Template talk:Rayman series

Ports and Remakes?

I've noticed that while remakes and ports do link back to their source games, (eg. Revolution to Rayman 2), they don't really give much link to other games in the series, do you guys think we should have a section on this template for Ports and Remakes?-- 17:49, 2 March 2014 (CET)

I fear it might be a bit too cluttered with the countless ports and remakes in the series. Maybe we could give it a try here on the talk page though? — 01:32, 3 March 2014 (CET)

With the recent template fiddling I've done, I think we could very well make a template including every Rayman game, but for the sake of demonstrating, here's a quick 'un with a few bits and pieces:

Like I said, not got everything, but I think it's a good start-- 03:24, 13 April 2014 (CEST)

Ok then, I got bored and decided to put in everything, might need a few things moving about, but I think that's everything. -- 13:33, 13 April 2014 (CEST)

The Rayman series are huge if we really count every spin-off title, but that's a good start indeed. --Haruka 00:46, 14 April 2014 (CEST)

I wouldn't blame anyone if they felt we'd need to split things up, but at the same time, the amount of templates we have, or would need, is excessively high in my opinion, we need better links between articles, and less articles in semi-isolation. I came up with the above Nav Box having seen Mario Wiki's, I think you'd agree that what we've got here pales in comparison to that. As for the other Wiki you suggested; Bulbapedia, they seem to also be all-inclusive, but rather than have all on one template, they have a section at the bottom of each template to navigate to others. Either ways, I appreciate the feedback, Haruka. I'm curious as to what the other have to say as well. -- 01:02, 14 April 2014 (CEST)

I don't think there's any need to split the games at all. Many of the ports, handheld games etc are more closely connected to the main series than they are to their own group, so it makes no sense to differentiate them for navigational purposes on this basis. On Wikipedia there's currently something of a movement to remove bracketed years of release from works of fiction in navboxes, and it's something I've gradually come to agree with – unlinked text is unhelpful and creates clutter. Only include disambiguation if two games in the same subgroup have identical or almost-identical titles.

A better way of organising the spin-offs and remakes would help; maybe we could give that subgroup additional subgroups for each game? That might necessitate some awkward repetition, but it might be worth it for the navigational value. A Raving Rabbids subgroup is probably necessary. A subgroup for Rayman-related non-Rayman games (like BG&E) should also be considered, because those articles are basically going to be orphaned without one. Maybe a subgroup for Flash/online games?

Something else to consider is removing the word "Rayman" from the beginning of each game's title in the navbox, since it's in every one and can be taken for granted while vastly reducing the space consumed by saying "Rayman" 59 times in rapid succession. That's how Wikipedia does it anyway. Worth a mock-up. —Spiraldoor 01:31, 14 April 2014 (CEST)

Good point about removing the "Rayman" in every game title, it would help to save space. I also agree with the Rayman and Non-Rayman games subgroups, not just because of the BG&E example you gave but also the Rabbid games that are not linked with Rayman anymore (Rabbids Go Home onwards). I have the feeling there are missing games for the Flash/Online games category. At least I remember there was the Pirate Shoot, Globox 2000, the GBC Rayman and the webbased Rayman. --Haruka 01:40, 14 April 2014 (CEST)

Alright then, I'll move the template over to my User Page, and see if I can make the relevant changes.-- 01:46, 14 April 2014 (CEST)

That Mario navbox is hideously bloated by unnecessary disambiguation, absurd overuse of the words "Mario" and "Super", and whitespace that could easily be avoided by more economical alignment of text. I wouldn't worry about it. —Spiraldoor 01:52, 14 April 2014 (CEST)