Template talk:FinalSmash

Use this talk page to discuss changes, fixes, and improvements for this template.

Sorting

This template looks extremely messy. I feel it should be split into series or something. Red (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2014 (EDT)

Bump. I second the above. There aren't too many words to describe this order (if you can call it that) other than abysmal. ScoreCounter 16:24, 17 January 2015 (EST)

It's a very simple alphabetical-by-character-name listing and it's about as streamlined as it can get without making the template massive. Miles (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2015 (EST)

A) Ah, now I see that. Still, that's a tad hard to notice, in a way. B)Point taken. Thanks. I'll think about that one... there's surely some way of doing it that is a bit softer on the eyes... ScoreCounter 16:48, 17 January 2015 (EST)

The previous layout used character names instead of head icons and was an oversized mess; I implemented the heads as a space-saving measure. If you have a different suggestion, I'm interested to hear it, but I'm having a hard time seeing what else would be practical. Miles (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2015 (EST)

could we try sorting it by game? Idk how much that would help but we could have "Introduced in Brawl" and "Introduced in SSB4" (that way we don't have Mario Finale appearing in both lists). I think having multiple lists, while it would make the template rather large, will make it easier to read. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe Nutta. 18:05, 17 January 2015 (EST)

That'd result in either a) duplicating a large chunk of the list for those whose Final Smashes didn't change, making the template quite unnecessarily large, or b) separating instances where the Final Smash did change in a rather unwieldy fashion. I'd think people would want links to Pit's two Final Smashes next to each other, for instance, not in completely separate sub-lists. Miles (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2015 (EST)

Here's what I came up with: [1] I personally think it isn't too awful, the only complaint I have is how Kirby and Peach's Brawl Final Smashes don't stay next to their pictures (idk how to fix it though). ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe Nutta. 18:18, 17 January 2015 (EST)

The idea's good in theory, but in practice there's still problems. For starters, all the characters with the same one in Brawl and SSB4 are in the Brawl row, but only with their SSB4 head icon. Having two head icons there for the characters who retain it would be possible, but then the rows would have a weird blend of single Brawl heads for non-SSB4 characters (Snake, ICs, etc.), double Brawl/SSB4 heads for those with the same in both (Mario, Peach, etc.), and single Brawl heads for characters who have a new Final Smash in SSB4 (Luigi, Kirby, etc.). On top of that, it still results in the problem I described earlier of splitting the two Final Smashes of the same character into quite separate parts of the template. Miles (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2015 (EST)

I updated it using the double-heads (Kirby and Peach no longer hang off, but Jiggles, G&W, and Snake now do -.- Oh and ROB still does), I think it works fine, but there is the fact that the two are way far apart. It is a little confusing to see Luigi's final smash in brawl isn't in SSB4, then you have to search through the SSB4 heads to find Luigi's. And there's no way to differ changed final smashes from characters who were cut (so Luigi looks like he was cut, or Ice Climbers look like their final smash changed)... My final idea is to split it into two completely separate templates (which could double-up a little, with both having, say, Mario Finale). This would still split changed Final Smashes apart but in a more logical manner. But it also seems rather unnecessary. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe Nutta. 18:49, 17 January 2015 (EST)

Hence my opinion that the current setup, while perhaps not overly elegant, is about as good as we can get. Miles (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2015 (EST)

Alternate layout ideas, round 2

As promised, here are some other possible alternatives that I find less confusing than this version, which some may find preferable to the current version.

No-Heads By Game approach

• No character heads = less clutter
• Bypasses messiness of putting changed Final Smashes apart from each other because they're no longer sorted by character anyways
• Loses the benefits of sorting by character
• Fails to distinguish between different character versions of a shared FS (Landmaster, Critical Hit, etc.) without adding cluttering notes

The columns

• Maintains character sorting while making characters easier to navigate
• Maintains listing of changed ones next to each other
• Almost impossible to guarantee perfectly-balanced columns; also requires manual column rebalancing every time a FS is added (planning for future)
• Most wiki templates do not sort in columns this way, making it an atypical layout

Thoughts? Miles (talk) 13:01, 21 November 2016 (EST)

Disaster Flare's looks better. -- BeepYou (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2016 (EST)

I really, really dislike the second one but the first one is a meh for me. Serpent King 17:29, 21 November 2016 (EST)

(edit conflict) Truth be told, I think Trip's is the better option as well, solely because it combines elements from both of your proposals; it's separated by game, but still has the head icons so that each Final Smash goes with the respective owner (making things like Landmaster a little easier). Aidan, the Thankful Dragon Warrior 17:31, 21 November 2016 (EST)

Alright, I'm gonna be honest and say neither of these look good to me. The first one isn't terrible, but the removal of head icons honestly makes it feel...off to me. I don't know how else I could describe it other than it feels off. The second one is just plain horrendous, and DekZek told me it looks even worse on mobile, so I'm guessing you made that neglecting to have mobile users in mind. Putting bias aside, I still honestly say my version looks better, and does a much better job of solving the problem with the template than either of the other two you suggested do. Disaster Flare (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2016 (EST)

(edit conflict (again)) Apparently, option two messes up on mobile, so I think we need to strike it. The argument here should be with heads or without. Serpent King 17:35, 21 November 2016 (EST)

There's two main problems with DF's approach:

1. The usage of the head icons is badly inconsistent; on the current version everyone consistently uses their most recent icon, whereas DF's ends up using Brawl icons for characters who are in SSB4 sometimes, but also SSB4 icons for some of them, but just SSB4 icons for that game's newcomers... it's a total mess of inconsistency.
2. The separation by game while still sorting by characters means that instances of changed Final Smashes, like Negative Zone/Poltergust 5000, are separated far apart, which is unacceptable in a template sorted by character. If you're sorting a list by character, you cannot put the two pieces of information related to the same character separately like that.

Both of those are major dealbreakers that distract from the navigation in a critical way. The issue of mobile doesn't make sense to me since from my experience, all navboxes are hidden on mobile anyway. Miles (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2016 (EST)

Your second point is kinda nullified because my version aims to sort it by game appearance, not character. Yes, character sorting is still present, but the main method of sorting is by game appearance. The reason why I approached head icons that way is because the idea of using SSB4 head icons for every character, including ones listed on the Brawl category, makes it even more inconsistent, because then you're using head icons that aren't even present in that game. We really don't need to be worrying about something like Mario Finale not popping up on the SSB4 side because it's already implied that it comes back in SSB4 by the fact that no replacements are there. Even if it's not obvious, people can just click on the articles and see for themselves. Head icon inconsistency in my opinion is not a problem as long as it's still an improvement over the original, which I still stand by my opinion that my version is a vast improvement over the original. Disaster Flare (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2016 (EST)