Template talk:TrophyTableRow

Discuss.

I implemented this over here. I think it works pretty good. Any objections? Toomai Glittershine The Superlative 18:25, 6 October 2014 (EDT)

I like it. It makes things simpler and easier to do than what we do now with the trophy descriptions. I'd add it on all the trophy pages if I wanted to. Rtzxy Smashing! 18:28, 6 October 2014 (EDT)

Usage

Why exactly are the trophy tables in some pages being merged regardless of version? I think a Both, 3DS only, Wii U only setup would be vastly preferable, more like here. Miles (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2014 (EST)

I think having three sections is clunky and makes it more difficult to find a particular trophy. A single list seems simpler overall; I'm not sure what advantages there are to keeping them split. Toomai Glittershine The Eggster 21:18, 3 December 2014 (EST)

I strongly disagree. It was easier when the trophies were sorted by version. Also alphabetically really isn't the way to go here I don't think, I preferred it when Duck Hunt was on top even though Clay Pigeon is higher alphabetically. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe Nutta. 21:25, 3 December 2014 (EST)

The advantages are clearer delineation between what trophies are available in which version without having to re-sort the table multiple times, and there's not really any loss in terms of navigability by keeping the tables split since people can always Ctrl-F (or equivalent). Miles (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2014 (EST)

I prefer the separate lists as well. It seems really weird to list them in a different order than they appear in-game. Tepig (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2014 (EST)

See this is my thought process with the issue:

1. We can't have two lists. Since all trophies I know of have the same description between games, there'd be tons of duplication.
2. We can't have three lists. It wouldn't be possible for someone to quickly get a list of "all the Wii U trophies", because they're split across non-consecutive sections.
3. Therefore, we should have one list.

I suspect we could re-sort to in-game ordering without too much of a problem, unless there's a sorting difference for the same trophies between the two games. Toomai Glittershine The Brass 22:43, 3 December 2014 (EST)

Also, I don't see how re-sorting a single table is a problem; on the contrary, I think it's a very clean way to have one solution for multiple use cases. Toomai Glittershine The Bold 23:07, 3 December 2014 (EST)

"We can't have three lists. It wouldn't be possible for someone to quickly get a list of "all the Wii U trophies", because they're split across non-consecutive sections."

That is quite easily accomplished by simply reading two sections, the "both" and "Wii U-only" sections. How is that a problem? It's much more intuitive than having to filter out rows of a combined table, even a sortable one (especially given you're seemingly advocating not sorting it that way by default). Miles (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2014 (EST)

I strongly suspect that the average player does not care whether a trophy is in both versions or not, but rather cares about having a list they can glance at to determine which trophies they are missing in a single game. With three lists, such a person will have to continuously flip back and forth between the top and middle/bottom of the page (or the in-game trophy list).

Given the above, in-game sort would be much better than alphabetical sort. Toomai Glittershine El Pollo 01:04, 4 December 2014 (EST)