30,446
edits
Forum:Reformatting feature lists: Difference between revisions
Forum:Reformatting feature lists (view source)
Revision as of 13:06, February 25, 2019
, 5 years agono edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
When listing appearances of in-universe subjects in game articles, we currently use a system in which all of the subjects are listed under a set of rather rigid in-universe categories in alphabetical order. However, I'm not convinced that this is the best way to convey the information to readers. | When listing appearances of in-universe subjects in game articles, we currently use a system in which all of the subjects are listed under a set of rather rigid in-universe categories in alphabetical order. However, I'm not convinced that this is the best way to convey the information to readers. | ||
Firstly, in our current format, the in-game roles of the various items are largely ignored in favor of in-universe based categorization; for example, enemy types may be found anywhere depending on whether they're living beings or machines. In addition, the usage of highly technical designations for weapons and technology is probably not the best choice in game articles; a lot of people who look for information on the games aren't hardcore fiction fans. The average person sees a title like "Deployment Platform Type-56 Ground Support/Ultra Heavy" and they have no idea what it might be referring to, so it's not helpful in the least. Add to that the confusing lack of faction-based categorization and most people will be completely lost with all the designations. | Firstly, in our current format, the in-game roles of the various items are largely ignored in favor of in-universe based categorization; for example, enemy types may be found anywhere depending on whether they're living beings or machines. In addition, the usage of highly technical designations for weapons and technology is probably not the best choice in game articles; a lot of people who look for information on the games aren't hardcore fiction fans. The average person sees a title like "Deployment Platform Type-56 Ground Support/Ultra Heavy" and they have no idea what it might be referring to, so it's not helpful in the least. Add to that the confusing lack of faction-based categorization and most people will be completely lost with all the designations. | ||
| Line 307: | Line 307: | ||
:Simplification was pretty much the whole point, or more so, accessibility for those who might not know where to look (who probably make up a large portion of the wiki's readers). The above example is not final, however, just a sample of how it could work, though I'm still in favor of the basis of my proposal - that is, more obvious categories like enemies and armor, and the inclusion of the colloquial/in-game names of weapons/vehicles. As for your suggestions, I like the idea to include voice actors and drop-down lists for the different modes of the game, not just to make a distinction between Campaign/MP/Spartan Ops/Terminals but also because appearance lists typically take up an enormous portion of the page. --[[User:Jugus|<font color="MidnightBlue"><b>Jugus</b></font>]] <small>([[User talk:Jugus|<font color="Gray">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jugus|<font color="Gray">Contribs</font>]])</small> 04:25, 28 November 2012 (EST) | :Simplification was pretty much the whole point, or more so, accessibility for those who might not know where to look (who probably make up a large portion of the wiki's readers). The above example is not final, however, just a sample of how it could work, though I'm still in favor of the basis of my proposal - that is, more obvious categories like enemies and armor, and the inclusion of the colloquial/in-game names of weapons/vehicles. As for your suggestions, I like the idea to include voice actors and drop-down lists for the different modes of the game, not just to make a distinction between Campaign/MP/Spartan Ops/Terminals but also because appearance lists typically take up an enormous portion of the page. --[[User:Jugus|<font color="MidnightBlue"><b>Jugus</b></font>]] <small>([[User talk:Jugus|<font color="Gray">Talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jugus|<font color="Gray">Contribs</font>]])</small> 04:25, 28 November 2012 (EST) | ||
:That's why they would be drop down lists. It would be the individual reader's problem if they made the page too long. </plausible_deniability> {{User:Grizzlei/Sig}} | :That's why they would be drop down lists. It would be the individual reader's problem if they made the page too long. </plausible_deniability> {{User:Grizzlei/Sig}} | ||
I like it but Grizzlei makes some good points. Spartan Ops introduces not only new characters but other things as well, [[Requiem translocation artifact]] for example, eventually the features list could grow very long. Still, I'm fine with it either way. | I like it but Grizzlei makes some good points. Spartan Ops introduces not only new characters but other things as well, [[Requiem translocation artifact]] for example, eventually the features list could grow very long. Still, I'm fine with it either way. [[User:Spartansniper450/IRC Quotes|<span style="color:#000000">''Col.''</span>]] [[User:Spartansniper450|<span style="color:#00416A">Snipes</span>]][[User talk:Spartansniper450|<span style="color:gold">4</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Spartansniper450|<span style="color:silver">50</span>]] 12:22, 27 November 2012 (EST) | ||
Not too long ago, I played around with the idea of using tabbox as a solution to resolve the feature lists. While it worked as a function, it falls short when it comes to presenting itself nicely (e.g. [[Terminal/Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary|this article]] struggles to look nice for mobile users and those using 1280x screen resolution). As the list expands, the tabbox will no longer be useful. I thought of importing Wookieepedia's feature list template (App) but as I played around with the template, it didn't really help the article as much as I thought it would. As for now, I think the best solution would be to create a template that uses a combination of the [[template:hide|hide template]] and the | Not too long ago, I played around with the idea of using tabbox as a solution to resolve the feature lists. While it worked as a function, it falls short when it comes to presenting itself nicely (e.g. [[Terminal/Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary|this article]] struggles to look nice for mobile users and those using 1280x screen resolution). As the list expands, the tabbox will no longer be useful. I thought of importing Wookieepedia's feature list template (App) but as I played around with the template, it didn't really help the article as much as I thought it would. As for now, I think the best solution would be to create a template that uses a combination of the [[template:hide|hide template]] and the scrollbox template. I can improve it by making it customisable by allowing editors to specify the field parameters without having to edit the actual template, but let's just focus on creating the template first. — <span style="font-size:14px; font-family:Arial;">[[User:Subtank|<span style="color:#FF4F00;">subtank</span>]]</span> 01:10, 27 August 2013 (EDT) | ||
:To avoid extra work, we should also agree upon our new listing format before adding the new templates, given the fact that issues with the list categories were the main reason I started this proposal in the first place. I still think my initial proposal for the categories is mostly workable (excluding the ''Spartan Ops'' content of course), though only to games; sections like "Enemies" would hardly be appropriate for a comic book article, for example. How about something like this: | :To avoid extra work, we should also agree upon our new listing format before adding the new templates, given the fact that issues with the list categories were the main reason I started this proposal in the first place. I still think my initial proposal for the categories is mostly workable (excluding the ''Spartan Ops'' content of course), though only to games; sections like "Enemies" would hardly be appropriate for a comic book article, for example. How about something like this: | ||