44,445
edits
Talk:Sequence break: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
:::But then we'd have a mess of overlapping sequence breaks that would make the article really long. For example, we'd have "Formidable Oak light skip (Wii U version)", "Formidable Oak light skip (Deluxe easy version)", "Formidable Oak light skip (Deluxe hard version)" in one section of the article, and "Backdoor Phosbat (Wii U version)", "Backdoor Phosbat (Deluxe version)", "Distant Tundra bridge skip (Wii U version)", "Distant Tundra bridge skip (Deluxe version)" in another, and lots of other confusing situations like that, with lots of information duplicated between them. It would be a mess. What if we separated ''Pikmin 3'' sequence breaks by [[area]]? — [[User:Soprano|'''Soprano''']]<sub>[[User talk:Soprano|''(talk)'']]</sub> 17:46, October 9, 2021 (EDT) | :::But then we'd have a mess of overlapping sequence breaks that would make the article really long. For example, we'd have "Formidable Oak light skip (Wii U version)", "Formidable Oak light skip (Deluxe easy version)", "Formidable Oak light skip (Deluxe hard version)" in one section of the article, and "Backdoor Phosbat (Wii U version)", "Backdoor Phosbat (Deluxe version)", "Distant Tundra bridge skip (Wii U version)", "Distant Tundra bridge skip (Deluxe version)" in another, and lots of other confusing situations like that, with lots of information duplicated between them. It would be a mess. What if we separated ''Pikmin 3'' sequence breaks by [[area]]? — [[User:Soprano|'''Soprano''']]<sub>[[User talk:Soprano|''(talk)'']]</sub> 17:46, October 9, 2021 (EDT) | ||
::::The article being long isn't wrong per se. Well, I think we can also make different splits. Like using bullet points inside of the "how to" part, with each bullet point referring to one method/version. Otherwise yeah, splitting the article sounds good. I think anything sounds better than turning the paragraphs into a plate of spaghetti... — '''{''[[User:Espyo|Espyo]]''<sup>[[User talk:Espyo|T]]</sup>}''' 07:24, October 10, 2021 (EDT) | ::::The article being long isn't wrong per se. Well, I think we can also make different splits. Like using bullet points inside of the "how to" part, with each bullet point referring to one method/version. Otherwise yeah, splitting the article sounds good. I think anything sounds better than turning the paragraphs into a plate of spaghetti... — '''{''[[User:Espyo|Espyo]]''<sup>[[User talk:Espyo|T]]</sup>}''' 07:24, October 10, 2021 (EDT) | ||
:::::Now I'm confused; the splitting by area was a separate suggestion to my main one, which is that similar sequence breaks should be documented in the same section, reducing the amount of duplicated text. The idea of having different instructions inside the "how to" part is a good idea, and some sections do it already. | |||
:::::Perhaps it would be worth not using the glitch template for these situations, or developing a new template? I say this because having an organized way to show different instructions with different demonstration videos and reproducibility is difficult with the current setup. | |||
:::::Another idea: having a branching system for sequence breaks. The Day 1 Escape section already does a bit of this with its layered dot points. An example of what I mean by this: In the Distant Tundra, you can go out of bounds near the Swooping Snitchbug. The method of doing this varies by game. From this position, depending on where you go, you can push down the iron ball early or you can go all the way to the Vehemoth Phosbat arena. A branching structure could allow all these tricks to be described in 1 section, minimizing repeated text. — [[User:Soprano|'''Soprano''']]<sub>[[User talk:Soprano|''(talk)'']]</sub> 18:21, October 10, 2021 (EDT) | |||
::::::Splitting by area might not make sense, since some sequence breaks let you skip content of multiple areas. As for a new template, what fields could the template have? Every method/version can be split in so many ways: different difficulties, different game versions, different requirements, different execution times... Maybe we shouldn't even use the glitch template at all. I remember saying before I wasn't a fan of using the template in this article in the first place, but I can't remember why. I'm not sure how a branching explanation could work 1. with text, 2. inside the template. Got an example? — '''{''[[User:Espyo|Espyo]]''<sup>[[User talk:Espyo|T]]</sup>}''' 13:27, October 11, 2021 (EDT) | |||