Editing Talk:Mario Kart Wii
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 665: | Line 665: | ||
== Course template == | == Course template == | ||
{{Talk}} | |||
Personally, I prefer the old revision. It looks more in-line with the rest on the page, it includes the course banner when the other one doesn't, and the staff ghost information is more readable. I'd argue to remove the internal course names since there already is a clear in-game name and that information isn't relevant for the casual reader, but I do like this layout better. {{User:Scrooge200/sig}} 15:50, July 3, 2024 (EDT) | Personally, I prefer the old revision. It looks more in-line with the rest on the page, it includes the course banner when the other one doesn't, and the staff ghost information is more readable. I'd argue to remove the internal course names since there already is a clear in-game name and that information isn't relevant for the casual reader, but I do like this layout better. {{User:Scrooge200/sig}} 15:50, July 3, 2024 (EDT) | ||
:For the record, I removed the banners because one image of the course seemed sufficient (and only so much space on the table, so something had to give). In my opinion, the biggest problems with the old revision are 1. it's too big and takes up way more space than it needs to, I can't even fit two courses' worth of information on my screen at once, 2. the layout is confusing, tables should read from left to right and use one row per subject (tables are very frequently misused and abused elsewhere on the wiki, but that's beside the point), and 3. a lot of the staff ghost information is obfuscated by images with no accompanying text, which is very bad for accessibility. I'm open to suggestions for how to make these better, and to be honest I'd be totally fine if the consensus is to just revert everything back to how it was before with a simple course listing and separate table of staff ghosts. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 16:34, July 3, 2024 (EDT) | :For the record, I removed the banners because one image of the course seemed sufficient (and only so much space on the table, so something had to give). In my opinion, the biggest problems with the old revision are 1. it's too big and takes up way more space than it needs to, I can't even fit two courses' worth of information on my screen at once, 2. the layout is confusing, tables should read from left to right and use one row per subject (tables are very frequently misused and abused elsewhere on the wiki, but that's beside the point), and 3. a lot of the staff ghost information is obfuscated by images with no accompanying text, which is very bad for accessibility. I'm open to suggestions for how to make these better, and to be honest I'd be totally fine if the consensus is to just revert everything back to how it was before with a simple course listing and separate table of staff ghosts. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 16:34, July 3, 2024 (EDT) | ||
| Line 722: | Line 724: | ||
==Decide how to present courses== | ==Decide how to present courses== | ||
{{ | {{TPP}} | ||
About a month ago, I started overhauling the course tables after discussions with several community members who were unhappy with their current state. I only completed the new courses before getting pushback, so I left it alone in the hopes that discussion would give a general consensus on what we should go with. As far as I can tell, no consensus has emerged and that discussion has stalled for several weeks. In the meantime, the course listing is split in half between two designs which isn't ideal, especially for a featured article. I think it's about time we just go to a proposal and pick one. | About a month ago, I started overhauling the course tables after discussions with several community members who were unhappy with their current state. I only completed the new courses before getting pushback, so I left it alone in the hopes that discussion would give a general consensus on what we should go with. As far as I can tell, no consensus has emerged and that discussion has stalled for several weeks. In the meantime, the course listing is split in half between two designs which isn't ideal, especially for a featured article. I think it's about time we just go to a proposal and pick one. | ||
| Line 757: | Line 758: | ||
#{{User|Lakituthequick}} These tables do not need all the things, as the 2010 meme goes. I will go into more detail about some design considerations in a comment below, but the main thing here is that tables should not be used for layout and the tables here should just list the courses. I do suggest rotating the table such that there is a row per cup instead of columns. | #{{User|Lakituthequick}} These tables do not need all the things, as the 2010 meme goes. I will go into more detail about some design considerations in a comment below, but the main thing here is that tables should not be used for layout and the tables here should just list the courses. I do suggest rotating the table such that there is a row per cup instead of columns. | ||
#{{User|Shoey}} Per all. | #{{User|Shoey}} Per all. | ||
===Do nothing (no binding decision, allow further options/discussion)=== | ===Do nothing (no binding decision, allow further options/discussion)=== | ||
| Line 883: | Line 881: | ||
::Well, on this page, I think they were brought up on other ones, and I mostly remembered people saying "later ones" (which would include it) and "Mario Kart [number]." And to be fair, I fixed the glaring issues brought by MKW's widescreen screenshots to this style by removing them, and also removed the internal names for it; look at the "retro" section on the page now, it looks a lot better than it did when this proposal was initially made. MKDS's main issue, admittedly, was the battle courses being in a different section entirely; to the point that at first, I thought they were outright missing from the page, their location was so counter-intuitive. And I will metaphorically die on the hill that while the BGM may not be "necessary," it does not hurt anything but ''does'' add more to it, so it's better there than not there by sheer measure of enrichment. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 15:01, July 27, 2024 (EDT) | ::Well, on this page, I think they were brought up on other ones, and I mostly remembered people saying "later ones" (which would include it) and "Mario Kart [number]." And to be fair, I fixed the glaring issues brought by MKW's widescreen screenshots to this style by removing them, and also removed the internal names for it; look at the "retro" section on the page now, it looks a lot better than it did when this proposal was initially made. MKDS's main issue, admittedly, was the battle courses being in a different section entirely; to the point that at first, I thought they were outright missing from the page, their location was so counter-intuitive. And I will metaphorically die on the hill that while the BGM may not be "necessary," it does not hurt anything but ''does'' add more to it, so it's better there than not there by sheer measure of enrichment. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 15:01, July 27, 2024 (EDT) | ||
:::You still haven't addressed my comment about requiring to include sound effects in item sections, voice files into character sections, vehicle engine sounds in vehicle sections, which are all as equally important, adds more to the article, and as enriching as BGM. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 03:20, July 29, 2024 (EDT) | :::You still haven't addressed my comment about requiring to include sound effects in item sections, voice files into character sections, vehicle engine sounds in vehicle sections, which are all as equally important, adds more to the article, and as enriching as BGM. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 03:20, July 29, 2024 (EDT) | ||
