Editing Talk:List of references in video games
From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 244: | Line 244: | ||
===Split by ABC Order=== | ===Split by ABC Order=== | ||
#{{User|Wildgoosespeeder}} Per Proposal. | #{{User|Wildgoosespeeder}} Per Proposal. | ||
#{{User|The Koopa Bro.}} Splitting it into groups of letters in four groups: A-D, E-M, N-S & T-Z would work better to me. For example: if somebody was looking for a [[Mario (franchise)|''Mario'']] reference in the [[MarioWiki:BJAODN/April Fool's 2017/Crash Bandicoot (franchise)|''Crash Bandicoot'' franchise]], they would go to {{ | #{{User|The Koopa Bro.}} Splitting it into groups of letters in four groups: A-D, E-M, N-S & T-Z would work better to me. For example: if somebody was looking for a [[Mario (franchise)|''Mario'']] reference in the [[MarioWiki:BJAODN/April Fool's 2017/Crash Bandicoot (franchise)|''Crash Bandicoot'' franchise]], they would go to {{fakelink|List of Mario references in video games/A-D}}, or if they were looking for a Mario reference in the [[Pikipedia:Pikmin series|''Pikmin'' series]], they would go to {{fakelink|List of Mario references in video games/N-S}}. [[List of Mario references in video games]] would be re-purposed into a page similar to [[Gallery:Mario]] & [[Gallery:Super Mario Maker]], with it listing each of the individual pages that it was split up into (and possibly a section from each page, I don't think that's necessary). | ||
#{{User|Toadette the Achiever}} Splitting by first and third party just seems too vague; besides, some video games could be developed by both a first '''''and''''' third party developer, and splitting both pages would lead to a conflict as to which sections go on what page. By browsing alphabetically, users can easily jump to a section on a particular page ''and'' not have to know whether a game is Nintendo-made or third party or both. | #{{User|Toadette the Achiever}} Splitting by first and third party just seems too vague; besides, some video games could be developed by both a first '''''and''''' third party developer, and splitting both pages would lead to a conflict as to which sections go on what page. By browsing alphabetically, users can easily jump to a section on a particular page ''and'' not have to know whether a game is Nintendo-made or third party or both. | ||
| Line 275: | Line 275: | ||
:*PC/Sony/Microsoft/SEGA | :*PC/Sony/Microsoft/SEGA | ||
:--{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 18:43, 1 April 2017 (EDT) | :--{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 18:43, 1 April 2017 (EDT) | ||
How about splitting by '''Nintendo''' and '''non-Nintendo'''-published titles (i.e. {{ | How about splitting by '''Nintendo''' and '''non-Nintendo'''-published titles (i.e. {{fakelink|List of Mario references in Nintendo video games}}, {{fakelink|List of Mario references in non-Nintendo video games}} (or "third-party games"))? I counted and there's about 40 sections that are Nintendo games/series, comprising nearly half of the page, especially since some of them (e.g. the Zelda and Animal Crossing series) have split off into more subsections, taking up more room. There are a lot of games that are multiplatform, which would create potential redundancy of information if we were to split by console. So would a Nintendo/third-party split be a good idea? Or would they still be too long? {{User:Mario jc/sig}} 05:03, 31 March 2017 (EDT) | ||
:I think a Nintendo/third-party split is the most reasonable. --{{User:Henry Tucayo Clay/sig}} 06:05, 31 March 2017 (EDT) | :I think a Nintendo/third-party split is the most reasonable. --{{User:Henry Tucayo Clay/sig}} 06:05, 31 March 2017 (EDT) | ||
::That's a pretty good option. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 18:43, 1 April 2017 (EDT) | ::That's a pretty good option. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 18:43, 1 April 2017 (EDT) | ||
| Line 299: | Line 299: | ||
#The list is already sorted by ABC order. Splitting is easy. | #The list is already sorted by ABC order. Splitting is easy. | ||
#Because more than two page splits are occuring, this means the chance of an article being too long are much less. | #Because more than two page splits are occuring, this means the chance of an article being too long are much less. | ||
#If splitting games into 26 articles is too many splits, we can just split pages by grouping letters into one page, like {{ | #If splitting games into 26 articles is too many splits, we can just split pages by grouping letters into one page, like {{fakelink|ABC}}, {{fakelink|DEF}}, {{fakelink|GHI}}, etc.. | ||
#If one group of letters for a subpage is too long compared to another, moving individual letters to a different page is easy. Structured organization isn't compromised and doesn't suffer. | #If one group of letters for a subpage is too long compared to another, moving individual letters to a different page is easy. Structured organization isn't compromised and doesn't suffer. | ||
I think this will be a better way to approach splitting a list like this. This proposal is about confirming if we really want to go through with the extra effort at this time or not. | I think this will be a better way to approach splitting a list like this. This proposal is about confirming if we really want to go through with the extra effort at this time or not. | ||
| Line 323: | Line 323: | ||
===Comments=== | ===Comments=== | ||
Before I vote one way or another, can you show exactly how the articles will be split (in regards to which letters will be grouped)? As Alex pointed out, if the letters aren't split evenly, then the end result may still have unreasonably high character counts. At the very least, it could result in a lot of short articles that makes things annoying for navigation. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 12:56, 16 May 2017 (EDT) | Before I vote one way or another, can you show exactly how the articles will be split (in regards to which letters will be grouped)? As Alex pointed out, if the letters aren't split evenly, then the end result may still have unreasonably high character counts. At the very least, it could result in a lot of short articles that makes things annoying for navigation. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 12:56, 16 May 2017 (EDT) | ||
:Imagine if {{ | :Imagine if {{fakelink|{{PAGENAME}}/PQRS}} has too many S's. We change that to {{fakelink|{{PAGENAME}}/PQR}} and either create {{fakelink|{{PAGENAME}}/S}} or move the S's to {{fakelink|{{PAGENAME}}/TUV}} (likely the former option). This is what I mean by #4. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 15:17, 16 May 2017 (EDT) | ||
::I understand that, but at the same time, I'd prefer if all of that was settled before the proposal actually goes into effect, just so we don't run into more unforeseen issues. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 15:19, 16 May 2017 (EDT) | ::I understand that, but at the same time, I'd prefer if all of that was settled before the proposal actually goes into effect, just so we don't run into more unforeseen issues. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 15:19, 16 May 2017 (EDT) | ||
:::That's what makes the ABC option so flexible. I can even foresee only S's reaching a point of needing to be split as well. I have seen organization go Sa-Sm ({{ | :::That's what makes the ABC option so flexible. I can even foresee only S's reaching a point of needing to be split as well. I have seen organization go Sa-Sm ({{fakelink|{{PAGENAME}}/S/Sa-Sm}}) and Sn-Sz ({{fakelink|{{PAGENAME}}/S/Sn-Sz}}). It doesn't exactly have to have a subpage from a subpage. We can do ({{fakelink|{{PAGENAME}}/Sa-Sm}}) and Sn-Sz ({{fakelink|{{PAGENAME}}/Sn-Sz}}). --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 15:27, 16 May 2017 (EDT) | ||
Where will the "Miscellaneous Apps" section go if this passes? --{{User:TheFlameChomp/sig}} 15:43, 16 May 2017 (EDT) | Where will the "Miscellaneous Apps" section go if this passes? --{{User:TheFlameChomp/sig}} 15:43, 16 May 2017 (EDT) | ||
:I think that will remain on [[{{PAGENAME}}]]. I don't see that fitting anywhere else. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 15:46, 16 May 2017 (EDT) | :I think that will remain on [[{{PAGENAME}}]]. I don't see that fitting anywhere else. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 15:46, 16 May 2017 (EDT) | ||
