfah

Sorry, but such a page is inappropriate for this wiki. Please see S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Wiki:Content policy. With that being said, you can do something like this in a blog. Boredgunner (talk) 16:41, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

Bugged templates and weapons names Edit

Can someone change color of font used in all templates? White font on white background is quite hard to see -.- Pangia (talk) 11:29, November 10, 2012 (UTC)

Bump. C'mon, think also about those using Monobook. Pangia (talk), 10:09, July 9, 2014 (UTC)
  • In answer to your original query, White on white would be difficult to see; but that's not what I'm seeing when editing a template, I'm getting white font on charcoal b/g (so easy on the eyes) Post a screenie of what you're getting on my talk page (or here) so I can have a gander.
  • When comparing general page edits OTOH - the 'previous' edit shows black font on deeep maroon b/g which I find really hard to read; more recent edits are black on green b/g which is better (and of course, changes are in hot orange font)
  • And WTFrack is Monobook?

Byte Me (talk) 11:43, July 9, 2014 (UTC)

Refresh and also another case to solve. – „Layout” option. Wikia's layout isn't definitely the best to use (especially when every wiki uses its own color palette), comparing it to wide, clean and plain-looking Monobook. Unfortunately, in case of templates all I see is white text on white background, which is just impossible to read without marking it or just pressing Ctrl+A on page. Pangia, 10:26, July 11, 2014 (UTC)
I see your point, bc when trying to edit a template in Monobook I get black text on a white b/g instead of blk on wht. But in the process the actual result is nearly illegible being exceedingly dark text on a black b/g.
I've (up to now) used the default Wikia layout on the basis that any special layout styles or paginations etc., ought to be better visible in context as it were, mostly with success apart from the exceptions mentioned above.
Having just tried browsing a few pages in Monobook mode, I see what happens and where you're getting the white-on-white problem from. Equally, any "atmosphere" that STALKER gets from the 'dull' coloured layouts and templates is instantly negated in Monobook imho.
  • Yes - some functionality seems more accessible in Monobook (content navigation, toolbox..) so there might be a problem there. OTOH that facility might be 'hidden' as a result of abuse.
  • In any event NOT using Monobook results in your stated problems being solved. Is it a perfect workaround? NO. But let me keep looking into it.

Byte Me (talk) 12:00, July 11, 2014 (UTC)


I think it was said somewhere once, but I ain't sure so better I ask here. Which names we should use in articles about weapons - real or in-game? Since i.e. in Obokan article I changed all Obokans and AC-96/2 to Abakans and AN-94 - I think it looks better since fake weapon names is just... let's just say it's bad. Total fail is AKM-74/2U article, where there are used both in-game and real names (in addition, wrong names since THERE IS AKS-74, NOT AK-74 FOR GOD'S SAKE). So what are we doing with this? Pangia (talk) 11:23, December 27, 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the opening introduction where we introduce the weapon's real name, and trivia if needed, we're only suppose to use in-game names. And yes, the screwups you see were because we used to use IRL names for our weapons before standardizing that we're using in-game names from now on. As you can see, not all the pages and templates were ironed out.
SHIELD unit (talk) 13:50, December 27, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, OK, so looks like I messed up a little :) And what about templates? It's annoying that to see what's written in template I have to mark it with cursor. I would change it by myself, but... besides that I don't know where to do it, I just fail at HTML coding :/ Pangia (talk) 17:31, December 27, 2012 (UTC)

I again ask to change font color to black to make it visible in all infoboxes. Pangia (talk) 19:36, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Gun Attributes Edit

I hate how the wiki actually has nothing related to what the weapon upgrades do at all.

Yes, yes; recoil is common sense, it makes your weapon have less momentum and knockback. Accuracy is accuracy, see how good your gun shoots at where you want it to shoot. Rate of fire makes your gun fire faster...

But then, there are some I don't know because, honestly, I am not a guns expert and I do want a master STALKER player (Yes, I say that instead of gun expert because the weapon characteristics on STALKER are rather actually different, unrealistic to say the less, I'll type to you why later) to tell me what they do. What does handling do? What is the flatness for? Even if it might be obvious, what does reliability exactly do? Yet, the strange thing is that some are not actually the same on Clear Sky or Call of Pripyat.

For example, compare "Flatness" on Call of Pripyat and Clear Sky. CS' flatness means the gun will deal more damage, while in CoP, I think it increases the range. So yeah, it is actually somehow confusing.

I highly suggest that a new category (or tab) must be made, either on Weapons, Technicians, or a new one itself called "Gun Attributes", in there, for both games, the details about EVERY attribute the guns have must be told (Even the obvious ones)

How? Simply we make, let's say, a new category, "Gun Attributes" for example, then the three tabs; Introduction, then Clear Sky and Call of Pripyat. On Clear Sky and Call of Pripyat tabs, we will put all the attributes the guns have right now, but different definitions of course. Not deeply use, because recoil is still the same on both games, but flatness is not.

Of course, I am not being, how to say, rather gunloving? I do also want the armour upgrade attributes to be there. So instead of "Gun Attributes", it should be called "Item Attributes".

Unless there is actually already a tab/category like this, then I'm sorry for making this silly talk. Still, that was a horrible searching help.

I'm a Strogg (talk) 21:55, January 14, 2013 (UTC)

Will S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Lost Alpha be added to the wikia, although it's not an official addon? (it was going to be).  It is a standalone and in my opinion a completely new, improved addition to the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series.

Lost Alpha Edit

Should the Lost Alpha get its own page since its probably the biggest mod and it's the only standalone one now. It would be great because even if we don't have S.T.A.L.K.E.R 2 we have Lost Alpha which a lot of people play right now. Yes or No? I just don't want to watch S.T.A.L.K.E.R die slowly...

If the answer is yes i'm up to start the article.

Sincerely: MindFreak1987 (talk) 02:32, July 2, 2014 (UTC)

The reasoning being that: as soon as you open the door to one mod you open the door to them all as they all then have the 'right' to claim a place at the table pari passu.

  • Having said that ^^, a case might be made that with the dissolution of GSC as the game developers (for whatever internal reasons) - that DesoWave are left as the de facto game developers of a standalone game that draws and expands on the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. universe by default, and that as such LA thereby 'qualifies' as a canon game...
  • However, the founder of GSC made sure that he retained the rights to the Stalker name afair.

Bottom Line:

  1. A page on Lost Alpha would be out of place here.
  2. How you expect to get LA on a page is beyond me !!!
  3. Something as vast as LA needs its own WIKI. So why not push the button at the top of the page and start things rolling?

Byte Me (talk) 07:44, July 2, 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm going to get into contact with some core members of the project to see if we should start a new wiki. Thanks for the answer.


Sincerely:MindFreak1987 (talk) 15:14, July 2, 2014 (UTC)

I am personally all for articles on mods. Some things, like FOTOGRAF, Priboi Story, Lost Alpha, Valley of Shorohov and other just DESERVE their own pages. --Charcharo (talk) 10:31, July 9, 2014 (UTC)

  • OK your view is on record and appreciated by all here.
  • Step back and consider the implications of your statement:
  1. Firstly, we're trying to nail down the facts and minutiae HERE on the three canon GSC STALKER games.
  2. References to Builds are commonplace.
  3. References to Mods are much less common. Usually made to point out the existence of something or such.
  4. An example of what can happen:
  • No Stalker gets to find an FT-200M outside of the Sarcophagus, but someone edits that it can be found in Murk's treasure.
  • Purely because IN A MOD an FT-200M can be found, inaccuracy creeps into the SoC Wiki...
  • Ditto high end artifacts on bodies in Pripyat.

Think of it like this. This Wiki is a REFERENCE POINT. Just like the Periodic Table is in Chemistry and Physics.

  • If you then want to include speculative alternate realities:
    • such as in the Autoverse in Greg Egan's Permutation City( [[1]]) Or:
    • The alternate universe in Asimov's The Gods Themselves [[2]] where Plutonium-186 is stable; or,
    • Condensed matter evolving life on a Neutron star in Forward's Dragon's Egg [[3]] - with added relativistic dilation effects for good measure..
Then you can,

As these authors DID, but were under no illusion that they had to ALL REFER BACK TO THE PERIODIC TABLE FOR GROUNDING PURPOSES. No matter how far out of whack the speculation went, because to do otherwise, they would have abandoned their scientific foundations and - at best - written fantasy.

So if you want pages for mods of STALKER canon games - start a relevant Wiki for that mod. Refer BACK to this one. Trying to refer forward by adding 'mod-pages' is disingenuous at best. The most you might hope for is a page referring to other mod related wikis.

That's MY understanding of the situation. Byte Me (talk) 13:12, July 9, 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so, because STALKER's well....stagnant, we could adopt mod pages IF we set some guidelines what we can and can't record (I.E.: It has to be significant and/or popular enough, like Misery, Lost Alpha, Oblivion Lost...etc.). Additionally, you will have to tag each article with a template and acknowledge that it is modded content, so people looking for non-moded content will know. Each article about a mod must also be listed in their own category (I.E: Misery's version of Yanov = Yanov (Misery)). However, because I myself don't play too many mods, I can't really guarantee the accuracy of every mod article, so you guys have to sort that out.
SHIELD unit (talk) 06:20, July 11, 2014 (UTC)

A revolutionary thought: and I'm probably not thinking it through enough, but would there be an easy way to alter the b/g colour for a 'mod page' so that you also intuitively 'know' that you've accessed a mod page? Byte Me (talk) 07:01, July 11, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure how to do that, or even if you can do that here because I've only seen them in mediawiki-type wikis, but you would have to create a template that alters the css of the page you're currently viewing, so that it doesn't use the pre-set one present in all of our wikia pages.
SHIELD unit (talk) 01:56, July 13, 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't sure either, bc it could be a nasty can of worms to open. My first guess is that a modified clone of "Template:Game" could be re-purposed to "Template:Mod" with some inbuilt nagboxes referencing its provenance. If I knew how to make the flashy "button.png" icons featured on the Main Page it wouldn't be difficult to create a "ModBox" to house main links to the Mod pages. Just thinking out loud.

Byte Me (talk) 06:58, July 13, 2014 (UTC)

Damn Nice People! Here is one of the first (Ultra High Quality mods) we should include: --Charcharo (talk) 09:16, July 12, 2014 (UTC)