LETS GO GUYS !! THE JUMP HEIGHTS!!
I don't want to start an edit war (my suggestion keeps getting reverted) so it's time to bring things to the discussion page. I don't think this sentence from the article is a very good sentence:
"Also known as jumpsquat, each character has a different window of time where they crouch before they jump."
Starting a sentence with an "also known as" phrase does not strike me as the best idea for a technical article such as an encyclopedia. In theory it could still be acceptable, but there is another factor in play: the name of the section is "Jump timing", but "jump timing" does not appear in the sentence "Also known as X, each character has Y." If "Jump timing" was Y, the sentence would flow perfectly, but it's not. If you start a section named Jump Timing, you create an expectation that Jump Timing will be the first thing to be talked about. The phrase "Also known as" dances around alternate names for the subject before eventually settling back on the issue of timing of jumps therein, which just seems sloppy when you could make the timing of the jumps the first thing to be taught in the section "Jump timing".
As such I propose the sentence at the beginning of Jump Timing section be changed to either "Each character has a different window of time where they crouch before they jump, known as jumpsquat." or "Each character has a jumpsquat, a window of time where they crouch before they jump." The former moves "window of time" to the start of the section named "Timing", while the latter names the term without putting "it's also known as something else" before the reader has even learned what they're supposed to be learning.
Change suggested by 22.214.171.124 03:36, 7 July 2018 (EDT)
- Oh, something else I forgot to mention: the "Also" isn't even needed. "Jumpsquat" isn't an alternate name, it's THE name. It's a name followed by a definition. Even so much as "Known as jumpsquat, each character has a different window of time where they crouch before they jump." would be an improvement. 126.96.36.199 03:47, 7 July 2018 (EDT)
So aside from significantly increasing the size of the page (which will make it load slower for users), you have replaced names with images which is unnecessary and generally looked down on for these types of tables. In addition, by truncating the jumpsquat tables into one single table you have made it harder to see the rankings for each character and have overall made it more cramped and messy. Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 17:34, 7 September 2018 (EDT)
- From what I could tell, the jumpsquat tables didn't have any rankings. The characters are only ordered by frame number. I'd have assumed that merging 4 tables which are otherwise identical in function would be better for comparing between them (you wouldn't have to scroll through the page) and wouldn't be much more difficult to actually see it.
- As for the size issue, that could easily be rectified by having the exact same format but without the images. Most of the size comes from putting them on the tables, not the actual table reformatting. — Nokii (T·C·L) 17:55, 7 September 2018 (EDT)
The wiki standard for tables of numerical statistics involves never having characters share rows, so both numerical and alphabetical sorts function properly. I will change this page to fit this standard (as well as walk, it appears to be the only other one that's currently wrong). Toomai Glittershine Le Grand Fromage 19:52, 7 September 2018 (EDT)