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)

It looks much neater how it is on pages like this one. I've never liked alphabetical sorting with this sort of thing, and it's more natural to click on the ToC to see the 3DS exclusive trophies then to click on that arrow. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe Nutta. 11:14, 6 December 2014 (EST)

"We can't have two lists. Since all trophies I know of have the same description between games, there'd be tons of duplication."

What duplication? The trophies that are on multiple versions appear in only one table, not all of them. And actually, some trophies do have different descriptons between versions, such as the Luigi and Bowser ones. Tepig (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2014 (EST)

Obviously, if we had two lists, they would be "is in 3DS" and "is in Wii U", so a bunch of trophies would appear in both lists and so have duplicated descriptions.

Anyway, okay so there are apparently some trophies that have different descriptions (and shop prices) between games. The current way to deal with this (up to four descriptions in one table cell) is crap; there has to be something better. We still can't move to two lists because having different descriptions between games is the exception rather than the rule. I'm still of the extremely strong opinion that three lists is an asinine idea for previously-stated reasons. And one list is going to look cluttered no matter what we do. Toomai Glittershine The Labbie 15:35, 7 December 2014 (EST)

Here's what I think we should do: split the pages between 3DS trophies and Wii U trophies. The pages are overly large as of now (the Super Mario Bros. trophies page itself is over 92,000 bytes), and they're still not incomplete. Sure, some trophies will be duplicated, but some trophies also have different descriptions between the two versions. I also think listing the trophies alphabetically is a bad idea, and should instead be listed in the order the game lists them. Rtzxy Reflect! 15:41, 7 December 2014 (EST)

This page has three lists. Originally, the trophies that appear in both versions were in all three tables. But I changed it so that the ones that appear in both versions are only in the first table, but have pics from both versions. I think it looks nice this way. Tepig (talk) 15:42, 7 December 2014 (EST)

That's solving the wrong problem, in my opinion. Toomai Glittershine The Boss 15:48, 7 December 2014 (EST)

A full per-game split has previous support from here, but is a double-edged sword - Xenoblade only has 4 3DS trophies, for example. I'd be okay with such a split for all SSB4 trophy pages despite this. Toomai Glittershine The Boss 15:48, 7 December 2014 (EST)

While I prefer the way I did it, splitting the pages seems like a good idea. Tepig (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2014 (EST)

i'm pretty sure you're the only one against three lists Toomai If it's so impossible to have three lists, splitting them works for me too. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe Nutta. 16:55, 9 December 2014 (EST)

Another reason that occurred to me to retain a three-list setup: sortable tables clashes with the usage of {{Anchor}} like we do on Melee trophy lists. Miles (talk) 09:58, 17 December 2014 (EST)

How so? The point of the anchors is so certain links/redirects can direct the user to a specific table row upon loading the page, and sortability can only come into effect after the page is loaded and the user scrolls to the top. (This assumes we add the anchor ability to this template, which is indeed a good idea.) Toomai Glittershine The Chronicler 10:10, 17 December 2014 (EST)

Because the whole point of the anchor is that it's to a consistent place on the page, not a variable one. This is a lesser reason, though; I still think the strongest point is still that this template is a) harder to navigate than having subsections and b) less immediately clear about what trophies appear in which versions. Miles (talk) 10:15, 17 December 2014 (EST)

It's still a fixed point on the page; the user just has the option to temporarily charge it when they get there. Unless there's anchored links on the page itself that the user clicks on after sorting, there's never any practical change in anchor position.

Also, this template will eventually be used on all trophy list pages, no question about it. The question is whether to remove the dual-image ability due to the strong support for splitting all the SSB4 trophy pages. Toomai Glittershine The Riotous 10:28, 17 December 2014 (EST)

Neither of those is optimal, though. The three-list setup is significantly better because it allows direct comparison between trophies in both versions, plus separate lists for trophies exclusive to either version. Looking at a page like the Pac-Man list, I'm baffled as to why you would encourage any other format. Miles (talk) 10:32, 17 December 2014 (EST)