Talk:Sequence break: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Reply) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
::I think that different methods and different versions of a glitch should all be documented in their own section. Different methods have different prerequisites, difficulty, videos, etc., and most of all, different how-tos. Not just that, but it becomes much harder for the reader if we just mix and match everything in a single entry. A player is only trying to perform one specific version of one specific glitch on one specific console. They would be forced to skip every other sentence that refers to a different method/version. So in conclusion I think one section per method/version is the way to go. If it makes sense, a given glitch can be a section, and the different methods and versions can be sub-sections. — '''{''[[User:Espyo|Espyo]]''<sup>[[User talk:Espyo|T]]</sup>}''' 15:30, October 9, 2021 (EDT) | ::I think that different methods and different versions of a glitch should all be documented in their own section. Different methods have different prerequisites, difficulty, videos, etc., and most of all, different how-tos. Not just that, but it becomes much harder for the reader if we just mix and match everything in a single entry. A player is only trying to perform one specific version of one specific glitch on one specific console. They would be forced to skip every other sentence that refers to a different method/version. So in conclusion I think one section per method/version is the way to go. If it makes sense, a given glitch can be a section, and the different methods and versions can be sub-sections. — '''{''[[User:Espyo|Espyo]]''<sup>[[User talk:Espyo|T]]</sup>}''' 15:30, 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) | :::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) | |||